Thinking Strategically

I recently read David La Piana's book, The Non-Profit Strategy Revolution, and had the opportunity to hear him speak. I have never been one to jump on bandwagons, but I am beginning to think this is one that I want to join - the bandwagon of Strategic Thinking. Before I came across Mr. La Piana's work, I had often wished for "five minutes of thought," so that the pros and cons of a given opportunity could be weighed, and thought I was old-fashioned, or even just old, for doing so. It turns out that I was neither alone nor behind the curve.

Strategic Thinking is nothing new-and in and of itself, it really isn't. For years, decades even, the non-profit world, including the Arts, has been engaged in devising Strategy. This has often been referred to as Strategic Planning. As Mr. La Piana so aptly pointed out in his book and at his talk, this practice has become something that many of us see the value of, but rarely see returns from in terms of its actual implementation. As I listened to him speak and read his book, I nodded in agreement with his statements about how pleased we all feel when we finish a Strategic Plan and how discouraged we feel when, several months later, we find that it's already hopelessly out of date and that half of the things we planned to do are either impossible or no longer relevant because circumstances have changed in the meantime.

The things that make David La Piana's methods different are:

• his methods create a flexible structure that can be quickly updated when things change, so that an organization can be pro-active in responding to that change (or in choosing not to respond, if that's appropriate), and
• the concept of Strategic Thinking is normal - in other words, taking a certain amount of time to think something through and determining whether it fits with an organization's mission, vision and goals.

This may seem like common sense, and it is. However, in a world where there are constant demands to say "yes" to everything for fear of being left behind, or worse, not surviving in an era of significant challenge and change, the reminder that it's possible to use strategic thinking and still come out ahead - and in fact, better than ahead - is truly refreshing and reassuring.

David La Piana's ideas may or may not be appropriate for the needs of every organization, but the concept of taking the time to think strategically about whether they are surely is.

Fascinating Reading

I've been reading some fascinating things recently, each in its own way pointing to the value of the Arts in our society.

1. Alain de Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy

In the chapters featuring Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, de Botton points out the importance that both philosophers place on the role of Art and Artists. As Schopenhauer struggled to find a way to explain and cope with the pain caused by love, he turned to Artists. As de Botton explains it, from Schopenhauer's point of view, "Artists and philosophers not only show us what we have felt...they give shape to aspects of our lives that we recognize as our own. They explain our condition to us and thereby help us to be less lonely with, and confused by it...through creative works, we can at least acquire moments of insight into our woes..." Exactly.

Nietzsche used the evolution of great Artists to illustrate his philosophy that one cannot experience true pleasure without also experiencing true suffering. One can have all the talent in the world, but without the pursuit of that talent in the face of adversity (such as Stendhal's perseverance with writing - it took more than a decade of producing "poor plays" before writing one his masterworks, Le Rouge et le noir), success is not possible. Whether you agree with Nietzsche or not, the central place of Art and creativity in his arguments is impossible to miss.

2. Archein, by Joe Costello

This blog is about political economy, and concentrates on the situation in the United States, but what makes Mr. Costello's point of view different than most is its holistic nature. In analyzing the current economic and political situation, he doesn't simply focus on the movements of economic indicators and the actions of politicians. Rather, he writes about the implications of these things to society as a whole. As a result, he often brings in points about history and the social consequences of economic and political developments, including the vital need for creativity.

In his essay-length post, The Design Economy, Mr. Costello points out that in the future "...people as both individuals and collectively as associations are going to be valued as creators, editors, communicators and decision makers, in short we must revalue the citizen." Who better to lead the way in this than Artists, who foster this idea in everything they do? I believe Mr. Costello would support this notion.

3. Hill Strategies Arts Research Monitor, Vol. 9, No. 3, October 2010

This latest bulletin includes a summary of results from recent Canadian and US studies on arts participation and public perception. Of greatest interest to me were the results of the The Arts and Heritage in Canada – Access and Availability 2007 (link provided in the bulletin itself) study from Canadian Heritage, which said that 91% of Canadians believe that "Governments should provide 'support for arts and culture in Canada' ". This speaks to strong public support for the maintenance of government support for what we do and its value to Canadians, especially since the same study showed that Canadians strongly believed that it was Government's responsibility to assist with maintaining accessibility to the Arts. (Note that I place the onus here not on organizations to maintain this accessibility at the expense of financial responsibility. Rather, it is important for governments to assist with making the Arts accessible via helping to defray the cost of producing the Art that Canadians value as an intrinsic part of their society.)

4. Wolf Brown "On Our Minds", October 6, 2010

On the subject of revenue streams and support for the Arts, among the subjects of Wolf Brown's bi-weekly bulletin is the topic of Diversification of Revenue, something that is often required of Arts organizations by various funders and is regarded largely as a positive. An interesting perspective on this topic is provided via the link to Carla Miller's blog post on the subject. Ms. Miller is head of the Nonprofit Finance Fund in the US. The focus is not specifically on the Arts, but on all types of non-profit organizations. However, what she writes about is certainly relevant to anyone in the Arts. The comments by others who have read this post are also extremely interesting and indicate that there is no definitive opinion on this topic. Reading through these comments also reminded me of some of the key differences in the "culture of philanthropy" between the US and Canada.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Bill C-470 Update

I thought I would include an update about bill C-470 this time. As things get going again this fall, Bill C-470 is in committee. While it isn't getting the media attention that the possible demise of the Long Gun Registry is, this bill is still of great concern for many of us.

On August 19, Imagine Canada sent a letter to the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Opposition parties (Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe) outlining the potential consequences of the legislation as proposed and again calling for dialogue. I highly recommend everyone take a look. Aside from the capping of staff compensation at $250,000, there are several issues of particular interest to arts organizations. Among them is the potential invasion of privacy, given that charities would be required to publicly disclose, on their annual Charitable Tax Return, the names of the five staff members earning the highest salaries and their total compensation. I can think of many arts organizations where that would be most or all of their staff. Their salaries, for better or worse, would be posted on the CRA website, alongside their names, for anyone to see.

I'm sure that this invasion of privacy was not uppermost in the minds of those who wrote the bill originally, but I believe it is something that needs to be carefully considered now, along with all of the other issues raised in Imagine Canada's letter. I share all of these concerns.

I want to reiterate that I don't know of any Arts organization (or any charity, for that matter) that has a problem with being accountable for the donor and taxpayer dollars it receives, and that many, many hours are spent ensuring just that. I sincerely hope that Imagine Canada and the rest of the signatories of the letter (among them representatives of several Arts-focussed organizations, including Business for the Arts, the Canadian Arts Summit, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, and Compagnie de danse Marie Chouinard) are successful in securing the dialogue that needs to happen around this bill.

I would also call on all of us to take every opportunity to remind politicians of all political stripes and at every level of government, whether they are campaigning or already in office, that THE ARTS MATTER TO OUR COMMUNITIES. The Arts are an intrinsic, vital part of our societies and society would be a shadow of its former self if the Arts did not exist. Please encourage everyone you know to have an open, positive exchange, a constructive dialogue, and simply let our elected officials know that when they support the Arts, they are doing a really, really good thing for all people.

An "Art-Full" Organizational Development Process

I have just finished reading a fascinating report from Demos titled "All Together: a creative approach to organisational change." It chronicles organizational development and change at the Royal Shakespeare Company from approximately 2003 to the present (the report was published in March, 2010). I won't go too far into the details of the report here. It is quite long, at 180 pages, but if your time is limited, I found chapters 4, 7, and the note by the Organizational Development Consultant, Dr. Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge, at the end the most interesting.

While it seems that this report may have much to do with large organizations (at 807 employees, the RSC is MASSIVE - the biggest I've ever heard of), there is a lot in this report that is of wider interest. The best things about it, however, were that a) the organizational development model/concept that the RSC used was based on the principle of "ensemble", an idea that comes directly from the Art the organization produces, b) the fact that the report clearly states that the model adopted by this organization was not touted as a "one size fits all" solution, and c) the amount of time that was allowed for the process to happen: this process started not less than seven years ago, and the RSC's Artistic Director, Michael Boyd, is quoted as saying that he believes they are only 50 percent of the way to the point where he would feel the model/concept has been fully adopted.

As those who have read some of my previous posts will be aware, I am a big fan of both process and of allowing time for process. Don't misunderstand, I'm not in favour of endless process that leads nowhere. What I am in favour of is considered, thoughtful change, which, in order to be sustainable, needs to take some time. Change in a organization's culture, such as what the RSC was and is attempting, must be fit in amongst everyone's day-to-day tasks and challenges. In organizations as dynamic as those in the Arts, this type of change takes not only commitment on everyone's part, but a great deal of patience.

Another aspect of the RSC's solution that I admired was that everyone, including external consultants, realized that a unique, custom-made concept was required in order for any change to be sustainable. This model discussed in this report is a model made by and for the RSC, not another organization's model grafted on. It recognizes that each place is unique and therefore requires its own solutions. The report also concludes that while the "ensemble" concept adopted by the RSC has many possible applications within the Arts and beyond, it does not advocate widespread adoption of ALL the concepts to other organizations.

And finally, I found the ultimate humanity inherent in this organizational development process and its desired outcome extremely refreshing. Throughout the report (and the process itself) there is a recognition that the Art is made possible by all 807 people in the RSC - human beings, with human passions and human desires and human emotions and that it comes down to their relationships and their methods of working together that makes it all work. We all know this, and we likely experience it to various degrees in our work - I believe that's one of the reasons we all work in the Arts in the first place - but to see it in writing and particularly in the context of a report on organizational development was a welcome change. I say, "Bravo" to all involved.

I hope you have time to read even a little bit of this report. Even if it raises more questions than it answers, it certainly stands out as an endorsement of the uniqueness of what we do and how we do it.

On the Importance of Creativity

People forget how creative they are. So many times, I've heard colleagues say, "I'm not very creative. The creative people are the artists." I don't believe that for a second. I think that Arts Administrators are some of the most creative, resourceful people I've ever met and I believe that's why we are all drawn to the work we do. It's not just about being close to the creativity that makes Art, it's about working in a field that honours that creativity and allows us to think and work creatively to facilitate it.

However, I don't feel that this creativity is limited to those involved in the Arts, in either the artistic or the administrative aspects. In order to fulfill ourselves as human beings and in order for our societies to reach their full potential, we must engage with our inherent creativity. I have no proof that creativity is innate, but I'm sure that, to an extent, it very definitely is. The Arts are the most obviously creative activities of our civilization, but the Arts also serve the very important role of engaging people with their creativity and inspiring them to use that creativity in other facets of their lives. It is by this means that we progress as a society, that we develop flexibility of mind and open new doors. Thus, while the Arts are often the result of creative thought and activity, they are also the catalyst for it in the wider society.

One of the most interesting ways of exploring the Arts and creativity in a broader context that I have seen is the recent symposium in Pécs (pronounced "Pech", with a hard "ch"), Hungary. At this symposium in one of Europe's current Cultural Capitals, artists and mathematicians gathered to discover the artistic aspects of mathematics and the mathematical aspects of art. From what I understand, it has been a great success and an eye-opening experience for all who attended. And this isn't the first time such a gathering has taken place. In 2009, a similar symposium was held at the Banff Centre for the Arts.

Mathematicians aren't people we would normally assume to be creative and yet, a mathematician's capacity for abstract, creative thought can be very similar to that of an artist. And we know that math is not the only discipline where this kind of creativity thrives. Creativity is inherent not only in academia, but can be used, as we know and as many a scholar has said, in every part of our existence.

So why are the Arts - the clearest outlet we have for creativity - still thought of by many as an "extra", as something that isn't essential to people's lives? My theory is that it is because people have yet to connect with their own creativity - even us Arts Administrators, sometimes. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, but I do know that engaging people with the Arts through all of the innovative and creative things that our organizations do, including exhibitions, performances, pre-performance talks, student matinees and in-school presentations, artist in residence programs, and so on, is definitely the way we have to start.

Time for Art; Time to be Creative

Like all of us, I struggle with time - or rather feeling like there isn't enough of it. Perhaps that's why I'm a big fan of Carl Honore. His book, In Praise of Slow, affirms so many things I believe in, and primarily the concept that things need to happen at their own right speed. Sometimes that means that we need to slow down, to give ourselves time to think things through and to be in the moment. More often, it might mean that we need to try to jam less "stuff", fewer things to do, into the time we have. This sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, but the attempt can teach us much.

I believe that working with and around Artists can also teach us a lot about "slow". While it's often necessary to create Art in a short time span, we as Administrators don't hesitate to do our very best to give Art the focus and time it deserves: think of the making of a piece of visual art, or the writing of a book or play. Even when there isn't as much time as we want for creation (the two week rehearsal period, the short deadline, the one rehearsal with the conductor before the first concert or performance), one thing we almost always manage to ensure is a place to focus and at least try to let things happen at there own right speed. When I am privileged enough to observe a rehearsal, I am always impressed by the focus that envelops the room. That room becomes a place where little else exists and the most important thing is what is going on in that space at that moment.

I think that this can happen from time to time for us as administrators as well. It isn't always possible with telephones ringing and other staff members needing to speak to us and constant e-mail, etc. But sometimes, I can get swept up in making a good case for a grant or report, or formulating a detailed strategy, or completing an analysis that turns my previous thought on something on its head. I believe this happens when I need to be creative and when I can access an atmosphere that allows me the time and space to focus (yes, it's true, grant writing can be creative - in the good way that produces original thought). It is this space to focus that can allow our offices to become places where we can carve out space without interruption and - for a time - nothing exists but the Art. Is it possible to achieve this in our harried lives when things move so fast, the demands are so constant, and the resources so scarce? Perhaps not all the time, but I will argue that in some circumstances, it's actually more efficient to turn everything off, shut the door if we can, and just focus. If nothing else, we are then trying to make the best conditions we can for all of us - Administrators and Artists - to create the best Art that we can.

Bill C-470

There is a Private Member's Bill before the House of Commons right now that, in the name of transparency "seeks to empower the Minister of National Revenue with the discretion to deregister any charity, private foundation, or public foundation that paid any employee more than $250,000 annually in total compensation." (Edmonton Chamber of Voluntary Organizations website). This is, in effect, a salary cap on the sector - a sector that we know includes most of the organizations we work for.

Many of us in the Arts (including me, at first) may think that this cap will not matter to us. After all, how many Arts Administrators even come close to that kind of compensation? But this cap is grossly unfair to our industry and is based on some false assumptions. Moreover, it makes clear a frustrating double-standard between charities and the private sector.

The Liberal MP putting this bill forward, as well as the other MPs in the Liberal Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP who support it, are supporting the overall effort to improve transparency among charities. What they fail to acknowledge is the high degree of transparency that already exists. All of us spend significant portions of our time not only applying for funding and/or soliciting donations and sponsorships - there is nobody in the Arts who hasn't been involved in this work in some way. We also spend significant time reporting on this money. There are seemingly endless grant reports at all levels of government and for any foundation grants received, as well as the T3010 Charitable Return and the annual independent financial audit. The latter two become matters of public record, available to anyone who searches for them on the Canada Revenue Agency website (in the case of the former) or who requests it (in the case of the latter). This type of reporting is not required of private sector organizations - even those in receipt of public funds.

Even though much time is spent reporting on grants and donations, I don't think very many of us begrudge having to be responsible to the public for the money they give us. It is, after all, their money, and we have committed in our mandates to performing a service to our communities. We should be accountable for that. What I have problems with are those who are quick to point the finger at our sector, without looking at the levels of accountability we already have.

The Edmonton Chamber of Voluntary Organizations has a link to Imagine Canada's very good, concise brief on this bill, as well as links to Carters Professional Corporation's and Mark Blumberg's writing on the matter (direct links to each are included here as well). All are very interesting and offer some good alternatives to the issues Bill C-470 seeks to address.

In light of this, I believe it is time to follow Imagine Canada's example as outlined in their brief and begin to educate our MPs and those who work for them about the high level of professionalism and accountability we have already attained, and about the concerns we have about Bill C-470. Imposing a salary cap will not help us to attract and retain the highly skilled professionals we need to manage our sometimes complex organizations, and publishing the names, titles and exact salaries of the top 5 employees of each of our organizations (which in some cases will mean the salaries of the entire staff of an organization will be published) will not help the sector. It can be a very frustrating process, I know, but conversation instead of confrontation is the only way to have our voices really heard.

On another front, we can also begin to open a dialogue with our donors and sponsors, engaging them in a dialogue about these issues. Many of them are our biggest supporters and letting them know that they can help us by joining the conversation with their politicians will - I hope - begin to develop the kind of grass roots support that will sway those who depend on these supporter's votes. Many of the donors and sponsors I work with recognize the level of professionalism required in our relationships. I have developed many relationships that include a high degree of personal and professional respect on both sides of the partnership. I know I'm not the only one. All of us can point to these examples in our own work.

It is too bad that "Bill C-740 has involved no consultation with the charitable sector whatsoever." (Carters Professional Corp) Perhaps if those who drafted the bill knew us a little better, we could resolve many of our issues together and more productively.