Oh Canada!

Board or Bored?

In November, 2003 I was invited to sit on a panel at the Cultural Human Resources Council’s conference in Toronto. The conference was entitled Strategy 21, Cultural Human Resources for the 21st Century. There were many panels and presentations of interest at the conference, such as: HR Problems – How Do We Solve Them; Status of the Artist – Forging Ahead; Cultural Management – Where Are We Now?, and many others over the 3 days. There was also a healthy cross-section of people from the cultural industry: artists, producers, funders, managers and board members. In fact, I would say it was the most representative group I have ever encountered at a conference. My only frustration was that I couldn’t attend all the simultaneous breakout sessions!

My panel was Boards As Employers – What Are the Issues? I went with some trepidation as I was going to take what I thought would be a minority or controversial point of view – that the structure does not and never really has worked. My basic premise was that an organization’s health was tied to the makeup of a board: they flavour the whole organization through their hiring decisions and their ability to open doors to both private and corporate dollars. Because of the constant turnover, both on the board and amongst the staff, today’s success may be tomorrow’s failure, and vice versa. Although none of the other panelists were willing to go this far, I was surprised to learn that each of them had also experienced serious problems with dysfunctional boards. The point of departure for our panel was the peril “if the lines of communication between staff and board are not open and clear.” In my view the lines of communication also have to be open and clear within the board and within the staff. On a broader scale, the lines of authority also have to be open and clear within and between the two constituencies. Then there is the whole issue of open and clear communication in performing arts organizations with the performers.

Much of the attention on boards has come about through the various scandals in the for-profit business world. This has had a positive spinoff, in that the not-for-profit world is finally taking a closer look at board governance. The other panelists really feel this is where our world is lagging behind: reforming and/or instituting best practices on our not-for-profit boards. However, it is still on an ad-hoc basis, with no binding statutes for minimum standards such as the recent reforms through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the US. Corporate Canada lobbied strongly not to have the same level enacted by the Toronto Stock Exchange and were somewhat successful in convincing the powers-that-be that the corporation in Canada is still more of a “family operation.” This is one area where public funders at all levels could and should play a stronger role: creating and insisting upon uniform standards of reporting and behaviour in the area of board governance. However, it should not be at the expense of the other role the board has traditionally played: that of fundraising. Unfortunately, in Canada the latest mantra is not “give, get, or get off” but “govern, govern, govern.” By abdicating the role of fundraiser, the board has shifted a huge burden onto the development staff – which in some organizations may be a department of one! And unfortunately public funders are telling the boards this is the way to go.

Obviously our panel had taken on a huge topic that could not be adequately covered in our hour and a half. There was also some frustration amongst the audience who wanted quick solutions and a concern that board bashing was not going to attract new blood to our organizations. There was strong anecdotal evidence connecting an organization’s success with a CEO who has a background in our field. However, we all know of and have experienced exceptions to the rule, on both sides of the equation: thriving orchestras with CEOs with little or no artistic background; failing orchestras with former musicians as CEOs. Leaders who bring a high level of competence and passion combined with a strong work ethic seem to be in short supply. And the best ones are hired away by the deep pockets of the corporate world. Part of the answer may lie in increased empowerment for the performers who must have a certain level of expertise in the off-stage aspects of their organizations. However, with that empowerment comes increased responsibility and I am not entirely convinced that we have the right people in each of our organizations who are ready, willing and able to take on that role. After all, is this why we spent thousands of hours in the practise studio?