Recently the long-time artistic director of a mid-sized theatre asked, “Why after all this time, does our Board continue to be so important yet so dysfunctional?” In fairness, this director’s Board, like most, is comprised of a number of deeply committed community partners. But, like many theatres we work with, the Board structure and expectations they embrace reflect a mid-20^th century arts environment of philanthropy, patronage and subsidy. In an early-21^st century environment of reciprocity, partnerships and investment, the roles and expectations of the traditional model are wildly out of synch.

A great deal of our work focuses on Board dysfunction, and almost all of it begins by helping professional leadership understand that this is a systemic issue of an outdated approach, not a situational failure. Unfortunately, awareness of dysfunction never translates to instant change or greater functionality. Furthermore, change must be led and directed. Just because a Board is aware that their structure and expectations are no longer working, does not mean that they will change themselves.

In our experience most Board members are genuinely interested in supporting the organizations with which they are affiliated. The issues with boards are not caused by ‘bad’ Board members but are either a result of ‘miscast’ Board members or dysfunctional structures and expectations.   We need to both address the structures and expectations and recast or remove those Board members who are miscast or truly problematic.

In other words, making a Board functional requires a process. A process that begins with what’s working and who ‘gets it’ – in part two of the series, we’ll share more about the process…