The creative and operating life of any arts organization unfolds in fits and starts. Rather than gliding through extended periods of seamless stasis, the reality for most organizations is one of punctuated periods of interruptions and ‘shifting gears’. These include expected transition moments (e.g. the conclusion of one project and beginning of the next) or unexpected moments (e.g. the sudden departure of a key staff member).

In times of transition organizations can be especially open to change and these junctures therefore become opportunities for leadership to insert or leverage planned and needed changes. Thinking of all transition moments as opportunities for transformation helps leadership to respond proactively to disruptions as they happen. Unlike expected and even unexpected transition moments, disruptions demand change and can range from annoyances (crashing computers) to major crises (an opening night theatre flood). Disruptions tend to trigger emotional and reactive responses that result in implementation of changes out of context and at inopportune moments. This in turn can lead to serial reactive responses that can quickly pull an organization off-center.

Echoing a trend in corporate culture of intentional disruption – with the expectation of yielding ‘disruptive innovation’ – some in the nonprofit sector are intentionally throwing their organizations into a state of disruption. While novel, this approach seems to confuse distraction with productive development. Disruptions can’t be eliminated and certainly shouldn’t be invited or created, but they can be mitigated and even be turned to advantage when arts professionals become more proactive in utilizing transition moments. The more disruptions can be viewed as and dealt with as transition moments the more all consequences of disruption can be absorbed without organizational distortion resulting.

The TLC Toronto underscored for us the fine but significant difference between transition and disruption. That is, the difference between a process of planned, deliberate change and the need for a process of intervention. We are aware that there is a tendency to disqualify or distance organizations experiencing disruption – among funders and collaborators in particular. We encourage these others, as we have done, to rethink disruption and to engage with rather than pulling back from organizations actively navigating disruption. As long as an organization acknowledges and proactively addresses disruptive forces, we believe that they can effectively engage and use resources for positive change.