Organizational dysfunction at a major regional theater company

Change Proposal

The Situation

Spending any time at all at one of the nation's first, oldest and largest state theaters, a founding member of the League of Resident Theaters, brings to mind only one phrase above all others: "Off with their heads." The theatrical organization is run as if by the mad Queen in Alice in Wonderland. No real management is performed. Instead, edicts are issued by the CEO and founder and carried out without regard to the bottom line or any standards of acceptable organizational behavior. In short, there is the rule of fear, and nothing more.

When the theatre runs into problems, the solution is not to find remedies for those problems, but to replace personnel -- itself a highly expensive proposition -- and seek more government and corporate grants to cover the costs of operating the theater. The board of directors has been asked by more than several concerned senior staff to hire a company manager and allow the current Artistic Director to deal only with production matters, and not with finances, marketing, HR and so on. In the past seven years, they have failed to act.

Luckily, the Artistic Director is masterful at gaining grants, although the endowment of the theatre has also been raided. In prior years, the budget had been bailed out by local wealthy individuals with an interest in theatre. In effect, the theatre has never had to 'live on the economy' and pay attention to the bottom line. The effects of the complete lack of attention to personnel issues have not had the effect on the viability of the theater they would otherwise have had.

No are there checks and balances internally. Two years ago, the financial manager of the company pled to significant charges of embezzlement; it seems unlikely, in face of the fact that her predecessor had run the finances virtually unchecked for more than 40 years, that irregularities had never occurred before.

A grant to archive significant theatrical memorabilia and literature literally found rotting on the third floor of the administration/artists' residence building was obtained several years ago. In a falling out with the archivist hired to sort it all out, the CEO again exercised his considerable local political pull to not only fire her, but also allege that she had done irregular things with the funds and/or the archive material.

Yet another executive, the marketing director for a time, was forced to resign after a season in which the marketing department's advice about what not to present was ignored completely, and the season flopped.

Two development directors in a row were fired, one because he didn't bring in sufficient money to cover the operating deficits in the budget, the next because, as far as could be ascertained, hers was the next head in line to roll. A production manager was fired eventually, but only after her own ego and ill temper had caused a succession of four or five technical directors to quit. The concession manager was fired after ten years of truly selfless service for meager pay. A group sales manager was fired for incompetence; that was one of the only ones with substantive evidence to back it up. Her successor simply quit when she realized her head was next in line in the continuing round of firings.

The artistic director is provably brilliant in artistic and creative matters. He is a lot less than brilliant in financial management, and most particularly, in Human Resource Management. The culture of the organization is such that all employees pander to the Artistic Director, and none -- except consultants he brings in from time to time -- dare disagree. There is no integrity used in dealing with the staff, which numbers about 50-year round, and at least twice that in the peak summer, spring and early fall months when plays are presented at two locations in rotation. The only law is that of Actors Equity; actors are treated well. All others are at the mercy of the Artistic Director's whims or current need of scapegoats for artistic decisions the audiences found less than pleasing.

The well-treated Equity Actors actually constitute a minority of the personnel, with box office, administrating, marketing, scene and costume production and the other theater crafts, plus extensive maintenance on two theatres, four other aging buildings and about six acres of grounds making up the lion's share. If the theater is to move out of a mode of continually seeking 'bridge' financing to cover its management excesses and production income shortfalls, or raiding the endowment, then it will need to begin to operate on a business-like foundation, which would -- it is hoped -- have the added effect of making a decent workplace for the other professionals and staff members employed there, and would conceivably cut the turnover down. (In fact, that would also have the effect of causing the Artistic Director to listen to his marketing staff regarding choices of plays and to his finance staff regarding costs and so on, which would also help take the corporate culture out of the 'fear drama' in which it currently operates.)

The proposed change is to hire a Company Manager, who would be responsible for all things not creative, and would run the theater but in concert with the Artistic Director. This Company Manager would have more than complete parity with the Artistic Director and could, for compelling financial and marketing reasons, veto productions. He or she would report directly to the Board of Directors. The Artistic Director would report to the Company Manager.

A secondary intention would be to add integrity-based management to the theater's operations. In fact, this alone would go a long way toward rectifying the constant drain of turnover in what should be permanent staff positions, and would also help heal the wounds in the eyes of the public, which has been treated in local newspapers to the soap operas regarding the finance manager and archivist, among other things.

Change Implementation Plan

There will need to be a two-pronged approach to solving this problem. The Board of Directors will have to seriously investigate the possibility of hiring a Company Director. In view of past experience, however, they are unlikely to do this without sign can't urging from the permanent staff, and even then, probably not. In the past, when the Board made changes at the theater, it was in response to urging by local columnists, and it might be best to enlist their aid again. Now, because of the scandals reported in the local newspapers, it should be even easier to get the public's attention, which will get the board's attention.

It is not inconceivable that a staff member will be sacrificed in all this; in the past, when the Artistic Director thought any senior staff were conferring with the board, he found ways to get them to leave. In short, a senior staff member will have to 'volunteer' for duty in presenting the case for a Company Manager to the Board of Directors, and will have to be prepared to counter very substantial and serious resistance, much of which will hinge upon the Board's expected resistance to it by the Artistic Director, who has ruled as a monarch for almost ten years; his predecessor did the same for 30 years, almost ruining the theatre not by management issues but by horrible productions, in the process.

So the plan is this:

volunteer senior staffer will prepare a dossier of the excesses and firings and voluntary quitting of, especially, senior staff. Included will be the dollar costs of this, as well as dollar losses (when the marketing director was forced out, the $40,000 a year her husband's company donated to the theatre was also lost), and the public relations costs.

Additionally, that person will have to prepare a document for the board including the results for other theater companies that have both an Artistic Director and Company Manager.

It is likely that virtually all resistance will be with the Board and the current Artistic Director; the staff is likely to positively anticipate having professional financial and human resources management.

References http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=openPageViewer&docId=5000881292

Ezzy, D. (2001). A Simulacrum of Workplace Community: Individualism and Engineered Culture. Sociology, 35(3), 631. Retrieved August 31, 2003, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.

Fields, Suzanne. "Investing in a culture of character; Corporate irresponsibility has lasting effect on the rest of society." The Washington Times. July 11, 2002. A21 www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=openPageViewer&docId=5001276648

Kettl, D.F. (1999, July). Clueless in the Capital. Washington Monthly, 18. Retrieved August 31, 2003, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.

A www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=openPageViewer&docId=5001039792

Larsen, J., & Peck, S. (2001, Spring). Making Change. Alternatives Journal, 27, 17. Retrieved August 31, 2003, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.

Sass, James S. "Characterizing Organizational Spirituality: An Organizational Communication Culture Approach. Communication Studies, 51 (3), 195.