A Look at Leadership:
Board Involvement
by Amy Freidman

A vital component of any non-profit operation is Board support and input.  Our Boards guide us through challenges and help position us for success.  But where do we draw the line when it comes to decision making?  Where and when does staff expertise take over?  These questions resonate through all types of non-profits, especially arts organizations.  Arts organizations rely on Boards to represent their best interest and protect their public image; but what is the general manner of Board/staff relationships and when is it appropriate for professional staff to step in and volunteer staff to step aside?

This article begins a two-part series of exploring the Board’s role in arts organizations. In this first part, we will describe the two general types of Board/staff relationships and how this reflects in programming decisions at performing arts centers.

Board & Staff Relationships 101:
Oversight versus Active
Over the course of our 18 years as arts management consultants, we have worked with many Boards. Although each situation and Board/staff relationship is unique, two types of relationships usually occur: oversight or active. In the oversight Board, the professional staff makes artistic, management and business decisions independently and reports these activities to the Board. In return, the oversight Boards raise money, test ideas and troubleshoot unique issues. The active Board, as its label suggests, is more involved in the day-to-day decision making of its organization. This Board may have subcommittees (e.g. fundraising, Board recruitment, financial, etc.) to supervise and manage issues such as capital campaigns, educational services, programmatic shifts and building construction and improvements. Active Boards see themselves as partners with their professional staff in the management and running of the organization.

It is unlikely that this role as “co-director” will change for the Board. For example, active Boards do not suddenly become oversight Boards unless there is a change in membership, leadership, environment, or organizational needs and/or structure. In the case of many of our clients who are building new facilities or expanding existing ones, it is essential that the Board be actively engaged and involved in the organization as there are many policy issues (i.e. agreements with local arts organizations and rental procedures) to work out before the opening of a new and or expanded facility. It is anticipated that, in time, many of these active Boards involved in capital projects will transition to oversight Board as the organization reaches stability in its new home.

[ back to top ]

Testing the Relationship: Research into Program Decisions
Recent AMS research has focused on trying to understand how Boards of performing arts centers (PAC’s) interact with staff regarding programming decisions. Using an online survey, we asked PAC executives about their Boards’ role and interest in programmatic selection, and how this breakdown of responsibilities works within their organizations.

Of the 18 PAC executives nationwide that participated in the survey, 89% revealed that although their Board expresses interest in programming, it is primarily directed at the financial viability of programmatic decisions and a desire to be the first notified of season selections, not in the actual selection of programming itself. In general, Boards are occupied in how programs will continue to move the mission of the organization forward. This is reflected in one respondent’s statement that their Board’s relationship to programming is reflected in two interests: “First, financial.  How are specific programs doing with respect to the bottom line? [Second], in the more general strategic sense: how do programs relate to our larger mission…?” In almost all cases, the Board does not interfere with the work of staff or attempt censoring programs. In few cases, Board’s have established Programming Committees, a sub-committee dedicated to issues of programming. But even these sub-committees remain in an advisory and supervisory role: “They provide leadership, advocacy and serve in an advisory role to assist with conceptualizing the overall mission and direction. They do not manage specific programming.”

On the whole, our research demonstrates that PAC Boards tend to be of the oversight variety in regards to programming. Instead of being driven by, and potentially distracted by, a desire to decide what show to produce or present, the Board is compelled to assist, supervise and guide the organization because they believe in the mission, and it is the mission that directs the programming. The Board is involved in high-level decisions for the organization, such as deciding to move or expand facilities, and entrusts content development to the capable leaders they selected to run the organization. In return, the leaders educate, inform and involve the Boards about programming decisions. This reciprocity is the cornerstone of a successful Board/staff relationship, regardless of oversight versus active stance, not only in programming, but in all aspects of managing a performing arts center.

We're interested in your insights and perspective! Click here to share your thoughts on these and other industry issues with our clients and colleagues.

Back to Insights