Follow
Change happens. We make change happen. Change changes us. We change places. Becoming an arts leader is no small change.
Didn’t many of us start out in this business to make change, or at least to contribute to change already occurring? Did we really sign on to a life of low pay and low profile for the excitement of the status quo? Is that what keeps our artists and audiences growing, the lure of monotony? What are the road blocks that prevent us from being innovative agents of change?
Are we truly developing as leaders who anticipate and thrive on change? Where along our development path do we learn to identify what and when to change, as well as how to lead others through change, especially that which we didn’t foresee or initiate? How can we engage and transform leaders averse to change? How can leaders in all levels within an organization introduce and implement change? Are we embracing the change that new leaders can bring to our work?
We believe that arts and culture can change our cores and change our communities. We are tirelessly working to change the minds of skeptics. Why does it then, seem so hard to change ourselves sometimes? Change the way we think, operate and lead? Change the lens we’re looking through? Are we changing our methods and models to adjust to new landscapes? Can we stop changing tires and reinventing wheels, and instead create a vessel that doesn’t require them to go forward?
Popularity: 49%
Given how much our world is changing, I’ve been reading and reflecting about leadership and re-thinking how best to teach and advise arts leaders. Here are two helpful resources:
Check out Ronald Heifetz and The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. He advises us to learn to lead when situations are ill defined, there are no obvious right solutions, or we’re working in unfamiliar territory. Sound familiar? This is an adaptive, not a technical skill.
Barry Johnson’s work in Polarity Management suggests we can avoid being caught choosing between polarities, e.g., “Do we focus on stability or change?” Some complex situations aren’t choices between two opposites; rather they require a dyanmic synthesis, drawing the best from seemingly contrasting choices. We can foster stability even as we change. It is easy to think we have only binary, either/or choices. Johnson suggests we may gain positive results from either end of most seemingly polar opposites. We need the groundness of stable missions and values and also must be continually adapting to changing conditions.
I think change really begins with our management styles and approaches to leadership as a practice. If we believe there is one ideal way of managing/leading–a set of skills, traits, and practices–I believe the repercussions of that choice reverberate throughout our staffs, our organizations, and communities.
For many organizations, change can be perceived as a threat. I’m reminded of all of the references to the recent “changing economy.” Isn’t the economy always changing? And so it is true of our organizations as well. We are always changing. A better question is to ask if we are in control of the change, or if we are subject to changes.
When I was first learning how to lead and mentor people, I was taught and trained in what was called “reflective teaching.” Reflective teaching is a practice in which the leader/mentor is called upon to do a few things in the interest of best serving his or her community:
1. Engage in regular reflection in the success of his or her leadership/mentorship methods using external information: do my actions result in the outcomes I’m seeking? Are my actions consistent with my perceived values? Can I make cause and effect relationships between my choices and organizational outcomes? And so forth.
2. Engage in information gathering from staff/constituents. Most people do this regularly, but perhaps not intentionally. It can be as simple as asking, “Does that make sense?” when providing direction or feedback, and can be as articulate as “What kind of support do you need from me as your supervisor/mentor?” Asking people what they need to have the best outcomes is, generally speaking, a positive experience for both staff and management.
Responding to Jennifer’s call out: “Why does it then, seem so hard to change ourselves sometimes? Change the way we think, operate and lead?”
I think most people in the arts prefer to change institutions (and preferably other people’s) than to change ourselves. Changing the self is indeed the most difficult change there is. For so many reasons. Habits are hard to change (I have heard it takes 45 days of daily attention to change one and 90 sequential days to embed a new habit in its place–doubt that? think of dieting.). Habits of mind are even harder to change—we don’t even realize the degree to which we generate new thoughts, respond to new situations, judge and decide based on unconscious beliefs and values that we may rarely be aware of. I notice this every time I discuss bringing the work of El Sistema in Venezuela to the U.S.–people misinterpret its challenge and potential because they come at it from the conservatory training mindset of our culture. They can’t grasp what it portends because they aren’t aware of their mental frames. What outmoded frames are you carrying inside you? Whata if this weren’t a fearful time of scarcity in arts education, as so many believe and live, but indeed, the most abundant time of youth involvement in artistry we have ever seen. Both are true, it depends on your preferred definitions and your entrenched frame. And what a difference to your life and work and impact depending on which frame you live.
Why bother changing the self? Two big reasons:
1. 80% of what we teach is who we are. Our talk and data are important, but our real impact on others is carried in who we are and what we do. (If you doubt this, think about the great teachers in your life, and remember that it wasn’t their handouts or curriculum that made you redirect your life.) And do your actions and energy radiate with the energy of what you most want to bring into the world? If not, you have to change the 80%. We are, by the way, ALL teachers, all the time.
2. Advocacy is the act of changing what people do. People do not base their actions on what they think but on what they believe. So the necessary goal of advocacy is changing what people believe–no wonder we feel we have advocated successfully and then watch people turn around and contradict our good arguements that they agreed with in their behavior. Having good arguments is a part of that endeavor, but more important are the authenticity and enthusiasm of the advocate. You have to be the change you want to see in the world, as Gandhi put it. You have to BE CHANGE, if you want to foster change.
Eric – thanks for bringing up point #1. We can be impacted and changed negatively by those ‘teaching’ us without even realizing it over time. And some of us may have an idea about who we are, but our ‘teaching’ does not reflect that person. But who enlightens us? We have to be more mindful daily of the impact we have on others and other’s impact on ourselves…good, bad and ugly, but hopefully a lot of beauty as well.
If someone needs ‘enlightenment’ on either side of this coin, what are some strategic tips to approach the subject with them?