When business school thinking comes to save the arts |
|
This one is a bit complex. The short version: The problem solving process that nearly every arts institution uses (and that is borrowed from the business world) is often dogmatic, simplistic, and self-justifying when confronted with the nonlinear complexities of the arts. |
|
Working in the education sector recently, I noticed a familiar dynamic from my life in the arts: the dominance of MBA-based “strategic” thinking which emphasizes planning, “innovation,” outputs and outcomes, and measurable assessment. This kind of “strategic” thinking can be effective when two key conditions are present: a. There is consensus on the goal. b. That goal can be directly and accurately measured without creating distortion. In the simplest case, if the goal is financial, both conditions are present: a. We want to earn X amount of money. b. We will look at how much we earned on Y date. |
|
In the last few decades, that thinking has migrated to sectors, like education and the arts, where those two key conditions are not present. In these situations, the MBA mind does three subtle but massively impactful things: 1) It imposes a goal: Here's where we all want to go. 2) It asserts it has tools to accurately measure success. 3) It ignores distortions created by that measurement. ★ |
|
Education is a great example. If you care about education, you know that all the meaningful debates of the past century have been exactly about what the goal of education is. Americans have impassioned and far-ranging battles about what a good education should do. Definitions of “success” are contested and vary over time and by location, culture, class, etc. The MBA mind breaks down in that context: If we can't agree on what we are trying to do, how will we know if we've accomplished it? So here’s what they do: 1) First, they impose a goal: Let's all just agree that we want children to learn these five skills. One of the biggest red flags for neoliberal MBA oversimplification is when someone says: “Well, surely we can all agree on X.” No, we can’t. 2) Second, they assert that the goal is accurately measurable: standardized testing, benchmarks, No Child Left Behind. My teenage children have been subjected to endless testing in the Philadelphia school system: national tests, state tests, district tests. But I have yet to meet a teacher or administrator who finds educational value in them. 3) Third, they ignore the inevitable distortions that result from measurement: teaching to the test, faking test results, schools expelling children who drag down their scores, etc. Goodhart’s Law says: As soon as a social measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Once you begin allocating resources based on ostensibly useful data, that data becomes compromised. The MBA playbook: Impose a goal, declare it measurable, and ignore the distortions of measurement. |
|
★ The same is true in the arts. Gorgeous and complex debates rage about the roles artists play and art’s relation to community, to history, to the market economy, to colonization, to entertainment, to democracy, and to our multicultural nation, to name a few. But the MBA mind needs a goal. I have been an artist for long enough to see multiple cycles of the MBA mind in the art world. The goal is Access. The goal is Artistic Excellence (ha!). The goal is Arts Education. The goal is Diversity. The goal is Participation. The goal is Creative Placemaking. The goal is Equity. Each time, success was measured by data that, it was asserted, would tell us if we reached our goal. Each time, organizations and artists contorted themselves to fit the new goal—Why, we’ve always been focused on Access—and shaped their data to (surprise!) succeed with every project. Each time, funders rolled out the new arts goal guilelessly: “We had it wrong the twelve previous iterations, but now we've finally solved it.” Really? Cause your hubris sounds exactly like your predecessor’s, and your predecessor’s predecessor. (It’s important to clarify that I am referring here to the abstracted philanthropy of foundations and government programs. Financial support given by individuals to support cultural activities they know, understand, and believe in tends to have fewer constraints and much embodied trust.) ★ It’s not simply that the strategy shifts constantly; MBA thinking is strongly prejudiced toward strategies that create numerical, measurable, consensus outcomes: audience size, classes taught, online participation, and the endless surveys that (claim to) quantify subjective experiences. It is telling that I’ve never seen an arts sector strategy prioritize “artists working in their studios,” though that it is by far the best indicator I’ve seen for generating meaningful, sustained culture and cultural engagement. |
|
★ Let's talk back to the business school mind. We cannot entirely avoid MBA thinking, but we can be learn to see and point out its simplifications and blind spots, rather than letting it colonize our own thinking. I keep my eyes open for The Three Sins of the MBA Mind: The imposition of a goal. The assertion of a measurement tool. Ignoring distortions caused by that measurement. |
|
Here are some phrases I use when MBA thinking comes to save me and my art world: “I notice that your strategy assumes a specific goal. How did you choose it? Who was involved? What if it’s wrong for this community?” ★ “Surely none of us have the hubris to think we can fit all artists, all art traditions and intentions into a single strategy.” ★ “Your strategy and measurement requirements suggest that you don't trust the arts and culture practitioners in this community; that, without your imposed regimen, you believe we will not effectively steward the creation and sharing of culture. What made you not trust us? What might help rebuild that trust?” ★ “The distortions of measurement are especially acute in arts and culture and render most so-called ‘data’ suspect. I’m sure you are familiar with Goodhart’s Law, no?” ★ “Defining the role of art and artists does not merely lead to colonialist answers; the question itself is suffused with colonialism.” ★ “Have you considered reinvesting in your predecessor’s strategy, which was rolled out with similar fanfare?” ★ “I’m thinking about the cost of making your grantees pivot every few years. Do you factor that into your strategy?" ★ “How do you personally participate in arts and culture? Does this philanthropic strategy resonate with your embodied experience of the arts? Or is your strategy aimed at people not like you, and if so, why?" ★ “It’s likely that your successor will move on from your strategy to something new and, in their mind, more effective. What critique do you think they will have of your approach?” |
|
Generating Opportunities: gigs, shows, residencies, tours, artist talks, commissions online workshop June 14
(June 7 workshop is sold out) |
|
Gigs don't just happen. There are things you already do—and things you can do—to generate shows, tours, residencies, commissions, artist talks, etc. I will offer doable, artist-centric tools and prompts for finding opportunities that fit your practice and intentions. As with everything in Artists U, this approach centers on your art, your mission, and how you already work. This workshop is conversational and participatory; enrollment is limited. The session will be recorded for folks who cannot attend live. Generating Opportunities Wednesday, June 14, 12:00-2:00 pm EDT (GMT-4) $25.00 |
|
I am writing to you because you took an Artists U workshop or downloaded Making Your Life as an Artist. Focus and attention are essential to artists so if these emails take up your time without giving you something in return, please do hit the unsubscribe button and go make art. |
|
|
