Management Philosophy

There is a column on the Fast Company website, Ten Habits of Incompetent Managers that makes for an interesting read.

Some of the habits author Margaret Heffernan mentions are pretty common sense- afraid to make a mistake, keeping too many problems secret from employees, afraid confronting a problem will hurt people’s feelings, focus on picayune details to hide general incompetence, heavy use of consultants and problem with deadlines.

There was one habit that never occurred to me and another that I wasn’t sure could be true for the arts. The habit that never entered my mind was Inability to Hire Former Employees. “Every good manager has alumni, eager to join the team again; if they don’t, smell a rat.” Heffernan believes if a person has spent a long time in the industry but hasn’t mentored people who are interested in working for them when they move on, it might be time to be concerned.

There are some areas of the arts where following someone isn’t practical, of course. But this criteria can provide a metric for some positions.

The bad habit I am not sure could be applied to the arts is Long hours. Says Heffernan-

“In my experience, bad managers work very long hours. They think this is a brand of heroism but it is probably the single biggest hallmark of incompetence. To work effectively, you must prioritize and you must pace yourself. The manager who boasts of late nights, early mornings and no time off cannot manage himself so you’d better not let him manage anyone else.”

Managers in the arts work long hours because the hours are often long and there is a lot of work to be done and few people to do it. I will concede, however, that a lot of arts people see working long hours as heroic. I have conflicting thoughts about this. Since I have engaged in long hours in the name of art, I acknowledge that putting in the hours is a necessary part of the job.

I also feel that those who work long hours over an extended period of time, perhaps secretly thriving on their martyrdom, they are masking serious deficiencies in an organization. If it is not clear that the work load is beyond the organizational capacity, changes to procedures can not be effected, staffing needs aren’t addressed and additional programs are created in the belief there is a little wiggle room. It isn’t until people leave or collapse in exhaustion that the extent of the problem is realized.

Last week I received a questionnaire from a Performing Arts Management student at the Hartt School of the University of Hartford. With her permission, I am reposting it here. It gives some insight into what up and coming leaders are thinking.

As a theatre/company manager…

What educational background is required/expected?

What kind of experience is required/expected?

Where are the jobs? Who does the hiring?

Will there be jobs in this field in 5 years? 15 years?

What are the “big names” in the field?

What personal characteristics are needed for success in this field?

I haven’t formulated my answers yet. I am a little wary about prognosticating on the whole idea of whether there will be jobs in 5 years or 15 years. My answer will certainly be longer than a yes or no.

The question that interested me most was regarding who the big names in the field are. Folks like Joe Dowling at the Guthrie and Libby Appel who just left Oregon Shakespeare come to mind. But it occurs to me that unlike other areas of the arts, there are no managers that I ever hear people say they want to emulate.

When a design from a big name designer comes in, I have heard tech directors and designers make impressed noises. When the names of noted directors, choreographers, musicians, actors and dancers are attached to a production, it lends a degree of gravitas. Artists and even theatre managers often express an interest in working with these talented people, but rarely, if ever, have I heard anyone say they wanted to work with a specific theatre manager. I have heard people voice strong desires to work at theatres, but can’t remember anyone say they wanted to absorb the wisdom of one of the administrative leaders.

My theory is that this is because a theatre manager is effective in relation to the community in which they operate. What they do well may not translate well to other places. Knowing this, other theatre managers don’t tend to idolize too many others. which is not to say they don’t envy another’s resources and budget.

Now one may claim that directors, performers and designers must tailor their approaches to different physical spaces, technical resources and personnel. However, these people are dealing with others who share a standard vocabulary. They can send emails and FEDEX packages in advance of their arrival and progress can be made without anyone even knowing what they look like.

A theatre manager can’t administer from afar and sight unseen based on inventory lists, census data and other transmitted information. They have to walk around the facility and physically assess assets and liabilities, they have to drive around town and get a sense of the community, they have to make personal contact with people.

Now my alternate theory is that given reports I have read noting that theatre managers rarely get a chance to review the latest literature on myriad topics related to running their organization, no buzz is being generated about management superstars.

One thing I have heard often which backs up my “good management is local” theory is people expressing admiration for managers at their organization or organizations in their area. It is these managers with whom people have regular contact that they wish to emulate.

My answer to the student’s question about big names will probably encompass a bit of what I have written here as well as the names of some management theorists with whom I believe managers should be familiar.

I present these questions here as a challenge to my blog readers to consider what your answers might be to this student. And if anyone has any thoughts, I would be happy to pass them along to her.

I don’t know why my entries have been revolving around employment and leadership the last couple weeks but here I go again….

I happened across a brief article on BoardSource about assessing an organization’s chief executive. As the piece points out, boards go to great pains in the interview process to ensure they are hiring the most capable candidate but rarely set up a formal process by which they can regularly provide feedback.

There are going to be periods of high emotion when the chief executive is either being patted on the back or glared at. Waiting until these times to assess a person is not the most constructive for the chief executive’s development and growth, even if one has a positive impression of them.

I should note that the article I linked to partially consists of instructions of how to set up a review process using the assessment tool BoardSource has developed. I generally try to avoid hawking other peoples services specifically if they aren’t fairly inexpensive. But having sat on many boards and attended meetings of boards of which I was not a member, I can attest to the number of meetings some boards will take parsing the language on simple amendments to the governing rules. It might take years for a board to draw up an assessment instrument.

BoardSource has an assessment tool that can be completed on a print version or online by board members. Their questions at the very least provide a strong starting point if the board feels the need for a more customized questionnaire.

That said, the online tool while time saving and convenient on a number of fronts is also 4 1/2 times more expensive than the print version. Unless it allows 5-10 years of usage, it seems excessively expensive to process the assessment of a single person. Human Resource professionals can probably speak on the reasonableness of the cost better than I. I understand they need to recoup their investment in developing it, but if it were the only option available, I am sure the cost would present an even greater impediment to evaluating a chief executive for many boards.

For most boards, whether they know about the assessment tools or not, it can be easier to promise a chief executive a similar amount of money as a bonus next year if they improve or as a raise if the valued person stays than to invest weeks completing, collecting and collating an evaluation. Given the salaries and bonuses for profit CEOs are granted by their boards, it wouldn’t be surprising if non-profit boards perceived money as the medium by which rewards and severance are conducted.

Neill Archer Roan doesn’t write as often as I would like him to, but when he does, it is always worth reading. Apropos to my entry last week about how I suspected turnover in nonprofits was having a greater negative impact than organizations were letting on, Neill quotes a gentleman named Matthew Kelly on the core reasons for turnover.

“The #1 reason people leave a job is not because they have a dysfunctional relationship with their manager or because they don’t feel appreciated. They leave because they cannot see the connection between the work they are doing today and the future they imagine for themselves.”

Now given that I have had those exact same thoughts verbatim when I was considering leaving a job and until this morning believed I was the pretty much the only one who did, I felt an obligation to quote it. While I haven’t always liked my bosses and certainly felt under appreciated, it wasn’t enough to make me want to leave. Others I have worked with have said, and occasionally fumed, they were leaving because of bosses, under appreciation, lack of pay and work environment.

I always thought I was atypical for having “pictured something different for myself as a primary reason for moving on. Frankly, next to “the boss is a bastard,” it seems like pretty weak motivation. If the boss isn’t a jerk and things aren’t overly oppressive, why would anyone want to move on?

Probably because the boss is a jerk is a more convincing reason than I want more self-actualization and so the boss gets blamed a lot more often than he/she should because nobody has the guts to admit they want more fulfillment. People expect fulfillment from their spouses and low cal, low fat brownies, work is supposed to be dispiriting, endured and complained about. I want more from my job sounds whiny in comparison.

Interestingly enough, about 10 years ago I was attending a customer service seminar. The woman leading it quoted stats showing that quality of product being equal, people don’t defect to a competitor because they are cheaper, that is just the easiest excuse to use. Kelly’s message seems to be quite similar.

While I wouldn’t be surprised to learn a little consumer mentality has crept into how we approach our jobs over the last decade, I suspect that this unspoken motivation has been lurking below the surface for a long while now.

I will say that was I a little disappointed with the way Kelly’s piece ended. It started out being damn interesting and thought provoking but ended with a him encouraging people to follow their dreams which just seemed de rigeur motivational speaking.