oversight

Reading the almost daily news from Detroit (news that seems to become more like a daytime television serial each day), it has struck me that the role of oversight and who does the overseeing is perhaps one of the most critical parts of the running of an arts organization.  This is well-known in the for-profit sector, where the collective eye of the shareholder is always felt keenly on the backs of the necks of those in upper level management.  It seems to be less of a force in the not-for-profit sphere, however.  How did this happen?  I think the answer may lie with the three-pronged nature of the symphony orchestra’s governance hierarchy.

An orchestra really has three major heads of its management wing: the music director (MD), the executive director (ED) (or president), and the chair of the board of directors.  An effective management has a sort of checks and balances system worked out where there is clear communication between the three major leaders of the organization.  In a healthy system, the music director reports to the executive director, who reports to the board chair/executive committee.  When the system gets out of balance, that’s when the troubles start to manifest themselves.  If any one or two prongs of the leadership grow too powerful and influential, the process of decision making short circuits, leading to poor decisions and little accountability.

The first scenario is the powerful music director with a weak board and ED.  Say the music director is a powerful and charismatic figure who has made friends in the philanthropic community.  He appoints them to the board, and has their loyalty, not to mention pocketbooks, firmly in hand.  He then has a lot of leverage over the ED, and can push for whatever policies he wants implemented, knowing that he has the tacit approval of the board.  This can cause a lot of problems for the players – they deal directly with the ED in negotiations, and if they don’t have access to those who really hold the purse strings, then not much can be accomplished, and they face some tough bargaining.

Another scenario involves the weak board and powerful ED.  A weak board is not going to do much fundraising, which plays right into the hands of an ED who wants to slash-and-burn the budget of the orchestra.  The MD will not often enter into the arena of negotiations, so he’s been sidelined, and any artistic initiatives that he might have will be bent to the will of the bottom line that the ED has in mind.  The board in its weakened state is not well enough in touch with the situation to make its own decisions, and will rely upon the ED to tell them what to do.

The final scenario is the activist board with a marginalized ED.  The board, often in the control of a recent import from the for-profit world, decides that it alone must act in the best interests of the orchestra.  The ED works for the board, so there is little they can do other than resign or do the board’s bidding.  This is a dangerous situation as boards are often very well-intentioned, but know little about the actual day-to-day running of an orchestra.  Disastrous decisions can be made, often resulting in the death of the ensemble.

The common denominator in these scenarios?  The orchestra players.  It is their responsibility, as much as is possible, to sound the alarm to the greater orchestra stakeholder family that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and that something must be done about it pronto.  It’s why responsible player conduct with management is so important – cry wolf once too often, and your message will not be received.  Players need to meet often with board members and just talk to them about the process of rehearsing, practicing, and performing concerts.  Education is the key with the board.  If they understand how things work, they will understand what needs to be done to enable that process to work smoothly and efficiently.  They will know what resources their ED needs to manage, and what the players need to perform at the highest level.

When I hear about various orchestras approaching their demise, or of an imminent labor action, I wonder what the players were doing in the years and months before things got out of hand.  Not to say that I’m blaming the victim – I’m not – but everyone in the triad of players/board/management has a degree of fault to bear in these situations.  It’s something to think about as the news keeps on coming.