Additional thoughts about Leadership

Andrew goes on to state “Drew’s argument suggests that an overriding key to success as an arts manager is an artist’s and craftsman’s knowledge of the specific discipline being managed (orchestral performance, ballet, etc.)…not just love and passion for it, but extensive training in its production. I suggest that such depth of first-hand knowledge can be a nice quality in an effective manager, but it’s not the fount of all good.”

I expect here is were we start to see those different trees. I believe that an artist-manager has the greater likelihood for success as an executive administrator compared to an individual without artistic training. Perhaps here’s where Andrew and I disagree the most: It is this artistic training in a manager that serves as the essential catalytic element that separates the mediocre status quo individual (who are predominant throughout today’s orchestras) from a real leader capable of transforming the industry into a viable, healthy, and progressive institution. I wrote a detailed blog about these qualities in my earlier article What we need is another Henry Ford.

Andrew goes on to write a wonderful definition of what an ideal leader is: “Effective and kinetic managers and leaders of arts organizations are masters of synergy. They bring together artists, audiences, facilities, resources, as well as other creative, administrative, and support staff, all for a moment of connection. Beyond that, they foster an environment of complex constituents that supports recurrence and growth of that connection over time.” I couldn’t have written a better description myself, although I would have avoided the “Dilbertesque” use of vocabulary such as “synergy”. However, I believe that the necessary path an individual must travel to become this ideal leader is different than the path they currently follow.