Just read this article from an artistic director who wonders whether artistic directors should be their organization’s leader, whether the model is archaic.  Nonprofit performing arts organizations take note. The leader is the mission, not the AD.

Is your artistic director the custodian of your mission, passing that duty on to the next artistic director?  Or does the legacy of the organization reside in the legacy of the AD?  Is “artistic vision” really a thing, or is it theory?  Wouldn’t it make more sense for an executive director with an artistic sensibility to curate the company’s impact?

Maybe your leader ought to be the company’s leader, not merely the artistic leader.  With artistic personnel hired to support the mission (instead of supporting the artistic director), your institution will become far more flexible as tastes and impacts change.