Tag Archives: hiring

Successful Nonprofit Arts Organizations, Like Successful Buildings, Depend on Successful Hierarchies

Gaudi

Level One:

Bricklayers.  Carpenters.  Stagehands.  Electricians.  Actors.  Musicians.  Painters.  Singers.  Writers.

Easy to find hacks.  Difficult to find experts.  Project-based.

 

Level Two:

Foremen.  Department heads.  Designers.  Curators.  Musical directors.

Small universe of successful ones.  More skills required.  Still project-based.  Work toward a larger goal than Level One, namely a finished piece.  Excellent collaboration skills.

 

Level Three:

Contractors.  Directors.

Smaller universe still.  Hire and manage Level One and Two (no requirement to perform at their skill level).  Work toward a slightly larger picture, although still project based.

 

Level Four:

Architects.  Executive/Artistic/General/Producing Directors.

Scarce universe of specialists.  Determine “what.”  Hire Level Three – several Level Threes, in fact.  Understand projects, themes, and cohesion.

 

Level Five:

Owners.  Boards.

Tiny, zealous universe.  Hire Level Four.  Determine “how.” Has personal stake.

 

Level Six:

The Community.  The Mission.

Top of the hierarchy.  Determines “why.”

Advertisements

Self-Absorbed Executive Search Firms: You’re Lovely, You’re Talented, You’re Dreamy. But Tact is Not Among Your Strengths.

patting-own-back

On behalf of all candidates, to executive search firms:

“Thank you so much for your 3 [hour-long] phone interviews.  I presented 8 tremendously qualified candidates to the client and unfortunately, you were not selected.  But your loss is [company’s] gain.  I’ll keep your info on file and contact you if something comes up.”

We may like you, but it’s not why we applied to that job you’re representing. Your client’s happiness with you means nothing to us.

One hour would have been plenty, not three.

A simple “no, thanks” is more palatable than “didn’t I do a good job?”

Please don’t insult us with passive-aggressive jibber-jabber – we know you’re not going to contact us unless we apply to another client of yours.

And please don’t tell us about other candidates.  If we’re not among them, we really don’t care.

Feedback from You (yes, you): 9 Words That Describe the Nonprofit Arts Issues That Are Placing You at the End of Your Rope

rope

This blog, as most are, is pretty much one-way.  I share experiences, advice, consultation, and observations; you read ’em.  I can discuss 1,000 issues that affect nonprofit arts organizations.

But that’s me.

What keeps you up at night?

What concrete issue (not just “there’s no funding for…”) is fraying your rope?  Or better, what issues are figuratively tying a noose around the end of your rope?

Here’s your assignment.  In 9 words (no more, no less), write that issue and send it to info@137words.com.  That’s it.  Beginning in August, we’ll periodically take each issue and I’ll give my take.  Then we’ll open up the discussion to everyone who reads 137 Words.  Let me know if you’d like your name in or if you’d like to be anonymous.  And if you’d like my help privately, let me know that, too.

Transformational Persuasion: Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Why It Matters – Especially When You’re Running an Arts Organization

ali

Muhammad Ali died last week.  A quote from a Zairian in “When We Were Kings.”

“George Foreman? We had heard he was a world champion.
We thought he was white, then we realized he was black, like Ali….
Ali said [about Foreman], you’re the out-of-towner here.”

Nonprofit leaders that manage organizations, programs, and people well can be quite successful.  But not transformational.  Transformational leaders effortlessly persuade with passion about the mission, not the statistics.  Their material requires no script, just practice to remove the “ums” and “uhs.”

Trump, for example, vigorously (and effortlessly) transforms experienced opponents into “out-of-towners.” Clinton relies on effective policy, experience, and “being right.”

Passion KOs policy every time.  Ask George Foreman.

Doesn’t your arts organization’s constituency deserve the most transformative experience you can offer?  Or do you settle for production excellence and competence?

“See a Need, Fill a Need” (As Long as Your Arts Aren’t the Need)

What’s the biggest societal issue in your personal world?

Americans in April named their list.  What’s yours?

Economy, racial injustice, government dissatisfaction, immigration, terrorism.  Unsolvable as big issues.  Possibly solvable as small ones.

Hunger in your neighborhood?  Support the food bank.  Find ways for it to thrive so that many can survive without resorting to lawlessness.

Specific racial and income injustice in your town?  Support the agencies that convene and expose the problems to the light.  Find ways to gather people together who might never otherwise come together – and de-mythologize the stereotypes of the bad [ethnics – fill in your own blank] or the bad [other ethnics] or the bad [government officials], etc.

And do it using your art as a tool.

How?

You now have step A and step Z.  Just fill in steps B through Y.

Nonprofit Arts Executives: After the Ask (for anything, actually), It’s Fast “Yes,” Slow “No”… Try a Slow “Yes” Instead

nofrog

If you don’t hear right away, it’s probably “no.”

That goes for asks, offers, hiring, and anything else you require.

And that goes for you, too, when your stakeholders ask, offer, hire, and anything else they may require.

Reflection is the predictable path toward rationalization to the “no.”  This is why the phrase “upon reflection” is almost always followed by a version of “we’ve decided not to change.”  After all, as a rule, it’s easier not to change than to take a risk.

Many arts charity executives preach the glory of “managed risk” (an oxymoron, of sorts) and value fiscal responsibility above social impact.  To be clear, social impact is central to the success of the mission; fiscal responsibility is a valuable business practice.

If “yes” leads to greater impact, then stop saying “no”… especially upon reflection.

HR 201: Hire the Overqualified

obi wan

Anxious about hiring someone whose last position was at a higher level or payscale – or may be older or have more seniority in the organization than you do?

Don’t be.

Do yourself a favor.  Read one of any number of articles (hint: each of the last 6 words links to an article) about why you should have conversations with a purportedly “overqualified” someone who wants to work with you.

Or do nothing – in other words, hire an untested someone you believe is cookie-cutter copy of the person who’s gone (hint: they’re not).

It’s all in the process:  instead of asking a roster of predetermined questions (that’s easy, simplistic, and unenlightened), have an unscripted conversation.  You’ll learn more about the candidate, yourself, and your shared goals.

If you’re smart, you’ll hire that “overqualified” person. They’ll make you look fantastic.

 

Leadership Issues: Flop Sweat, Board Meetings, and When You Lose the Room

nixon_2051821c.jpg

Inevitably, there are moments where analysis disconnects with sentiment.  You plan by yourself and generate work for your staff.  Your staff objects.  You have misread the room and caused great resentment.  They think you’re a nut.

You’re in a big job interview.  The interviewers say they want to “have a conversation,” but instead read from a pre-chosen list of questions.  You try to converse.  They bridle, citing “fairness.”

Your meetings with the board leave you rolling your eyes…and leave them rolling their eyes as well.  You think they don’t understand the problem.  They’re sure you don’t.

When you lead by pronouncement rather than by consensus; when you define interviews as interrogations; when you perceive meetings with superiors as continual performance evaluations – these are your issues, not theirs.  That anxious sweat on your neck is on you.

Face-palms in the arts world: Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright; the band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light

Head in Hands

Somewhere…

  • A managing director is face-palming because the budget draft is still a departmental wish list;
  • A marketing director is face-palming because the artistic director decided that he knew more about marketing than the marketing director;
  • A development director is face-palming because the board chair has fashioned a multi-million dollar “capital” campaign (actually, a “get-out-of-debt” campaign) with no feasibility study, no regard to the annual development campaign, and no accountability to anyone else;
  • An artistic director is face-palming because the plays she wants to do don’t jibe with the mission of the company;
  • A board member is face-palming because every meeting is about reporting, money, by-laws, and the gala;

And somewhere, performing arts audiences and constituents are collectively face-palming, hoping against hope that the arts folks in their region remember that for them, it’s about the art.

Life on the Unraveling Nonprofit Arts Fringe: Why Hiring Experience and Guile Trumps Everything Else

Actor Hugh O’Brian is said to have coined “The 5 Stages of an Actor’s Career;”

  1. Who is Hugh O’Brian?
  2. Get me Hugh O’Brian.
  3. Get me a Hugh O’Brian type.
  4. Get me a young Hugh O’Brian.
  5. Who is Hugh O’Brian?

We’re in contact with hundreds of highly-experienced, resilient people who have made a career in the arts – and they’re having difficulties getting back into the field.

Some of it is ageism. Boards use headhunters to find smart young guns to lead departments or organizations — only to find that instead, they’ve hired brilliant 2-year placeholders with few people skills, entitlement issues, little flexibility, and quick parachutes.

Studies show those >50 stay longer than those under <40, are more productive, have better improvisational skills and flexibility, and are likelier to bring success.

Forget headhunters.  Do your own search.  Hire someone better than you.

Differentiating Between What’s Great About the Arts and What’s Great About YOUR Arts Organization

economic impact argument again eecard

You can look anywhere to discover what’s important about the arts.  Try here, here, here, here, and here for starters.

The key to “sustainability” (which, as previously written, is not “survival”) is proof that your particular arts charity is achieving specific community goals.

Each social service and social justice charity measures its results toward the execution of their mission.  Those results have a direct link to funding and community support.  Your arts charity, then, must find results that apply specifically to your organization.

Charitable results cannot be measured by paid attendance or positive economic impact.  Those are commercial results and byproducts — data used by sports teams to get cities to build them stadiums or by entertainment conglomerates to allow regions to let them build casinos.

So what makes your arts charity charitable?  Answer that and you’re 99% there.

Confusing the Messenger with the Message: Artistic Direction Fulfills the Arts Organization (Not Vice-Versa)

chefs

Being a great director has little to do with being a great artistic director.

Directors direct projects.  Artistic directors use a collection of projects to fulfill a mission that serves a community.  These are completely separate skills.

ADs who direct some projects for their own company risk treating those projects as precious.  Too often, they break rules for their project (organizational mission, budget, marketing, etc.) that they would never allow an “outside” director to break.

And in too many cases, when the identity of a nonprofit arts organization is too closely entangled with the vision of an artistic director, the organization’s brand is that much more difficult to recuperate when inevitable leadership change occurs.

After all, succession is not merely an artistic director handpicking a successor, is it?  A company is greater than any individual leader, right?

“In This Scene, Could You Be a Little Funnier?” – A Perspective on Performance Reviews

7b9ba29042c4cce4a2af9c7581f20f3c

“Fire ’em the first time you think about it.” This was the mantra of the board chair of a company with which I was affiliated. I’ve always appreciated the portion that means that I should know when things are not working with a company or individual – from the perspective of employer or employee.

Which brings me to performance reviews. Gack. Many formal performance reviews within arts organizations waste time and energy and breed unnecessary anxiety.  That’s not to say that you shouldn’t do them – but do them continually rather than once a year or when a contract demands it.

If your company has a horrible work environment, a performance review is about as helpful as a Band-Aid on a heart attack. Similarly, if the environment is open-minded, so should your inter-reactions.  You’ll know if it’s working out.

There’s Not An App for That

I want to donate to your theatre, not your CRM

There are an endless number of costly, effective CRM systems for the arts.  One costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and it’s superb at what it does.

One might say, “It had better be.”

Before that expensive, expansive piece of software, there were others.  Some great at some things, some at others.

Not one of these pieces of software ever raised a dime.  People do that.

Not one of these pieces of software ever performed, exhibited, or created a compelling artistic experience.  People do that.

Not one of these pieces of software ever governed, advocated, cajoled, or counseled. People do that.

Before CRMs that cost various ulnae, fibulae, and tibiae, there were inexpensive off-the-shelf database software solutions.

Before that, we did it all on paper.

Millions attended.  Millions still do.

And the best relationships are still person-to-person.

Aphorisms for the Modern Arts Charity Leader

Fortune Cookie

If it ain’t broke, break it. Then fix it.

You only read books in one direction.

Your legacy ends when you leave.

Institutional survival is not the goal.

Missions are gods; mission statements are bibles.

The best leaders are the best assistants.

Learn why before you continue.

Success is measured by impact, not excellence.

“Fiscal responsibility” is a business practice, not a mission statement.

Volunteers are employees who work for $0.

If your people are averaging 50+ hours a week, you’re failing.

Always use transitive verbs in your mission statements.

The cool kids are back in high school.

Sharpen your point of view; that’s why it’s a point.

Be completely, spectacularly wrong.

Treat candidates like employees.

Treat employees like human beings.

Treat human beings as though you are one.

Fire yourself regularly; interview yourself for your job.

Be funnier.

How to Build a Perfect Team in 5 Easy Steps

auggh-i-forgot-to-hire-people-who-are-smarter-than-i-am

1. Never be the smartest person in the room.  Hire candidates who are better than you.  If you can’t, you’re probably an asshole.
2. Make clear what the goal is. In nonprofits, that goal is defined by the mission. If you can’t, your mission probably sucks.
3. Using their strengths (not yours), disseminate tasks rather than relying on calcified job descriptions. Create a human flow chart that leads to mission execution. If you can’t, people will keep quitting because of you.
4. Be their assistant, especially in small organizations, rather than insisting on having them be yours. If you can’t, you don’t really know what “team” means.
5. Don’t let “results” become your mood ring. Use “happiness” instead. Or “satisfaction.” If you can’t, quit your job so that someone else can do it better. If you think no one can, see Step 1.

Cultural Fit: FIFA, North Korea, the Kardashians, the Nixon White House…and Your Nonprofit Arts Organization?

candle-in-the-dark

I just read an op-ed piece in The New York Times about the over-utilization of “cultural fit” as a criterion for hiring.  “One recent survey found that more than 80 percent of employers worldwide named cultural fit as a top hiring priority.”

To an extent, cultural fit is interesting, but a “top hiring priority?”  In the broadest sense, someone with an affinity for and experience in the nonprofit arts industry would seem to possess it for a nonprofit arts organization, as opposed to someone from Walmart.

But when challenges face the organization, or if an organization is seeking to “be taken to the next level,” cultural fit is the last thing you want in a key hire.  Adding wax to a candle just makes a bigger candle. It doesn’t light up the night until you add the fire.

I’m baaaaa-aaaaack — “He who’s down one day can be up the next, unless he really wants to stay in bed, that is…”

Fallon

For 8 months, I’ve been temporarily working in Detroit, mixing Cervantes (above) with Kerouac (below). Detroit was fascinating.

Where to go next is the issue.

I’ve studied nonprofit arts cultures across the country and (so far) settled on regions surrounding Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and Washington, DC.

The house and TK are in Seattle. TG is in Detroit. I’ll give you a great deal on the house, but not the others.

Criterion #1: When a region’s arts community is comprised of a whole bunch of discrete mission-based organizations – rather than everybody doing everything – then that region’s organizations succeed.  That’s for me.

Criterion #2:  When a region’s arts community is comprised of a precious few large arts organizations, those organizations are doomed to irrelevance.  Not for me.

But my mind wanders…

“What’s in store for me in the direction I don’t take?”

“Diversify” Does Not Mean “Assimilate”

Fox News Anchors

Diversify the audience?  Yes.  Diversify the experience?  Not so much.

Generally speaking, arts audiences are asked to follow privileged Euro-centric (often described as “old” and “white”) behaviors. There are long-standing limitations:  no talking, no eating, no drinking, no touching. Sit. Watch. Listen. Clap.

There’s a strict sensibility about enjoyment – so much so, that when a theatre allows its patrons to bring in beverages, arguments ensue as though the end of civilization is nigh.

In any arts endeavor, the key is to invite participation, not ask others to follow your conventions as though they were the default.

The same holds true in the board room. “To change (something) so that it has more different kinds of people or things.” (Webster’s definition of “diversify”) denotes change in the “something,” not changing the people to assimilate to the “something.”

Careers in the Arts: It’s Pretty Ugly Out There

keep-calm-and-hire-for-innovation-not-fit

Paul Begala said, “Politics is show business for ugly people.”

The converse, that show business is politics for pretty people, is equally true.

Pretty (young) people enter nonprofit arts leadership believing that they should land a high-paying managing director’s job within 3 years. Ginormous student debt is predicated on that prospect.

Ugly (old) people, therefore, had better vamoose, and decrease the surplus population, to paraphrase C-Dick.

Pretty people panic at red ink. They leave. No experience or belief in failure.

Ugly people see an opportunity. They know when to duck and when to charge.

Consider for your next important hire:

  • When hiring for “fit,” by definition, you’re hiring to appease. Don’t expect much change.
  • When hiring for “innovation,” you’re hiring to anticipate obstacles. And only someone who has experienced obstacles (and carried on) knows how to do that.

Marketing the Arts, the Play-Doh® Fun Factory, and Marketman©

Marketman“Have a response to ‘If it’s a hit, it’s the art.  If it’s a bomb, it’s the marketing.’
It’ll keep you off death row.”
– Marketman©

Artistic events evolve.  The elements may be eons old, but the results continue to change.  With the squeeze of a contraption, like Play-Doh® in a Fun Factory, necessarily comes a different product.  Different from the time before.  Different from the next time.

This is a job for Marketman©, a copyrighted portion of this publication.  Marketman© (not necessarily male) is your company’s Sea Gal/Jay Carney/Don Draper/Rob Petrie.  Marketman© is charged with the task of launching a product to market, eliminating it, subsequently launching a new product.

Marketman© sells art, not tickets.  There is no lasting inventory, like month-old sodas on the shelf, when the new product is introduced.

Here.  Maybe this’ll help.

Nonprofit Strategy: Managing Change is Hard; Managing Stasis is Impossible

I had breakfast with a trustee for an educational organization in a wealthy community within the last five years.

He bemoaned the fact that an über-wealthy benefactor was annually bailing them out with huge sums of money, but the organization was still always crying for cash.  And the company refused to upgrade its business practices.

“Why is she bailing them out?” I paraphrased.

“Because it’s her legacy to her kid,” he paraphrased.  “And let’s face it, for vanity.”

“And if it folds?”

“She won’t let it.”

“Are they always in a cash crisis?”

“Yes – and not only that, it’s just not serving all that many children.”

“And they can’t change the way they do business?”

“She won’t let them.”

Can’t change. Can’t succeed. Can’t close.

Bad for the organization?  Bad for the industry?  Bad for the community?

Rethinking the Group Job Interview – Consensus? Abdication? Or Focus Group?

Focus Groups

I’ve tortured people in the group interview process. I thought I was offering consensus. Buy-in. Group drive.

I was wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Oh, so wrong.

To everyone I’ve ever put through that, on either side of the table, I apologize. I’ll never do it again. Promise.

There are four decisions: autocratic (I say), consultative (I say with your input), democratic (we vote, losers weep), consensus (we vote and everyone backs the decision).

As practiced, the group interview might have evolved into a method for managers to abdicate responsibility in the name of consensus. While consensus is ideal, the group-think process can too often be dominated by a crank in the corner with issues, motives, and insecurities.  And, possibly, an unknown agenda.

Group-think promises consensus but can preclude innovation.

And why would you ever choose to preclude innovation?

Hiring 103: Do Unto Others, for Pete’s Sake!

Oh, those shoddy, “industry standard” hiring practices.  They’re still here.

To follow up on this, this, this, this and this,

1)      Communicate quickly, at least twice.

  • We got your resume.
  • Thanks for your interest, but you are not being considered (within a week of close).

2)      When you’ve interviewed someone, call them (no email) within a week.

  • Thanks for your interest, but you are no longer being considered.
  • We’re still interviewing people. I’ll call you on [date range].

3)      When you’ve interviewed someone more than once and have hired someone else, call them (no email) immediately.

  • Thanks for your interest, but we’ve chosen someone else.

4)      Never…

  • …send communications stating who you’ve hired (salt, meet wound)
  • …let them know they were in the final cut (see above)
  • …say you’ll be in touch and then disappear.
  • …be rude.
  • …assume job-seekers are psychics.
%d bloggers like this: