![]() |
|
| Vol. 5 No. 1 |
|
Coaching the Arts Quarterback by Joe Kluger Although modern management gurus Warren Bennis3 and Peter Drucker4 have debunked the myth that there is a genetic factor to leadership, it was many years earlier that Vince Lombardi, the legendary coach of the Green Bay Packers football team, said "Leaders are not born; they are made."5 Arts organizations now recognize the need for executive leadership training, albeit with a bias that although cognitive learning programs are valuable they are not a substitute for on the job training.
Effective arts supervisors understand that subordinates learn from experiences only when they receive ongoing, specific, timely feedback about an error, understand what behaviors caused it, and know what modifications are necessary to correct it. The challenge for arts CEOs is that the mechanisms to provide regular feedback on their own performance are often lacking, even when human resource systems are in place for others on staff. Boards of non-profit arts and culture groups often place a higher priority on policy matters and fundraising than providing guidance and oversight to the CEO. An annual review of the CEO's performance is helpful, but even when done thoroughly by the Board Chair or an HR Committee, it is not as effective as ongoing feedback. The members of the senior staff team, who are most aware of the leaders' strengths and weaknesses, are another underutilized source of feedback for executives. Yet, how many arts leaders solicit such feedback? How many really mean it when they say, "Tell me what you think?" And, how many leaders make it safe for subordinates to give them honest, critical feedback? According to Bennis, "One of the tragedies of most organizations is that people will let the leaders make mistakes when they themselves know better."10 Experienced "leaders know the importance of having someone in their lives who tells them the truth.11 The challenge for inexperienced arts leaders is that when they get feedback, they do not always hear it; and even when they do, the ongoing support mechanisms are often not in place to allow for a developmental learning experience. Feedback can also be inhibited by the myth that, because a successful leader is so critical to the organization, criticism of the leader somehow weakens the organization. There is a growing sense in business literature, however, that this heroic model of leadership is flawed and, according to author Jim Collins, not correlated with long-term organizational success.12 Assuming the leader has all the answers is also inconsistent with Bennis' view of leadership development that there can be "no progress without mistakes... indeed, if you don't make mistakes, you aren't trying hard enough."13 Recognizing the internal organizational challenges of providing developmental learning experiences for leaders, executive coaching has become an accepted support mechanism in the corporate world in the last decade. It is not a remedial method for correcting poor performance, but a process to help both seasoned and rising executives to become more effective leaders. We accept in sports without question that even a talented athlete like Green Bay quarterback Bart Starr needs the guidance of a coach like Vince Lombardi to be successful. Why should it be a sign of failure or weakness for an executive to receive advice and counsel from a coach? Executive coaching has not yet become widespread in non-profit arts and culture organizations, in part because of the resources, in terms of both time and money, required to hire a qualified external coach. A typical 12 month coaching program of bi-weekly two-hour sessions costs between $9,000 and $12,000. While this is significant for an arts organization on a tight budget, it is minimal relative to the costs of replacing an executive with great potential who fails to achieve it. It could also be a modest cost relative to the loss of income to an organization because an arts executive did not listen carefully enough to the indirect communications from a disgruntled, but conflict averse, major donor. Furthermore, executive coaching can save the organization money in the long run by creating more effective leaders, who inspire and motivate employees and volunteers to work toward shared organizational goals. Executive coaching builds the skills that enable leaders to inspire (rather than command) respect and to exhibit the behaviors that motivate "followers"14 to work together toward these goals. Executive coaching is an ongoing, confidential, one-on-one relationship between a leader and coach – supported and paid for by the organization – through which they:
Executive coaching is not appropriate in every situation. It is not effective if the executive is not motivated to change behavior; if the organization is trying to make a case for termination; or if the executive lacks the intelligence or skills to do the job.17 When the executive is willing to make a sincere effort to change; when the organization, the executive, and the coach work in partnership to achieve maximum learning and impact; and when there is mutual trust and respect between executive and coach; the individual and institutional benefits can be tremendous. All that is required is the recognition – as John F. Kennedy said – that "leadership and learning are indispensable to each other"18 and the acknowledgement that "it is the capacity to develop and improve their skills that distinguishes leaders from their followers."19
3 Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus. Leaders (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.,1985). 207. |