This is the second post in Generator’s ‘Governance Reimaginings’ blog series. You can find all posts in the series here, and everything we’ve published related to boards here. In this post, Generator Strategic Advisors Co-Chair Nidhi Khanna responds to a Governance Reimaginings session led by Jane Marsland.
Nidhi Khanna
Over my 20-year non-profit arts career, I have interacted with various organizational boards in different capacities, ranging from frontline employee that only hears sparingly about the nebulous “Board”, to senior leader presenting and pitching at board meetings and committees, to Board Member myself. I’ve worked with large institutional boards, smaller community non-profit boards, governance boards, working boards, and all the committees that go along with Board governance.
Most boards I’ve worked with have had similar characteristics: members are predominantly white men—more recently, increasing numbers of white women—with varying levels of experience working in the arts or non-profit world.
When there is a diversity of representation in the Board composition, members from equity-seeking groups rarely have any real power, are frequently relegated to committees that have limited reach within the overall organization, and are often a lone voice expected to represent a whole spectrum of opinions in the governance of the organization.
It’s encouraging to see changes in these demographics in the arts space, however we have a long way to go before the dynamics of board composition filter into meaningful impact on the work accomplished by an arts organization. We see organizations tout their EDI initiatives and attempts at achieving representation in their workforce, but when marginalized and racialized people are still accountable on paper to a predominantly white board, we must accept that this is tokenism and colonialism in action. Generator’s outgoing Lead Producer, Kristina Lemieux, breaks down the history of the prevailing governance model in Canada in this blog post, and surprise, dear Reader, “the nonprofit/charity model is inherently patriarchal and capitalist and therefore colonial and racist.”
In the midst of many challenges in the arts sector, our entrepreneurial, grassroots model for engagement, creation and audience building is often at the mercy of an archaic model of non-profit governance.
Arts boards are often composed of volunteers who have little or no experience with the creative process. Rather, they are chosen for their potential fundraising network or expertise, creating a power dynamic that is fundamentally rooted in capitalism and white privilege, leading to board dysfunction, particularly amongst boards that are embracing “diversity” without truly giving up power.
So what to do about this archaic model that at best has active, engaged members who understand their responsibilities to the organization and the overall arts ecosystem, and at its worst, is padding in someone’s corporate bio or LinkedIn profile?
Traditional roles and responsibilities of non-profit boards are summarized elsewhere (you can refer to this webinar or to the Board of Directors page on ArtistProducerResource.com here), so let’s move to the more potent question for today: “what exactly is the responsibility of a non-profit arts board in this current time?” As part of Generator’s Governance Reimaginings project, Jane Marsland led a session addressing this very question, focusing on the need to shift board dynamics beyond approval of audited statements and strategic planning sessions, to broader discourse around transformation of the current arts ecology away from classism, patriarchy and subservience to….well, something else.
ARTS Action Research’s arts-centric concept for a healthy arts organization, via Jane Marsland. The Centre holds the principles, values, mission, purpose and particular aesthetic of the arts organization which is articulated in a document that is most fully understood by everyone in the first circle around the Centre, the Core.
Jane Marsland on Reframing Governance
With over 40 years in arts leadership, and many a board experience over the years, Jane has been instrumental in pushing to redefine non-profit board governance in the arts. In her session, Jane highlighted several areas of current governance fragility to be considered as we better understand how to create a dynamic and sustainable arts sector.
Here are three questions any arts board should be asking itself as we move through the next iteration of the arts sector in Canada:
1. Do we truly understand the artistic process?
The effective functioning of an arts board is tied to the creative process. Board members must have a true understanding of the artistic process of an organization in order to bring those values into this process at the governance level. Many of us have been there, that first meeting when you welcome in new board members, round robin introductions ensue, and sure enough a newer board member openly jokes about how this is the first time they are interacting with the organization, they know nothing about the arts, and thank so much for having them. It seems absurd, but it happens more often than you might think. A board that doesn’t understand the artistic process of the organization cannot understand how creative ideas are incubated and explored, how conflict is uncovered and resolved, how fiduciary decisions take place, and ultimately, how the organization functions—yet these are all foundational frameworks of effective governance, even for a board that is not involved in day-to-day operations.
2. Who is on our Board and why?
If you have sat on a board you may be familiar with the often heralded “board recruitment” conversation. Board renewal is an integral part of governance, but all too often arts organizations will use the opportunity to bring on board members who are believed to hold value without any real connection to the mission, vision or values of the organization. I once interviewed for a board where staff had asked me to put my name forward because of my understanding of the organization, my previous volunteer activities with the company and my overall expertise in the arts. I had a great conversation with the Board Chair for over an hour only to be told that at this particular moment, they needed someone with more fundraising experience. The traditional understanding of Board composition prevailed, with the Board looking for someone who had fundraising listed on their resume. This rigidity in their approach meant they missed out on someone with a network of emerging potential donors to contribute to donor renewal, new relationships with sponsor organizations, strong business acumen and sector expertise. Next time you engage in board renewal, ask yourself, does the “job description” work for the communities you want to engage, or is it based on a colonial notion of what it means for someone to add value to a board?
3. What is the lifecycle of our organization?
Understanding the lifecycle of arts organizations is central to understanding how they function. Boards are generally galvanized around the hope of growth, increased funding, dynamic programming, and the proliferation of hiring. Exciting times. But what about the opposite end of the life cycle, the part that no one wants to speak of or engage in strategically? When is it time for an arts organization to have its last curtain call? What is the Board’s responsibility in that discussion and strategy? I have seen first-hand as boards struggle with the difficult choice of saying “no” or redirecting staff when they know at their core that operations aren’t working, the financials are a mess, staff are unhappy and the narrative they are receiving isn’t the complete picture of what is going on. Toxic soup for sure! These conversations usually play out with one or two board members raising concerns that are explained away with vague answers or discussed “in camera” or, when they really hit the nail on the head, are met with silence or redirected (often these board members suddenly leave the board at the next AGM). This odd dynamic can fuel an environment that is psychologically unsafe for board members to speak up and truly adhere to their fiduciary responsibility. What is left is a rosy picture of success—until the organization is in crisis, put on notice by funders, and forced to consider winding down operations. But what if there was another way, one where arts boards openly discuss the lifecycle of the organization? A healthy arts organization fuels creativity by ensuring arts leaders and board members are only in their positions for a set period of time (a topic for another day). What if the same intentionality was applied at the organizational level? Like the last season of your favourite TV show, the last season of a performing arts organization could be one of celebration, excitement, and renewal as it morphs into a new form.
Strategy Knotworking from Liberating Structures, via Jane Marsland: six Strategy Knotworking questions are arrayed graphically with LS [Liberating Structures] methods useful for answering each question in parentheses. A visual approach reinforces the sequence of answers that reveal a story unfolding. Read more here or visit LiberatingStructures.com.
With all this food for thought, I encourage you to engage your board in central questions around governance. Maybe these ideas resonated with you or maybe they sparked another train of thought. Maybe you think I’m off-base. Great. My call to action is for Board Members to make this a standing agenda item at your board meetings, a discussion for your next board retreat and an action for your next board renewal process.
Let’s start talking, because the next generation of the arts in Canada needs to rethink structures and systems at every level, including governance, reimagined.
Governance Reimaginings asks how we can deconstruct inherited governance structures to create systems of accountability and community care that support, and are aligned with, the values of the organizations and individuals they serve. Structured as a knowledge exchange between Generator, Shakespeare in the Ruff, and the Toronto Dance Community Love-in, Governance Reimaginings took place between April-December 2021 and featured a series of instigations by invited guest speakers. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Chalmers Family Fund, administered by the Ontario Arts Council, for this project.
