The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
ISSN: 1063-2921 (Print) 1930-7799 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20
Managing the Arts: Leadership and Decision
Making under Dual Rationalities
David Cray , Loretta Inglis & Susan Freeman
To cite this article: David Cray , Loretta Inglis & Susan Freeman (2007) Managing the Arts:
Leadership and Decision Making under Dual Rationalities, The Journal of Arts Management, Law,
and Society, 36:4, 295-313, DOI: 10.3200/JAML.36.4.295-314
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3200/JAML.36.4.295-314
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1790
Citing articles: 6 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjam20
Managing the Arts: Leadership and
Decision Making under
Dual Rationalities
DAVID CRAY, LORETTA INGLIS, AND SUSAN FREEMAN
A
lthough it is acknowledged that arts organizations are undergoing considerable changes in funding, governance, and competition, only recently
have basic concepts of management been applied to problems within the arts
sector. As a result, little is known about two critical functions of management—
leadership and decision making. In this article, we argue that, although leadership and decision-making styles available to managers in the arts are similar to
those in other industries, factors unique to the arts sector affect the manner in
which they are enacted. The demands of arts stakeholders often conflict with a
more business-like, or managerialist, management style and thus complicate
leadership and decision making. In this article, we first describe the context of
this discussion—arts organizations—and emphasize the increasing challenges
they face. Second, we review the literature on leadership styles, positing that the
particular leadership styles most likely to be found in the arts sector are charismatic, transactional, transformational, and participatory, each of which is suitable in particular circumstances. Third, we review literature concerning strategic
decision-making processes and identify four key models—rational, political,
David Cray is an associate professor in the Sprott School of Business at Carleton
University, Ottawa, Canada. His research interests include decision making and international management. Loretta Inglis is a lecturer in the department of Management,
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Her research interests include leadership
and management of nonprofit organizations. Susan Freeman is a senior lecturer in the
department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Her research
interests include international business, particularly emerging markets, small firms,
and the internationalization of services. Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
Winter 2007
295
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
incremental, and garbage can—and discuss the applicability of each in the arts
sector. We argue that a close match between the organizational goals, environment, and leadership and decision-making styles is necessary for effective management of arts organizations today. To understand appropriate leadership and
decision-making styles, given the specific tensions between the dual rationalities
of aesthetic judgement and organizational efficiency, further research should
include a more systematic approach, using existing concepts and models to
understand precisely how arts organizations operate.
MANAGERIAL CHALLENGES FACING ARTS ORGANIZATIONS
Recently, the context of arts organizations has been shifting in response to
changes in funding, governance, and competition. Many arts institutions have
seen their governmental grants reduced, leaving them more dependent on
donations from individuals and corporations, income from performances and
exhibitions, and the efforts of volunteers. In many areas, especially those of
marketing and fundraising, these new realities have demanded higher levels of
professionalism from employees and more attention to managerial as opposed
to artistic or aesthetic issues (Sicca and Zan 2005). Greater involvement with
a wider variety of stakeholders has also increased pressure for more accountability and greater transparency in the governance procedures of nonprofit arts
bodies. Overall, there has been a strong push to adopt procedures closer to
those of profit-making firms.
The considerable changes that are being implemented in arts organizations
often have important effects on structures, processes, and personnel. Whereas
some of the more technical segments of the organization may be shielded
from these new realities, those that interact with external stakeholders may
have to shift their focus and behavior dramatically. The pressure for visible
change will impact most heavily on the leaders of such organizations. Because
they represent the organization to its external stakeholders and serve as a link
between the organization’s environment and its employees, top-level leaders
normally experience tension between the agendas of these groups. When
changes are required in arts organizations, differing opinions about the direction of change and the details of effective implementation exacerbate these
tensions. Current movements in the arts industries have reshaped the roles of
organizational leaders, forcing them, for example, to become more entrepreneurial (Mulcahy 2003).
The pressures for change in the arts industry are substantial, but there are limitations on how far alterations may go and how fast they may be implemented
(DiMaggio and Stenberg 1985). Because resources are almost invariably in short
supply, initiatives that require extensive investment, especially those that require
ongoing commitments through hiring specialized staff, may be delayed or
296
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
shelved. The mission of the organization and its commitment to deliver artistic
programs may also constrain reorientation efforts. One of the most vexing problems for arts organizations seeking to restructure lies in their ties with long-time
supporters who may dislike change. Arts organizations wishing to attract new
clientele by restructuring must do so without forfeiting the attributes that current
supporters value (Evrard and Colbert 2000).
Both administrators and those who study arts organizations are limited in
their ability to deal with the problems induced by change due to a lack of
empirical research in the area of arts management. Although some functional
areas such as marketing have received considerable attention from researchers
(Rentschler et al. 2002), there is only a dearth of comprehensive literature that
addresses the problems of managing arts organizations. This reality, in part,
reflects a lack of interest in the arts sector on the part of management
researchers, who seldom address specific issues in arts organizations
(Lohmann 2001). Even the arts management literature rarely discusses leadership and management functions (Evrard and Colbert 2000). Only recently
have the basic concepts of management been applied to the problems of the
arts sector, but the majority of these studies represent the loose application of
concepts from other disciplines by those writing about the arts rather than
thorough investigation by management researchers.
Much of this basic information is derived from the general nonprofit literature (Lohmann 2001). Yet, one can make a strong case that arts organizations
should be seen as distinct from other nonprofits. The strong influence of the
artistic director and his or her emphasis on an artistic vision for the organization can conflict forcefully with the requirements of other managerial functions. The dual functions of guiding artistic endeavors and organizational
administration, even in the best-run arts groups, fosters structural complexity,
competing sets of goals, and multiple stakeholder claims. The distinct nature
of arts organizations arises not simply from their artistic missions, but also
from the complexity that multiple demands impose.
One way that nonprofit organizations cope with their complexity is to introduce corporate models of management (Evrard and Colbert 2000; Palmer 1998;
Sicca and Zan 2005). Like all nonprofits, arts organizations have traditionally
been seen as lacking professional management and as being run by “social
workers, health care professionals, foundation people, educators, participants in
high arts and culture, advocacy and interest groups” (Young et al. 1993, 3). In
response to the changing nature of their operations, organizations have slowly
adopted for-profit management processes, often at the behest of their major
stakeholders and the encouragement of academics and consultants, to be seen as
professionally managed (Bryson 1995). Processes such as strategic planning,
total quality management, and benchmarking have been introduced to improve
organizational performance (Mulhare 1999). Nonetheless, many nonprofits
Winter 2007
297
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
have found these for-profit processes difficult to duplicate (Beerel 1997;
Crittenden and Crittenden 2000). A number of factors, including the different
stakeholders involved in the process, dislike of corporate models, and issues of
leadership and general management, explain this difficulty (Bryson and Roering
1988; Crittenden and Crittenden; Lindenberg 2001; Santora and Sarros 2001).
These difficulties, common in nonprofit organizations, are also likely to be present in nonprofit arts organizations.
Two of the crucial managerial functions in a changing environment are
leadership and strategic decision making. All organizational change puts pressure on leaders to ease the conflicts caused by transition to new forms and procedures while still capturing the benefits the change was designed to achieve.
Thus, we will argue that, although the variety of required leadership roles is
similar to those in other industries, the way that they are enacted involves factors unique to the arts sector. Similarly, the strategic decision-making process
encounters forces, especially those of an aesthetic nature, that conflict with
the more rationalist orientation inherent in the managerialist approaches that
arts organizations are being urged to accept. Our aim, in both instances, is to
draw heavily on the existing managerial literature to provide greater understanding of the range of roles that arts managers must fill while acknowledging the distinct nature of the environments they face.
LEADERS IN ARTS ORGANIZATIONS
Leadership of any nonprofit organization brings challenges that are more
complex than those in a for-profit institution (Dym and Hutson 2005), and arts
organizations appear to have particular difficulties because of the need to balance aesthetic considerations with ensuring the viability of the organization.
Overall, leadership and leaders in arts organization are relatively unexplored
topics; leadership is usually discussed in terms of best practice or in relation
to the leading organization in a field, rather than in terms of individuals in key
management positions (Tschirhart 1996).
Yet the behavior of individuals in leadership roles is a major issue, as arts
organizations frequently have both an artistic director and a managing director
(or similar position). In some cases, one person performs both roles, but in larger organizations two people often lead the organization, sometimes from different perspectives (Evrard and Colbert 2000). The artistic director traditionally
plays the dominant leadership role, and it is essential that the artistic direction of
the organization enhances his or her reputation among peers. This can only result
from the provision of the best possible artistic experience for the organization’s
audience. The managing director’s role, on the other hand, is to establish and
maintain the organization as an ongoing operation, and his or her reputation as a
successful administrator depends on efficiency and effectiveness. The focus of a
298
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
manager is to ensure the financial security and long-term survival of the organization; the primary focus of the artistic director is short-term artistic recognition.
How does an arts leader best influence his or her colleagues and followers
toward organizational change? Four basic styles appear to be relevant to
strategic leadership in arts organizations: charismatic, transactional, transformational, and participatory.
Charismatic Leadership
The term “charisma” is commonly used to describe leaders who are able to
have profound effects on their followers through the force of their personality
and individual abilities (Conger and Kanungo 1998). A charismatic leader usually dominates within the organization, has a high level of self-confidence, and
has a strong conviction in the righteousness of his or her beliefs. Such leaders
have a powerful effect on their followers, inspiring trust, devotion, and a desire
to emulate their values, goals, and behavior.
Charismatic leadership is seen as particularly important for new and
emerging organizations and also for those facing a significant change or crisis (Conger and Kanungo 1998). However, charismatic leadership also has
negative effects on followers. Followers can develop an unhealthy dependence
on the leader, diminishing their own ability for independent action. The desire
to please the leader may also be seen as an obligation. Charismatic style is
usually not appropriate, or less effective, in times of relative stability and is
vulnerable to challenge if the leader’s decisions fail or other more credible
rivals for leadership appear.
Many arts organizations are founded by an individual with a passionate commitment to a particular art form and usually a sound reputation in the field. Such
individuals are often extremely talented and strongly committed to the purpose
of the organization. A typical pattern for arts organization under charismatic
leadership begins with the founder; after the founder moves on, the organization
is perpetuated by the artistic director, who influences others to follow the course
of action he or she favors. The high levels of talent and commitment suggest that
either the founder or a successor is likely to be recognized as a charismatic
leader (Evrard and Colbert 2000). Arts organizations are likely to encounter
problems if the charismatic leader departs, if he or she is seen to be making
inappropriate decisions, or if another strong individual challenges the charismatic leader’s position, perhaps by championing a new style or approach.
Transactional Leadership
Traditional views of leadership effectiveness have focused on transactional
leader behaviors (Bass 1985; Burns 1978). Transactional leadership is based on
Winter 2007
299
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
a leader-follower relationship predicated on mutually beneficial exchanges. One
important dimension of transactional leadership is the use of contingent
rewards, whereby leaders clarify expectations and provide resources and support in return for effort on the part of the follower. Leaders may also manage by
exception, by enforcing rules to avoid mistakes, and by taking corrective action
if deviations from standards occur.
In one sense, arts organizations embrace transactional leadership.
Producing a performance or launching an exhibition requires substantial operational planning. The effort required by both leaders and followers is considerable, and detailed management is required. On the other hand, managing
creative people and delivering cultural products requires great sensitivity, and
emphasis on meeting deadlines and completing administrative tasks can cause
conflict. Overuse of transactional leadership can lead to complaints of managerialism and interference with artistic freedom.
Transformational Leadership
Contemporary leadership research focuses on the identification and examination of leadership behaviors that make followers more aware of the importance and values of task outcomes, activate their higher-order needs, and
induce them to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organization (Yukl
2006). Transformational leadership behavior, according to Bass (1998),
includes idealized influence, or charisma, but also the inspirational motivation
of followers by articulating a vision for the future, intellectual stimulation of
followers by encouraging the expression of new ideas and beliefs, and individualized consideration, where leaders deal with all their followers as individuals whose needs, abilities, and aspirations are valued (Avolio 1999; Bass
1996; 1997).
Proponents of transformational leadership argue that such leaders can convince followers to perform beyond expected levels as a consequence of their
influence. Followers are willing to exert extra effort because of their commitment to the leader, but also because of their intrinsic work motivation and the
sense of purpose and mission that drives them to excel. This is of particular
importance in arts organizations where many of the followers are artists themselves who want to be part of a worthwhile organization, to have their ideas
valued, and to have their artistic abilities cherished.
Participatory Leadership
Participative leadership behavior occurs when leaders include followers in
various aspects of the decision-making process (Yukl 2006). The common
meaning of participatory leadership is when followers are involved in deci300
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
sions through consulting or through meetings where information and ideas are
exchanged before the leader makes the final decision. Participatory leadership
behavior includes group discussion sessions, one-on-one meetings, obtaining
information from followers, and asking opinions about decision alternatives
or ideas about how strategies might be implemented.
Because individuals need to be valued, the participatory style of leadership is also likely to be appropriate in arts organizations. These organizations
usually include many employees and volunteers who are well educated,
interested, and committed to the goals of the organization. Such participants
usually wish to be consulted about decisions that will affect them; they may
also wish to influence the progress of their organization in a more general
manner. Employee involvement in decision making is important, as it is the
employees who will implement decisions, thus their support is vital. The
effectiveness with which members of an organization implement a decision
depends on the extent to which they are committed to its success, and evidence clearly shows that people do support, and are motivated by, decisions
they have helped to make.
Although the participatory style may motivate organizational members,
promote employee buy-in for decisions, and accelerate implementation, this
style, especially when applied to major decisions, can slow the organization’s
reaction time significantly. The types of organizations amenable to the participatory style are often more inclusive, thus increasing the number of individuals and groups who feel they have a right to be involved. This tendency is
exacerbated in organizations with compressed hierarchies, a common structural form among nonprofit bodies.
Leadership Styles in Arts Organizations
Each of the styles described above has its advocates, but many researchers
now believe that successful leaders match their personal styles to the culture
of the organization and the demands of its environment. The strengths and
weaknesses of each style make it suitable in some instances but inappropriate,
or even deleterious, in others. There is considerable debate on the extent to
which individuals can change their own styles, but it is clear that a mismatch
between an individual’s leadership style and organizational needs or context
can result in disaster, even for a leader who has previously been successful
(Yukl 2006). A summary of the four styles discussed above is presented in
table 1.
All four styles of leadership may be appropriate for arts organizations
under certain circumstances. The size of the organization, diversity of programs, internal political arrangements, relationships with external stakeholders, financial stability, institutional image, and a number of other factors will
Winter 2007
301
302
Single leader who relies
on personal attributes
Leader-follower
relationship based
on mutual benefits
Leader inspires
followers to move
self-interest
Leader involves
others in decision
making and other
leadership roles
Transactional
Transformational
Participatory
Characteristics
Charismatic
Style
Slows decision making
and other processes
Focuses the organization Concentrates on the
on immediate problems leader and ignores
situational variables,
particularly followers
Promotes a sense of
belonging; speeds
implementation
Applicability
Appropriate in flat
organizations with
widely accepted goals
Appropriate where
the organization requires
significant change
Most appropriate
in routine,
bureaucratic organizations
Can generate dependency; Most appropriate in small,
success depends almost
new organizations or
solely on leader
those in crisis
Weaknesses
Leadership is routinized; Followers become
transition between
calculative in
leaders is less disruptive their commitments
Promotes high levels of
commitment; single,
overriding vision
Strengths
TABLE 1. Four Leadership Styles for Decision Making
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
impact the fit between the leader’s style and organizational effectiveness.
Charismatic leadership may be most suitable during the initial stages of an
organization’s life, although extreme crises may call for the same set of skills.
Of course, true charismatic leadership is rare, as it depends on an individual’s
personal characteristics. Transformational leadership, which relies more on
skills than inherent qualities, is an alternative when the organization requires
significant change. Like charismatic leadership, it often falters when the
urgent need for concerted action has passed.
Transactional leadership is the most stable of these styles, but may not be
suited to many arts organizations because they seldom operate in a strictly
routine manner. An important advantage of the transactional style lies in the
fact that such leaders are readily available, as they can often be found within
the organization itself. Participatory leadership offers the best fit for most arts
organizations provided they are not undergoing a crisis. However, the slow
pace of decision making this style fosters limits the ability of the organization
to adapt to a dynamic environment.
STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING IN ARTS ORGANIZATIONS
One of the key functions of leaders is to set long-term goals for their organizations. Studies of strategic decision making have revealed numerous versions of the decision-making process that depend both on internal factors and
the organization’s context (Eisenhardt 1989; Hickson et al. 1986). Thus, the
role that leaders play in arriving at strategic decisions is under their control,
to the extent that they can manage internal structures and procedures. Because
the aim of a strategic decision is to position the organization relative to its
environment, those factors, which are largely beyond the leader’s control, will
play a large part in shaping not only the decision, but also the process through
which it is made. For example, turbulent, fast-changing environments demand
equally rapid decision processes focused on a small number of participants
(Eisenhardt and Zbaracki 1992). In this section, we will briefly consider four
models of strategic decision making and how they affect the leader’s role in
the process.
Rational Models
Rational models of decision making posit a set of higher-level goals toward
which the organization must advance. Once the higher-level goals are in place,
the decision-making process consists largely of ranking various options often
through some type of scoring system. The strategic option that achieves the
highest score on the designated criteria or that maximizes a particular function
is selected and implemented. The key to success in the rational mode is ensurWinter 2007
303
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
ing that the proper criteria are selected and given appropriate weights. This
approach is most appropriate in situations familiar to decision makers; that is,
in cases where the criteria remain stable over time (Dean and Sharfman 1993).
The rational model has received considerable criticism over the years on
three major grounds (Eisenhardt and Zbaracki 1992). First, it assumes a level
of stability in both goals and environmental context that is seldom warranted.
Second, the organization is seen as a coherent and uniform whole, ignoring
competing internal agendas. Third, the procedures inherent in the rational
model do not take account of the perceptual biases and limitations that affect
all managers. Despite these criticisms, versions of the rational model still
dominate most management and planning texts. It also provides the official
framework for decision making in most organizations, however far practices
may diverge.
Application of the rational model to arts organizations appears problematic
largely due to the type of strategic decisions that must be made. The bases for
artistic judgments are notoriously difficult to articulate, much less to reduce to
quantitative measures. Even if such a rational system of artistic judgment could
be developed, it seems unlikely that many of those involved in the arts would be
willing to accept outcomes determined in such a manner.
Given the lack of congruence between rational models and artistic judgment, it is somewhat ironic that the managerialist procedures being adopted
by many arts organizations are predicated on a rationalist approach (Palmer
1998). Certainly the rhetoric of managerialism emphasizes efficiency and
adherence to strict budgets, hallmarks of the rationalist approach to management. Sicca and Zan (2005) report on the difficulties that Italian state bodies
encountered in implementing a rationalist model of funding for opera companies. Although it developed an elaborate funding formula, the Music
Commission found itself unable to produce a scheme for rewarding quality,
one of the main aims of the initial reform. The application of the rationalist
approach in implementing a strategic decision collided with the artistic concerns of managers in the field, as well as with the notorious political contests
among Italian arts organizations.
Of course, in practice, no decision-making system is entirely rational; managers and other interested groups will attempt to influence the final decision
by biasing options and criteria to favor their needs. It is the leader’s role to
maintain some balance in this process. One of the most important products of
the rational-decision process is the perception of fairness. A strategic choice
is made not because of favoritism or through the exercise of power, but
through systematically weighing the available options and choosing the
option that is best not for a particular group but for the organization as a
whole. Maintaining the appearance of fairness is another important leadership
role under the rational model, which aids in implementing the final decision.
304
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
An interesting application of the rational model to arts organizations has
been developed by Krug and Weinberg (2005). They propose three criteria or
dimensions on which organizations can measure programs: (a) contribution to
the mission of the organization, (b) financial contribution, and (c) what they
term “contribution to merit” (326) or the quality of the program. Their system
highlights trade-offs between competing initiatives along the three axes,
which leads less to the choice of a single option and more to a portfolio of
programs that will produce an optimum outcome. Because the application is
driven by evaluations solicited from individuals within the organization, there
is a certain political element involved, but the logic of the system remains
steadfastly rational.
Decision Making as a Political Exercise
Where the rationalist model tends to ignore the competing interests of actors,
the political model sees the decision arena as populated with individuals and
groups pursuing their own agendas. In this view, strategic decision making
involves coalition building, negotiation, and trade-offs among competing goals.
Typically this involves arguing that their particular ideas are best for the organization. In the long run, a political approach to strategic decision making
involves moving key members of groups or coalitions into positions of power
and influence. One of the early descriptions of political decision making in
organizations emphasizes the control of information and communication as
means of influencing the decision-making process (Pettigrew 1973).
The agendas of interested groups may be based on a variety of considerations ranging from personal prestige to ideological purity (Schwenk 1988,
51). This has several implications. First, political decision making often turns
on the choice of criteria rather than the evaluation of options. One of the most
common political splits within organizations is among functional units.
Strategic decisions typically have implications for all parts of the organization, with each area assessing benefits and costs from its own perspective. If
one group is successful in imposing its own specific criteria, for example, the
cost of the project or its impact on the image of the organization, then not only
is the solution favored, but other possibilities may not even be considered.
The diversity of groups also increases the likelihood that other criteria, including those not directly linked to the main issue, will impact the decision-making
process (Hickson et al. 1986, 167). For example, the question of mounting an
innovative program may be judged by groups not on its benefit to the organization but on who will receive credit for any success. Thus, the issues on the agenda may not be dictated by environmental concerns but by the aims of the groups
involved. Thus, it is necessary to consider not only the selection of the issues to
be discussed, but also they way that they are framed. For example, the problem
Winter 2007
305
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
of falling attendance can be interpreted either as requiring tighter control on
expenditures or the need to offer more attractive programming. Control over the
agenda takes on greater significance when decisions are overtly political.
Theorists and practitioners often view political-decision processes negatively, but the inclusion of some political elements is almost inevitable when
organizations include diverse groups with differing views. Recognizing these
differences and dealing with them through negotiation and coalition building
helps emphasize common concerns while acknowledging that legitimate differences exist. This, in turn, helps generate commitment for decision outcomes, which may be lacking if such differences are ignored or suppressed.
Politicizing the decision process may have negative effects, especially when
the concerns of some groups are not seen as legitimate (Eisenhardt and
Bourgeois 1988). This stance not only alienates some members of the organization, but it also means that important decision criteria are ignored simply
because they do not favor those who dominate the decision-making process. In
extreme cases, the intrusion of political considerations may paralyze decision
making if groups are too divided to negotiate. Although most observers agree
that highly political organizations are less effective, some authors maintain that
most political activity is benign, even beneficial (Dean and Sharfman 1993).
One of the most common functions for the leader is to direct the decisionmaking process. Of course, this role is common to all approaches to strategic
decision making, but it has particular significance when political considerations prevail. Forming committees and other bodies for making decisions will
influence the outcome by including or excluding certain interests. A leader
may seek to avoid the taint of political favoritism by acting as an impartial referee for the decision-making process. Once the rules of the game are set, the
leader ensures that all sides abide by them. The leader may take a more active
role by assembling a coalition that supports a particular strategic line. The
breadth of the interests represented and the divisions within the organization
will determine whether this role is seen as necessary leadership or irresponsible favoritism. This can be seen as a form of the transactional style in which
the leader creates mutually beneficial arrangements with enough parties to
generate sufficient political power. At the extreme, the leader may simply seek
to augment the power of his or her position through the manipulation of the
decision-making process. Indeed, some leaders have instigated strategic decision opportunities precisely for this purpose. This is most common when a
new leader arrives or when a serious crisis threatens.
The political model of strategic decision making has some applicability to
arts organizations given the diversity of interests they normally embody. We
can expect the political element to be more noticeable in arts organizations that
are older, larger, and encompass more diverse programs. As organizations age,
they typically move away from the central vision of the founder. Other mem306
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
bers, especially those recruited from outside, bring their own interpretation of
the mission, creating contrasting views. When organizations grow, there is less
direct communication among members. Only those within subunits, or those
doing similar tasks, regularly exchange views. Under these circumstances, it is
natural that opinions diverge and that some groups are defined as either alien
or inimical. In arts organizations, the existence of artistic versus operational
units will naturally provide the potential for political division. Where these
units overlap, as in small, young organizations, that potential will be limited;
as they expand and diversify, it will become more pronounced.
Big Decisions a Little at a Time: Incremental Decision Making
Both the rational and political models of strategic decision-making
processes are normally applied to major issues, those that involve important
changes in direction for the organization. The decision topic is afforded considerable attention because the outcome is likely to have significant long-term
effects on the organization’s well-being. In studying the decision-making
behavior of large institutions, however, it appears that at least some organizations seldom take such large steps. Rather, they shift their strategies through a
series of small steps that gradually increase their commitment to a specific
course of action (Johnson 1987). This approach to strategy formulation, called
“incrementalism,” was first observed in large government bureaus, but it has
also been observed in commercial organizations.
An incremental approach to strategic decision making has several distinct
advantages, the most important of which lies in the commitment of resources.
When strategic moves are implemented slowly, only limited resources are
allocated. If the outcome of the change is negative or if the organizational context shifts, a new direction may be adopted with few serious consequences
(Hickson et al. 1986, 99). For example, in a theater, several different types of
innovative programming could be offered before settling on the one or two
that would underpin a new strategic direction. The incremental approach thus
provides a form of insurance because failure at any particular stage will cause
only minimal disruption in the organization’s operations.
Although the incremental approach allows stepwise implementation of
strategic decisions, the slow pace required may have some negative effects.
Making and implementing strategic decisions through a series of limited initiatives may leave the organization constantly trying to catch up with new developments. There is always the temptation in this system to refine new programs
endlessly before committing to them fully. The potential for endless refining
imposes constraints on the organization as a whole and may affect employees at
the individual and unit levels. Those at lower levels in the organization often
interpret small steps by upper management as a lack of commitment to a parWinter 2007
307
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
ticular course of action. These employees would then hesitate to make an emotional commitment to any new goals or processes. This tendency will be especially pronounced if some initiatives have been rescinded in the past. Finally, the
lack of a decisive strategic direction may frustrate or confuse external stakeholders who do not understand the underlying logic of incremental moves.
An incremental approach to strategic decision making does not fit well
with either charismatic or transactional decision-making leadership styles.
Charismatic leaders must exhibit certainty in their approach to the future.
Incremental solutions, especially when they involve retreat from certain positions, will hardly instill the trust that followers crave. If the relationship
between leaders and their followers is based on mutual expectations, as
embodied in the transactional style, the cost of constant change, even minor
adjustments, may seem too stressful for the return.
If the leaders of an organization consciously adopt an incremental stance
toward strategy, they should be comfortable with either a participatory or
transformational style. In both of these styles, the leader articulates a clear
vision to others in the organization. This would allow leaders to outline the
step-by-step nature of incrementalism, preparing their subordinates for the
adjustments that will inevitably be required. In the transformational approach,
this would most likely take the form of urging those at all levels of the organization to search for small gains that will further a general strategic thrust.
The participatory style of leadership, perhaps the most appropriate for an
incremental strategy, would involve subordinates more deeply in the generation of alternatives and their implementation, downplaying or even eliminating, the charismatic role of leaders. The leader’s role here would focus on
encouraging diverse experiments, fostering those that were promising and
persuading the organization as a whole to accept change as a constant.
The Garbage Can: Strategy as a Pattern in Random Events
A number of writers in the area have found both the rational and political
models of the strategic decision process too deterministic (Das and Teng
1999; Dean and Sharfman 1993; Peterson 1997). They observed that strategic
decision making was often initiated and influenced by unexpected changes in
the organization itself or in its environment. Internally, the political processes
that accompany strategic decisions are complicated by multiple agendas and
complex, shifting alliances. Organizations containing a number of loosely
coupled units without clear hierarchical strata are especially prone to adopting strategies that have no clear connection to past efforts or even, in some
cases, to the problems they are purported to address.
In the garbage can process, the arena for strategic decision making is conceptualized as a garbage can containing four elements: problems, solutions,
308
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
participants, and choice opportunities (Cohen, March, and Olsen 1972; Das
and Teng 1999). When an event occurs to spark a decision opportunity, existing problems and solutions are linked. This view of strategic decision making
contrasts with those strategies discussed above in that solutions in the garbage
can model are seen to exist before the problem is recognized or highlighted.
For example, the director of a gallery may wish to add a space for experimental art. This solution may be attached to a number of problems—for
example, falling attendance, criticisms of the gallery’s programs, or dissatisfaction by younger artists. The link between problem and solution can be generated by political coalitions (who may choose to promote a crisis to impose
a solution), bureaucratic rules, or simple chance. It differs from the political
approach in that strategic decisions are reactions to random events rather than
a logical expression of specific agendas.
It is difficult to evaluate leadership styles for their applicability to the
garbage can model, given the strong role allocated to random events. Indeed
the “organized anarchies” thought to be most prone to the emergence of such
strategies, could hardly exist under the sway of a strong leader. The elements
that make such leadership difficult, such as powerful internal constituencies,
fluid membership (including volunteers), and external stakeholders with
strong internal influence, are the same elements that contribute to the indeterminacy of the process. Charismatic and transformational leaders might
emerge from such uncertainty, but their actions would almost inevitably
reduce the random element by substituting their own powerful visions. A limited form of transactional leadership might be effective under these circumstances, but, because the leader tends to have limited power, the ability to
reward subordinates would be constrained. In such situations, multiple leaders, each with his or her own constituency, would likely emerge.
Participatory leadership might prove effective in an organization characterized by a garbage can model of strategic decision making. Given the inability of
any one person to affect the outcome of the decision process, inviting a group
of colleagues to involve themselves will not overcome the influence of randomness but may help govern reaction to the problems that arise. Participatory
leadership in such a scenario would involve acknowledging the instability of the
organization’s environment as a defining factor of the strategic outlook. This
reactive, group-based type of strategic decision making has been observed in
high-tech firms participating in rapidly changing markets (Eisenhardt and
Bourgeois 1988). It is unlikely that the participatory style would be effective
once firms grow beyond a certain size, as the number of individuals who would
need to be engaged would become prohibitively large. Where the garbage can
model accurately describes the decision-making process, the successful exercise
of leadership will most likely be limited and local. The characteristics of the
four approaches to strategic decision making are summarized in table 2.
Winter 2007
309
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
Most organizations, once they grow to the point where they achieve a fixed,
multilevel structure, will partake of all four types of strategic decision-making
processes. There are very few strategic decisions that do not have some political element. It would also be unusual to observe a strategic-decision process
that is entirely rational or that completely follows the random path of the
garbage can. What is important is the dominant elements in the approach—the
way participants perceive the forces shaping their strategic destiny. If organizational members believe that process is political, they will employ coalitions
to promote their interests. An organization that normally uses an incremental
approach will be unlikely to generate long-term plans. If a leader wishes to
alter the mode of strategic decision making, it will involve significant changes
in belief as well as behavior.
An examination of the “appropriate leadership style” column in table 2,
shows that the transactional approach is appropriate under both the bureaucratic strictures of the rational approach and the more dynamic arrangements
of the political. The nature of the exchange between leader and followers will
be different under the two approaches, but the logic of leadership remains the
same. If an incremental approach is used, participatory leadership facilitates
the generation of ideas and feedback crucial to strategic success. If the
changes are provoked by a crisis, the transformational style may succeed, but
the leader would have to be exceptionally adroit to maintain high levels of
commitment through a series of small advances and occasional setbacks. To
the extent that any leadership style functions in the random world of the
garbage can, the importance of information sharing makes the participatory
leadership model the most likely. Charismatic leadership might emerge from
a truly random organizational context, but such leaders normally make all
important decisions on their own, making the process an individual rather than
organizational one (Conger and Kanungo 1998).
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have attempted to match some recognized models of
leadership with the characteristics of arts organizations. The four models discussed are appropriate in some circumstances, but no single leadership style
will be successful in all situations. Given the dynamic environment that most
arts organizations face, shifts in appropriate leadership styles will likely be
necessary. This implies that arts organizations may require changes in leaders
more often than other types of organizations. Equally, it might suggest that
leaders who can shift easily from one style to another would be more suitable
for leadership roles in the arts than those who are wedded to a single
approach. To address these and related problems, research that examines leadership activities in the arts should move away from prescriptions to analyses
310
Vol. 36, No. 4
Winter 2007
Strengths
Process is stable,
clear, and transparent
All interested parties
participate; surfaces
interests and agendas
Allows multiple
initiatives; provides for
small gains
Takes advantage of
existing solutions
Approach
Rational
Political
Incremental
Garbage can
No coherent strategy
emerges
Slow; may confuse
organizational members
May lead to overly
politicized decision
processes
Process may become
inflexible; tends to
ignore sectoral interests
Weaknesses
TABLE 2. Four Approaches to Strategic Decision Making
Transactional with
stable exchange
arrangements
Appropriate
leadership style
Fits with “organized
anarchy” nature
of many arts
organizations
Useful for organizations
with multiple programs
Participatory
Participatory;
transformational, but level
of commitment may decline
with slow rate of change
Exists in all organizations; Transactional with
seldom optimal as
dynamic coalitions
a dominant form
Applicable to larger,
more bureaucratic
organizations
Applicability to arts
organizations
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
311
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
of actual leaders’ activities and styles and their relationships to characteristics
of the organization and its environment.
An examination of different models of strategic decision making reveals a
similar result. Many arts organizations espouse participatory styles of leadership, a style appropriate only for incremental and garbage can models of decision making, neither of which provide the strong strategic direction that most
arts organizations require. Rational and political models certainly exist in
many arts organizations, but both have liabilities that may inhibit effective
strategic performance over the long term. Given the lack of empirical research
into these problems and that, aside from the odd case included in larger studies, there are virtually no detailed descriptions of strategic decisions in the
arts, it is not even possible to describe how such decisions are made, much
less offer advice to boards and managers as to how they should proceed.
Research outlining what does occur as strategic decisions are made is necessary before improvements or alternatives can be suggested.
As pressure to adopt more managerialist approaches increases, arts organizations and their leaders have little guidance on how to proceed. Ideological
attacks on corporatist procedures will avail little without viable alternatives to
propose. Much of the sparse literature in arts management is framed in terms
of “best practice” based on a few isolated cases. A more systematic approach
is needed, one that uses existing concepts and models to understand precisely
how arts organizations operate. When we understand how well current theory
fits the practice of arts management, we will be better positioned to propose a
coherent research agenda to support the practice of management in the arts.
KEYWORDS
arts management, arts organizations, decision-making process, leadership
styles
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J. 1999. Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
———. 1996. A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership.
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
———. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist 52:130–39.
———. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beerel, A. 1997. The strategic planner as prophet and leader: A case study concerning a leading
seminary illustrates the new planning skills required. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal 18 (3): 136–44.
Bryson, J. 1995. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bryson, J. M., and W. D. Roering. 1988. Initiation of strategic planning by governments. Public
Administration Review 48:995–1004.
312
Vol. 36, No. 4
Managing the Arts: Leadership under Dual Rationalities
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Cohen, M. D., J. G. March, and J. P. Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly 17:1–25.
Conger, J. A., and R. Kanungo. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. New York: Sage.
Crittenden, W. F., and V. L. Crittenden. 2000. Relationships between organizational characteristics and strategic-planning processes in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues
12 (2): 150–68.
Das, T. K., and B. S. Teng. 1999. Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management Studies 36 (6): 587–600.
Dean, J. W., and M. P. Sharfman. 1993. Procedural rationality in the strategic decision-making
process. Journal of Management Studies 30 (4): 587–610.
DiMaggio, P., and K. Stenberg. 1985. Why do some theatres innovate more than others? An
empirical analysis. Poetics 14:107–22.
Dym, B., and H. Hutson. 2005. Leadership in nonprofit organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy
of Management Journal 32 (3): 107–22.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and L. J. I. Bourgeois. 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in highvelocity environments. Academy of Management Journal 31 (4): 737–70.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and M. J. Zbaracki. 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic Management
Journal 13 (8): 17–37.
Evrard, Y. and F. Colbert 2000. Arts management: A new discipline entering the millennium?
International Journal of Arts Management 2 (2): 4–13.
Hickson, D. J., R. Butler, D. Cray, G. R. Mallory, and D. C. Wilson. 1986. Top decisions:
Strategic decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, G. 1987. Strategic change and the management process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Krug, K., and C. B. Weinberg. 2005. Mission, money, and merit: Strategic decision making by
nonprofit managers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14 (3): 325–42.
Lindenberg, M. 2001. Are we at the cutting edge or the blunt edge? Improving NGO organizational performance with private and public sector strategic management frameworks. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership 11 (3): 247.
Lohmann, R. 2001. Editor’s notes. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11 (3): 399–403.
Mulcahy, K. V. 2003. Entrepreneurship or social Darwinism? Privatization and American cultural patronage. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 33 (3): 165–84.
Mulhare, E. M. 1999. Mindful of the future: Strategic planning ideology and the culture of nonprofit management. Human Organization 58 (3): 323–30.
Palmer, I. 1998. Arts managers and managerialism: A cross-sector analysis of CEOs’ orientation
and skills. Public Productivity and Management Review 2 (4): 433–522.
Peterson, R. S. 1997. A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and
vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 72 (5): 1107–121.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1973. The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavistock.
Rentschler, R., J. Radbourne, R. Carr, and J. Rickard. 2002. Relationship marketing, audience
retention and performance arts organisation viability. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 7 (2): 118–30.
Santora, J. C., and J. C. Sarros. 2001. CEO tenure in nonprofit community-based organizations:
A multiple case study. Career Development International 6 (1): 56–60.
Schwenk, C. R. 1988. The essence of strategic decision making. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Sicca, L. M., and L. Zan. 2005. Much ado about management: Managerial rhetoric in the transformation of Italian opera houses. International Journal of Arts Management 7 (3): 46–64.
Tschirhart, M. 1996. Artful leadership: Managing stakeholder problems in nonprofit arts organizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Young, D. R., R. M. Hollister, V. A. Hodgkinson, and Associates, eds. 1993. Governing, leading
and managing nonprofit organizations: New insights from research and practices. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G. 2006. Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Winter 2007
313