ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL CO-LEADERSHIP

IN NON-PROFIT THEATRE

BY ARIN D. SULLIVAN SPRING 2012

ii

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Master of Science in Arts Administration Drexel University

By

Arin D. Sullivan, B.A.

* * * * *

Drexel University 2012

Copyright by Arin Sullivan

2012

ii

ABSTRACT The organizational charts of nonprofit professional regional theatres are

dominated by a dual or co-leadership structure consisting of an artistic and

administrative leader. While conflict within this leadership couple can have far-

reaching effects on organizational performance, little guidance has been provided for

the artists and managers embarking on this arranged marriage.

Through an examination organizational behavior and human resources

literature describing the dual leadership relationship in nonprofit theatre in

combination with an examination of literature related to CEO/COO partnerships as

well as team or group leadership texts, Successful co-leadership teams have in

common four essential characteristics: a shared essential mission, a foundation of

respect and trust, constant and meaningful communication, and an extended

engagement. These characteristics should be considered carefully in forming co-

leadership partnerships.

DEDICATION

iii

Dedicated to my co-leader for this lifetime, Andrea Taylor, to whom I send all of my

love, trust and respect.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Throughout my career, I have been very lucky to be surrounded by successful

theatre professionals who have been willing to take me under their wings. When the

time comes, I hope that I have the grace to demonstrate an equal generosity of spirit

when an annoying know-it-all next sits in front of me with lots of questions and even

more opinions.

I would especially like to thank Marge Betley, my friend and mentor, who

suffered more interruptions than most, and who inspired this thesis during many late

night conversations about the world as we would run it.

I would also like to thank Cecelia Fitzgibbon who gently, and then not so

gently, nudged me to finally sit down and start writing.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vi

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

CO-LEADERSHIP IN NONPROFIT PROFESSIONAL THEATRE ............................................ 3

FOR-PROFIT LEADERSHIP DUOS ................................................................................................ 6

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 7

CONFLICT ......................................................................................................................................... 10

ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL SHARED LEADERSHIP .......................... 13

Shared Mission, Vision and Goals .............................................................................................. 13 Respect and Trust ........................................................................................................................ 16 Communication ........................................................................................................................... 18 An Extended Engagement ........................................................................................................... 20

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 22

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 23

SOURCES CITED .............................................................................................................................. 28

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: CURRENT LEADERSHIP AT LORT THEATRES ........................................................................ 24 FIGURE 2: THE LEADERSHIP TRIANGLE ................................................................................................. 27

1

"In my consulting experiences, I have heard many board members lament the

concerns of the ‘two-headed monster’ in reference to the artistic director and

managing director.” – Jom Volz1

"Tensions are to be expected and worked through, always remembering that while

theatre is a business, its business is art, not business." -- Zelda Fichandler2

INTRODUCTION

The organizational charts of nonprofit professional regional theatres are

dominated by a dual or co-leadership structure consisting of an artistic and

administrative leader (see Figure 1). While conflict within this leadership couple can

have far-reaching effects on organizational performance (Voss, Cable, and Voss

2006), little guidance has been provided for the artists and managers embarking on

this arranged marriage (Gronn, P., 1999; Mehta, Z., 2003).

In order to inform the formation and maintenance of successful co-leadership

partnerships in nonprofit professional theatre, it is helpful to examine of the available

literature focusing on nonprofit theatre, previously documented interviews with

artistic and managing directors, as well as to examine literature in the fields of

1 Jim Volz, How to Run a Theater: A Witty, Practical and Fun Guide to Arts Management (New York: Back Stage Books, 2004). 2 Zelda Fichandler, "Whither (Or Wither) Art?" in American Theatre Reader: Essays and Conversations from American Theatre Magazine, ed. American Theatre Magazine Staff (New York, NY, USA: Theatre Communications Group, 2009), 262.

2

organizational behavior and human resources. This examination yields four

characteristics common to successful co-leadership relationships: shared mission,

mutual trust and respect, constant communication, and an extended engagement.

3

CO-LEADERSHIP IN NONPROFIT PROFESSIONAL THEATRE

In the second half of the 20th Century, a series of financial incentives led to a

rapid growth in the number of theatres in the United States. In 1962 the Ford

Foundation began to provide major operating support for performing arts

organizations, including millions of dollars granted to fledgling resident theatre

companies outside of New York City, much of it in the form of matching grants in

order to recruit new donors . Following Ford’s leadership, hundreds of foundations

and corporations became active supporters of the arts (McCarthy and others 2001).

In 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was inaugurated and the

federal government began to provide direct support to the arts.

McDaniel and Thorn (1992) liken this convergence of funding opportunities

to a “cultural big bang” wherein a great number of organizations were formed

rapidly and without the time to organically develop organizational structures.

Instead, these new theatres borrowed the key elements of their structures from other

nonprofit performing arts organizations such as symphony orchestras, thus becoming

structurally isomorphic (Peterson 1986; McNeil 2009; Meyer and Rowan 1977).

Isomorphism brings with it language and labels, which are used to demonstrate

commonality with other like organizations and to give the organization instant

legitimacy in its nascent stages (Meyer and Rowan 1977).

4

The co-leadership structure was further reinforced by the 1965 Rockefeller

Brothers Fund report “The Performing Arts: Problems and Prospects” (1965). In this

report, the panel strongly recommends that nonprofit performing arts organizations

have a business professional in a leadership role, writing “Indeed, there is no reason

why the business operations of a nonprofit organization should not be as expertly

managed as those of any profit-seeking organization.”

Co-leadership has been described as a balanced partnership, providing what

Volz calls “checks and balances” lending to the credibility of the institution (2004,

pg. 25). Gronn (1999, pg. 2) describes formal and informal “leadership couples” as a

“neglected substitute for the single handed leader” and Miles and Watkins (2007, pg.

4) discuss an executive team in which the members exploit their distinct strengths –

what they call “complementarity.” They describe a leadership team in which the

complementary strengths of each member both compensate for the shortcomings of

the other team member and “results in a team in which the whole is much greater

than the sum of the parts." According to de Voogt (2006), arts organizations must

have two leaders as it is nearly impossible to combine the required artistic and

business skills required to lead an arts organization in one person.

Finally, theatre is, at its very core, a collaborative art form. The artistic

director/managing director partnership may also be an outgrowth of that

collaborative spirit (Caust 2010).

5

Whether as a form of isomorphism, in reaction to the recommendations of the

funding community, to position a complete and balanced skill-set at the top, or as an

outgrowth of the collaborative spirit inherent to the creation of theatre, an

organizational structure developed in nonprofit regional theatre headed by what has

been described as the leadership triangle (Langley 1990): an artistic director and a

managing director of equal status, both reporting directly to the board (see Figure 2).

6

FOR-PROFIT LEADERSHIP DUOS

Dual or co-leadership has been thoroughly explored as it relates to the Chief

Executive Officer/Chief Operations Officer (CEO/COO) relationship in for-profit

businesses. Although there is much that we can learn from the CEO/COO

relationship, this leadership structure is distinct from the nonprofit co-leadership

model in three significant ways:

1. The CEO/COO relationship is a hierarchical relationship in which the

COO reports to the CEO unlike the equal status structure being examined

here.

2. While the artistic director and managing director are hired independently

by the board, the COO is often hired by the CEO.

3. The roles of the artistic director and managing director are

institutionalized and divided according to function, while the CEO and

COO roles have similar functions where responsibilities can be assigned

organically between the two.

7

LITERATURE REVIEW

While there is no shortage of theatre management texts which refer to the

artistic director/managing director partnership as the common organizational

structure in nonprofit theatre, very little attention has been paid to the characteristics

of the relationship between the two leaders.

There are references to desirable personality traits or characteristics in the

business half of the co-leadership duo. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s (1965, pg.

161) report on the performing arts describes the managing director as,

“knowledgeable in the art with which he is concerned, an impresario, labor

negotiator, diplomat, educator, publicity and public relations expert, politician,

skilled businessman, a social sophisticate, a servant of the community, a tireless

leader - becomingly humble before authority - a teacher, a tyrant, and a continuing

student of the arts.” Langley (1990, pg. 24) describes a good manager with “taste,

sensitivity and erudition whose inclinations and education make that person able to

seek, recognize, support and develop the genius of artistic originality in whatever

guise it may appear. Notably, both descriptions include a knowledge of and respect

for the art.

However, while Volz, (2004) Conte and Langley (2007) make references to

the job of the artistic director – to guide artistic vision and maintain artistic quality –

desirable personality traits of artistic directors receive no attention. This implies that

8

the most desirable quality in an artistic director is the ability to envision and produce

excellent art.

The artistic and managing directors are often viewed as the embodiment of

the dual motivations of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations, i.e. art versus

business. The dual goals of commerce and art have been described as a paradox,

(Conte and Langley 2007; DeFillippi, Grabher, and Jones 2007; Langworthy 1995;

Reid and Karambayya 2009) and the oftentimes paradoxical motivations of the duo

have been discussed as a cause of potential conflict in the relationship (Reid and

Karambayya 2009; Glynn 2000; Voss, Cable, and Voss 2006).

Glynn (2000, pg. 287) posits that the identity of cultural institutions is

composed of "contradictory identity elements - normative artistry and utilitarian

economics" coexisting and being claimed by different "units" within the

organization. These contradictions are institutionalized in the form of the

organizational structure. Glynn goes on to describe conflict between the two

ideologies as "almost inevitable.” In their journal article “Impact of dual executive

leadership dynamics in creative organizations,” Reid and Karambayya (2009)

describe the relationship between the artistic and business leaders in creative

organizations as “laden in conflict” and “paradoxical” due to the leaders’ differing

organizational priorities. These opposing imperatives or “polarities” are seen as

intrinsic to cultural industries (Lampel, Lant, and Shamsie 2000) and the tension

9

between artistic and financial sensibilities is referenced directly or obliquely in all

related literature.

Additionally, MacNeill and Tonks (2009) have studied the relationship of the

duo as it relates to the in nonprofit arts organizations in Australia. It is important to

note the structure in each of the organizations studied was a hierarchical leadership

model composed, most commonly, of a general manager reporting to an artistic

director. MacNeill and Tonks describe the relationship as a servant/leader model

where, in the case of arts organizations, management is in service to the greater

cause: the art. In fact, their interviews yielded the widespread view that the artistic

director must be the CEO of the organization because the primary role and prime

characteristic of the organization was art. The authors do define elements essential to

the success of these hierarchical relationships, including love of the job, and in the

case of the general manager, love of the artistic director, communication, an implicit

understanding of each other and shared vision.

As shown above, while there is literature focusing on various elements of the

co-leadership relationship (history of the structure, gender, and conflict), a recipe for

successful co-leadership relationships is entirely absent. In order to define a

successful co-leadership we must first consider the role of conflict.

10

CONFLICT

Conflict has been defined as "an expressed struggle between at least two

interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and

interference from the other party in achieving their goals” (Wilmot and Hocker

2001). Where art and business can be viewed as incompatible goals and the nonprofit

industry is defined by scarce resources, conflict between the leadership duo in

nonprofit theatre seems almost inevitable. (Cray, Inglis, and Freeman 2007; Glynn

2000; Sheard and Kakabadse 2007)

Conflict does not necessarily negatively impact organizational performance.

Conflict that is retained internally between the co-leaders can be constructive for the

organization where the staff knows that the leaders are continually testing each

other’s assumptions. Reid and Karambayya (2009) utilize the prescribed relationship

between leaders in nonprofit theatre to examine the impact of conflict between dual

executive leadership on organizations. Their study reveals that, when kept internal to

a leadership couple that both trust and respect each other, some conflict between the

co-leaders can be healthy. However, conflict that takes place publicly can negatively

impact operational functions by slowing decision making, weakening the position of

the co-leaders, and reducing organizational morale.

Voss, et al, (2006) link conflict regarding organizational identity – a set of

beliefs about what is most essential, enduring and distinctive about the organization -

11

to lower ticket revenues and net incomes, where organizational performance is

lowest when disagreement is greatest.

Jehn (1997, pg. 552) identifies three types of conflict - relationship conflicts

focused on interpersonal relationships, task conflicts focused on the content and the

goals of the work, and process conflicts focused on how tasks would be

accomplished – and finds that group performance is impacted differently by all three

conflict types. Jehn directly links moderate amounts of task conflict to positively

impacting performance and states, “The current data suggest that the optimal profile

for high-performing groups includes important, moderate task conflicts, no

relationship conflicts, little or no procedural conflict, with norms that task conflict is

acceptable and resolvable and with little negative emotionality."

The relationship between senior management for-profit organizations has

also been examined through the lens of conflict. Krantz (1989, pg. 161) notes that

“every boundary in the midst of managerial couples contains the seeds of conflict.”

Schnurr and Chan (2011) focus on situations in which co-leaders disagree and

determine that, regardless of the organizational structure, the hierarchical positions

of the leaders are dynamic within these interactions. They describe the identities of

leader and second-in-command to be “fluid and constantly negotiated” throughout

these interactions.

Successful co-leadership, then, is not necessarily free of conflict. Given the

potentially negative effects of conflict on the organization, an effort should be made

12

to create a leadership duo in which the potential for conflict is reduced and a healthy

relationship is supported. Strong leadership duos can minimize the impacts of

negative conflict by keeping the conflict internal, and can reduce conflict types that

have been linked to negative organizational performance. The next chapter will

identify the characteristics common to a successful co-leadership.

13

ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL SHARED LEADERSHIP

Through an examination of for-profit and nonprofit management texts, case

studies, and interviews, I have isolated the four characteristics common to successful

co-leadership relationships: shared mission, mutual trust and respect, constant

communication, and an extended engagement.

Shared Mission, Vision and Goals

In an interview with Frank Rich (2009, pg. 489), Stephen Sondheim states:

"That’s what I think a good collaboration is; it’s not two or three people thinking

exactly alike but two or three people who want the same thing, yet go at it from

different angles."

The most commonly cited characteristic essential to the success of a

leadership duo is a shared mission or vision (de Voogt 2006; Dunning and McDaniel

2012; Gronn 1999; Miles and Watkins 2007; Sheard and Kakabadse 2007; Turbide

and Laurin 2009; Voss, Cable, and Voss 2006). It is important to note that having a

shared mission, vision and goals does not merely refer to an adherence to the stated

mission of the organization. Instead, the leaders must share a commitment to the very

essence of the mission. McDaniel and Thorn (1992, pg. 5) call this essential common

purpose the “center” of the organization and the mission statement “simply a tool to

describe the center and how it will be manifested." To facilitate an essential common

14

purpose this, Gronn (1999, pg. 4) goes so far as to recommend that co-leaders have a

common upbringing – including similar schooling - yielding what he calls a “shared

canopy of values” and “moral reciprocity.”

This shared mission is essential, and when co-leaders differ on this

fundamental purpose the results can be calamitous. Glynn (2000) points to differing

identities and missions within the same institution as impacting the perception of the

organization’s defined core competencies and causing contention over strategic

decision making. Voss, et al, (2006) argue that disagreements about the identity of

the organization overwhelm any benefits of conflict and negatively impact

organization performance (specifically net income).

In the case of theatre management, the common overarching mission must be

the art. Indeed, in order to counteract the inherent conflict or tension between art and

commerce, the leaders must share what Yale Repertory Theatre’s Managing

Director, Victoria Nolan (1994, pg. 1), describes as “a value system that provides

them with a deep and joyous commitment to the work of the theatre.” MacNeill and

Tonks (2009) liken this commitment to the work of the theatre, the art, to the

servant/leader model - a model in which leadership is subservient to the greater cause

- with the management of the organization in service to the art. This is supported by

Ravanas (2006), who describes the very successful Steppenwolf Theatre as an

“artdriven” institution.

15

Some argue that the artistic mission and vision are embodied in the person of

the artistic director. Zelda Fichandler (2009), co-founder and long-time artistic

director of Arena Stage, describes the artistic director as “the person who holds the

vision” while McDaniel and Thorn (1993) place the art, and the people who are

responsible for that work, directly at the center of the organization and encourage

organizational structures that reflect that sensibility. In an interview with Jaan

Whitehead (1999), McCarter Theater artistic director Emily Mann and managing

director Jeffrey Woodward, note that the board should leave all of the artistic

decisions to the staff with the artistic director representing the art to the board.

Indeed, Whitehead (1999) and Caust (2010) argue that where the artists are

disconnected from the management and leadership of the organization – where art is

not the center – the organization’s very survival is at stake.

One might infer that, since the artistic director is the embodiment of the core

mission of the organization, the managing director should be in a subordinate role.

However, in an excellent leadership team the leaders are complementary and the

strengths of the artistic director are balanced by those of the managing or executive

director (Miles and Watkins 2007). In fact, Volz (2004) points out that the absence

of the checks and balances provided by a co-leadership team can be devastating to

the long-term development of the institution.

16

A successful partnership, then, must have at its core a shared essential

purpose. When the partners are charged with co-leading an arts organization, that

central purpose must be the art itself.

Respect and Trust The leadership duo is, above all, an interpersonal relationship between two

professionals who must work together to advance the essential mission of the

institution. This relationship must have at its foundation both respect and trust.

Respect

The Oxford Dictionary ( 2010a) defines respect as “a feeling of deep

admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or

achievements.” Due to the paradoxical priorities of art and commerce and their

necessarily specialized and complementary skills, the co-leaders face a high degree

of potential for interpersonal conflict. Respect for one another, characterized by a

feeling of deep admiration, must form the foundation of their relationship.

Respect for one another is a common theme in the description of the co-

leadership relationship. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (1965), followed by Volz

(2004), and Conte and Langley (2007), call for a “true partnership” based on mutual

respect, “easily said” – as Conte points out – “but less easily achieved.”

Jeffrey Watkins, artistic director of the Atlanta Shakespeare Company, in

describing the adaptive ensemble management utilized by the company, notes that in

17

order to successfully assume their roles managing the organization, the group must

cultivate "an intrinsic respect for one another's abilities and commitment” and calls

the mutual respect of the individuals “the glue that holds the center of the company

together” (Dunning and McDaniel 2012, pg. 13). Respect between the leaders is

frequently cited in Jaan Whitehead’s 1999 conversation about creative and enduring

partnership with McCarter Theatre Artistic Director, Emily Mann, Managing

Director Jeffrey Woodward, and former board president, Liz Fillo. Finally, in 2003,

Zarin Mehta (2003, pg. 6), president and executive director of the New York

Philharmonic Orchestra, wrote about the relationship between the business and

artistic leaders "It is important that they be friends, or at the very least respect each

other's work.” He also likens the leadership duo’s relationship to “a marriage

founded on mutual respect.”

Trust

The Oxford Dictionary (2010b) defines trust as “firm belief in the reliability,

truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.” Like respect, trust is necessary

in order to counteract the potential for conflict within the leadership duo. The

disparate job responsibilities and corresponding skill-sets of the artistic and business

leader necessitate trust in the visioning, strategy and decision-making of the other

half of the duo, what Gronn and Reid (1999) describe as a “mutual dependency.”

The need for trust is supported by both students of organizational behavior and

interviews with the leadership staff of successful companies. Miles and Watkins

18

(2007, pg. 90-98), whose work centers on the CEO/COO team and is entitled “The

Leadership Team: Complimentary Strengths or Competing Agendas?” describe four

pillars of alignment (common vision, common incentives, communication, and trust)

as the way to avoid the risks inherent in complementary leadership. Trust is referred

to specifically as “trust that each team member has the firm's best interests at heart”

and “may be the most crucial for a team's stability." In his discussion of the

managerial couple, Krantz (1989, pg. 161) identifies trusting each other as a key

component for successful relationships and cites "intensified anxiety" and other very

human emotions as key stressors in these relationships.

Michael Kaiser (2008), president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the

Performing Arts, identifies trust as essential to the relationship between the artistic

and business leaders in arts organizations, stating “If the two work well together, if

they trust each other’s expertise, the organization is going to benefit. If there is

mistrust, the organization is certain to fail.”

Communication “Underlying the entire area of leadership is the assumption that good

communication and listening skills are used daily.” (Byrnes 2003, pg. 182) Frequent

and honest communication between the co-leaders is the third essential characteristic

and can deepen the duos trust and respect for each other. Additionally, a high degree

of communication is particularly important when the individual leaders are highly

complementary: in order to bridge the gap between their different motivations and

19

skill-sets, the leaders must communicate nearly constantly. In the nonprofit theatre

where the background and skills required for artistic and business leaders are so

distinct, a high degree of communication within the duo is essential.

Successful leadership duos employ communication not only as a means of

being kept abreast of the activities outside of their functional area, but also to

understand each other’s motivations and to demonstrate support for the co-leader.

Communication founded in trust – revealing personal values, fears, and uncertainties

to the other half of the leadership couple – is a mark of the strength of the duo’s

relationship (Gronn 1999; Miles and Watkins 2007). Miles and Watkins (2007, pg.

8) go on to state, "The most effective complementary teams are in near constant

communication and have well-established protocols so that potential divergences

can't take root."

Emily Mann’s description of her relationship with managing director, Jeff

Watkins exemplifies open communication founded in trust: “We got out of each

other's way, and we also supported each other. That's where I think the friendship

comes in. It was an effortless support. I mean, I will ask Jeff as much about what

play I should do as I will about audience development. We all talk about what each

other does, and there's a bond. There's no defensiveness. There's just support”

(Whitehead 1999, pg. 3).

20

An Extended Engagement

While the co-leadership duo prevalent in arts organizations has been likened

to an arranged marriage, the for-profit CEO/COO relationship enjoys what could be

viewed as an extended engagement. (Mehta 2003, 4-11; Reid 2007, 9-12)

In the CEO/COO relationship the COO can be reasonably expected to

eventually assume the responsibilities of the CEO, promoting a new COO from

within the organization. This vertically contiguous succession strategy has the

benefit of allowing the leaders to get to know each other over the course of time,

building trust and respect and developing communication strategies. Gronn (1999,

pg. 4) emphasizes the importance of this “well-rehearsed working relationship” to

reducing what he calls “leadership gridlock” and states, "So well developed and

refined is the understanding at the heart of the relationship that a leadership coupling

may be likened to a marriage."

Conversely, nonprofit theatre features a hiring process in which both leaders

are selected as individuals by a board of directors to be co-leaders with

fundamentally different functional responsibilities. This all but eliminates the

opportunity for an extended engagement of any kind and “provides little opportunity

for the two leaders to gain any previous working understanding that might mitigate

conflict" (Reid and Karambayya 2009, pg. 1081). Reid (2007) points out that while

emergent or self-chosen co-leadership structures may evolve through a basic

chemistry between the persons in the leadership position, the roles of artistic director

21

and managing director are assigned to individuals who may or may not have any

basic personal chemistry. This lack of personal chemistry may yield a greater

potential for conflict between the two leaders.

While Emily Mann and Jeff Watkins (Whitehead 1999) cite friendship and

fun as part of their working relationship, Sheard and Kakabadse (2007) point to the

personalities of the members of the senior leadership team as a common cause for

conflicts in the relationship. Given the importance of reducing the potential for

conflict within the leadership couple, an extended engagement could be a valuable

opportunity to test the potential for interpersonal chemistry between the

organizational leaders. Although the nonprofit theatre is no stranger to rehearsal, this

final essential element may be the most difficult to implement due to the

institutionalized structures currently in place in those organizations and the

prohibitive cost of employing associate artistic and managing directors. The

Steppenwolf Theatre has overcome these challenges through the ensemble company,

from which an ensemble member is selected, groomed and advised by an artistic

board composed of the founders and prior artistic directors. In this way, Steppenwolf

is able to embrace the extended engagement and avoid the arranged marriage

construct (Ravanas 2006).

22

RECOMMENDATIONS

Conflict between co-leaders has been demonstrated to negatively impact

organizational performance. Every effort should be made to ensure successful

partnerships at the executive level in nonprofit theatre in order to mitigate the

potential for conflict within this duo. The characteristics of successful co-leadership,

as described above, can provide some guidance in forming and maintaining

successful and enduring partnerships.

First and foremost, the Board of Directors must, in hiring co-leaders, include

in their necessary criteria an understanding of and readiness to embrace the essential

common purpose of the organization. In nonprofit theatre, the common purpose of

the organization must be the art, and affinity for artistic mission of the organization

must be weighed in the balance with skill sets, education, and work experience. As

this core component – the art – can be embodied in the person of the artistic leader, a

successful relationship between the artistic director and managing director assumes

even greater importance. Whenever possible, the foundation of the relationship must

be a commitment to the vision of the artistic director.

Trust and respect must also exist between the leaders. An extended

engagement provides the ideal opportunity for these traits to develop between the

leaders over the course of time. This period will also allow the co-leaders to develop

successful communication techniques. Where finances and organizational capacity

allow, assistant or associate artistic and managing director positions create the

23

opportunity for extended engagement periods amongst top leadership and will also

develop institutional memory and allow for smooth successions.

In new partnerships, these qualities must be developed over time. In order to

increase the likelihood for chemistry or friendship between the leaders, the co-leader

remaining with the organization must be included in the screening and interview

process to the highest degree possible. Finalist interviews should be structured such

that an ample amount of contact between the potential co-leaders is facilitated. A

commitment to meaningful and frequent communication must be embraced by the

co-leaders.

CONCLUSION

Successful co-leadership teams have in common four essential

characteristics: a shared essential mission, a foundation of respect and trust, constant

and meaningful communication, and an extended engagement. These characteristics

should be considered carefully in forming co-leadership partnerships. Where the

potential for conflict is great – as in the co-leaderships composed of artistic and

managing directors in nonprofit professional theatres – likelihood that these

characteristics will be present in the relationship should be weighted even more

heavily.

24

Figure 1: Current Leadership at LORT Theatres LORT is the largest professional theatre association of its kind in the United States, with 75

member Theatres located in every major market in the U.S., including 29 states and the

District of Columbia

Current Leadership at LORT* Theatres

Theatre Name Artistic Director Managing Director Executive Director

ACT Theatre x x Actors Theatre of Louisville x x Alley Theatre x x Alliance Theatre x American Conservatory Theater x x American Repertory Theater x AD/CEO Arden Theatre Company x Producing AD x Arena Stage x x Executive Producer Arizona Theatre Company x x Arkansas Repertory Theatre x Producing AD x Asolo Repertory Theatre x Producing AD x Barter Theatre x Producing AD x Berkeley Repertory Theatre x x Capital Repertory Theatre x Producing AD Center Theatre Group x x CENTERSTAGE x x Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park x Producing AD x City Theatre Company x x Clarence Brown Theatre Company x Producing AD Court Theatre x x Denver Center Theatre Company x x Florida Studio Theatre x x Ford's Theatre x Director Geffen Playhouse x x George Street Playhouse x x Georgia Shakespeare x Producing AD x Geva Theatre Center x x Goodman Theatre x x Great Lakes Theater Festival x Producing AD x Guthrie Theater x Director x Chief Admin Officer

25

Theatre Name Artistic Director Managing Director Executive Director

Hartford Stage x x Huntington Theatre Company x x Indiana Repertory Theatre x x Kansas City Repertory Theatre x x La Jolla Playhouse x x Lincoln Center Theater x x Executive Producer Long Wharf Theatre x x Maltz Jupiter Theatre x Producing AD x Manhattan Theatre Club x x Executive Producer Marin Theatre Company x x Producing Director McCarter Theatre x x Merrimack Repertory Theatre x x Milwaukee Repertory Theatre x x Northlight Theatre x x Pasadena Playhouse x x People's Light and Theatre Company x x Philadelphia Theatre Company x Producing AD x Pittsburgh Public Theatre x Producing AD PlayMakers Repertory Company x Producing AD x Portland Center Stage x

Portland Stage Company x Executive and Artistic Director

Repertory Theatre of St. Louis x x Round House Theatre x Producing AD Roundabout Theatre Company x x x San Jose Repertory Theatre x x Seattle Repertory Theatre x x Shakespeare Theatre Company x x Signature Theatre x x South Coast Repertory x x Syracuse Stage x Producing AD x The Cleveland Play House x x The Wilma Theatre x x

Theatre for a New Audience x Founding Artistic Director x

26

Theatre Name Artistic Director Managing Director Executive Director

TheatreWorks x x Trinity Repertory Company x x Two River Theatre Company x x Virginia Stage Company x x Yale Repertory Theatre x x Delaware Theatre Company x Goodspeed Musicals x Laguna Playhouse x x The Old Globe x Alabama Shakespeare Festival x Producing AD x COO Dallas Theater Center x x

Title is Artistic Director, Managing Director, or Executive Director, unless otherwise listed. 68 of the 71 theatres list the artistic director first on the website, regardless of alphabetical order.

27

Figure 2: The Leadership Triangle

(Langley 1990, pg. 174)

28

SOURCES CITED

Byrnes, William J. 2003. Management And The Arts. Burlington, MA, USA: Focal Press.

Caust, J. 2010. Does The Art End When The Management Begins?: The Challenges Of Making ‘Art’ For Both Artists And Arts Managers. Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 7 (2) (December): 570-84.

Conte, David M., and Stephen Langley. 2007. Theatre Management: Producing And Managing The Performing Arts. Hollywood, Calif.: EntertainmentPro.

Cray, David, Loretta Inglis, and Susan Freeman. 2007. Managing The Arts: Leadership And Decision Making Under Dual Rationalities. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 36 (4) (Winter 2007): 295-313.

de Voogt, Alex. 2006. Dual Leadership As A Problem-Solving Tool In Arts Organizations. International Journal of Arts Management 9 (1) (Fall 2006): 17, 22, 74.

DeFillippi, Robert, Gernot Grabher, and Candace Jones. 2007. Introduction To Paradoxes Of Creativity: Managerial And Organizational Challenges In The Cultural Economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28 (5): 511-21.

Dunning, A., and N. McDaniel. 2012. The Emerging Narratives In The Arts: A Special Report From ARTS Action Research. www.artsaction.com: ARTS Action Research, .

Fichandler, Zelda. 2009. Whither (or Wither) Art? In American Theatre Reader: Essays and Conversations from American Theatre Magazine., ed. American Theatre Magazine Staff, 262. New York, NY, USA: Theatre Communications Group.

Glynn, M. A. 2000. When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict Over Organizational Identity Within A Symphony Orchestra. Organization Science: 285-98.

Gronn, Peter. 1999. Substituting For Leadership: The Neglected Role Of The Leadership Couple. Leadership Quarterly 10 (1) (Spring 1999): 41-62.

Jehn, Karen A. 1997. A Qualitative Analysis Of Conflict Types And Dimensions In Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (3) (Sep.): pp. 530-557.

Kaiser, M. M. 2008. The Art of the Turnaround: Creating and Maintaining Healthy Arts Organizations. Brandeis University.

Krantz, James. 1989. The Managerial Couple: Superior-Subordinate Relationships As A Unit Of Analysis. Human Resource Management 28 (2) (Summer 1989): 161.

29

Lampel, Joseph, Theresa Lant, and Jamal Shamsie. 2000. Balancing Act: Learning From Organizing Practices In Cultural Industries. Organization Science 11 (3) (May/Jun 2000): 263-9.

Langley, Stephen. 1990. Theatre Management and Production in America : Commercial, Stock, Resident, College, Community, and Presenting Organizations. New York: Drama Book Publishers.

Langworthy, Douglas. 1995. Theatre At The Crossroads. American Theatre 12 (9) (Nov 1995): 24.

MacNeill, Kate, and Ann Tonks. 2009. Co-Leadership And Gender In The Performing Arts. Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 6 (1) (December): 391-404.

McCarthy, K. F., A. Brooks, J. Lowell, and L. Zakaras. 2001. The Performing Arts in a New Era. Rand Corp.

McDaniel, N., and G. Thorn. 1993. Toward a New Arts Order. GIA Reader 4 (2).

McDaniel, Nello, and George Thorn. 1992. Restructuring: The Method Is The Message. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society 22 (1) (Spring92): 7.

McNeil, Lowry. 2009. Purging The Citadel. In American Theatre Reader: Essays and Conversations from American Theatre Magazine., ed. American Theatre Magazine Staff, 3. New York, NY, USA: Theatre Communications Group.

Mehta, Zarin. 2003. Managing the New York Philharmonic in Today's World. International Journal of Arts Management 5 (3) (Spring 2003): 4-11.

Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure As Myth And Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology: 340-63.

Miles, S. A., and M. D. Watkins. 2007. The Leadership Team. Harvard Business Review 85 (4): 90-8.

Nolan, Victoria. 1994. What Makes a Manager? American Theatre, 11. 1 (Jan 1994): 7.

Oxford Dictionaries. "Respect". oxford dictionaries. in Oxford University Press [database online]. 2010 [cited 6/18 2012].

———. "Trust". Oxford Dictionaries. in Oxford University Press [database online]. 2010 [cited 6/18 2012].

Peterson, R. A. 1986. From Impresario To Arts Administrator: Formal Accountability In Nonprofit Cultural Organizations. In Nonprofit Enterprise In The Arts: Studies In

30

Mission And Constraint. ed. P. J. DiMaggio, 161. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ravanas, Philippe. 2006. Born to be wise: The Steppenwolf Theatre Company Mixes Freedom With Management Savvy. International Journal of Arts Management 8 (3) (Spring 2006): 64,74,81.

Reid, W. 2007. Institutionalized, Mandated Dual Leadership in Nonprofit Arts Organizations: One Conceptualization of the Phenomenon and Its Implications for Organizational Effectiveness. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management (AIMAC), Valence (Espagne), July, 2007 .

Reid, W., and R. Karambayya. 2009. Impact Of Dual Executive Leadership Dynamics In Creative Organizations. Human Relations 62 (7): 1073-112.

Rich, Frank. 2009. Side By Side By Side: An Interview With Stephen Sondheim. In American Theatre Reader: Essays And Conversations From American Theatre Magazine., ed. American Theatre Magazine Staff, 489. New York, NY, USA: Theatre Communications Group.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund. 1965. The Performing Arts: Problems And Prospects; Rockefeller Panel Report On The Future Of Theatre, Dance, Music In America. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schnurr, Stephanie, and Angela Chan. 2011. Exploring Another Side Of Co-Leadership: Negotiating Professional Identities Through Face-Work In Disagreements. Language in Society 40 (2) (Apr 2011): 187-209.

Sheard, A. G., and A. P. Kakabadse. 2007. A Role-Based Perspective On Leadership Decision Taking. The Journal of Management Development 26 (6): 520.

Turbide, J., and C. Laurin. 2009. Performance Measurement In The Arts Sector: The Case Of The Performing Arts. International Journal of Arts Management 11 (2): 56-70.

Volz, Jim. 2004. How To Run A Theater: A Witty, Practical And Fun Guide To Arts Management. New York: Back Stage Books.

Voss, Zannie Giraud, Daniel M. Cable, and Glenn B. Voss. 2006. Organizational Identity And Firm Performance: What Happens When Leaders Disagree About "Who We Are?". Organization Science 17 (6) (Nov. - Dec.): pp. 741-755.

Whitehead, J. 1999. Focus On Governance: Enduring Partnerships. CENTERPIECE.

Wilmot, W. W., and J. L. Hocker. 2001. Interpersonal Conflict. McGraw-Hill New York.