Essential Components for Successful Co-Leadership in Non-Profit Theatre

Home , Emily Mann (director), Zelda Fichandler

ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL CO-LEADERSHIP IN NON-PROFIT THEATRE

BY ARIN D. SULLIVAN SPRING 2012

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Master of Science in Arts Administration Drexel University

Arin D. Sullivan, B.A.

* * * * *

Drexel University 2012

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 ii

Dedicated to my co-leader for this lifetime, Andrea Taylor, to whom I send all of my love, trust and respect.

iii

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.

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

LIST OF FIGURES

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

"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. 1 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.

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).

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).

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).

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.

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

7 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

8 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.

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 - 10 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

11 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.

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 13 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.

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.

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

16 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

(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 18 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).

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 20 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).

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 22 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.

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

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 x Executive and Artistic Portland Stage Company 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 x Founding Artistic Theatre for a New Audience Director x

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.

Figure 2: The Leadership Triangle

(Langley 1990, pg. 174)

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. 28

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 29

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. 30