Why don’t we treat ourselves better?

The other night I ran into a great friend who I hadn’t seen in a while.  We caught up briefly.  I was delighted to hear that she had reached out beyond theater to radio.  But what struck a chord was when she mentioned how working outside of theatre, made her realize how tired she was from a life lived constantly in tech rehearsals.  This made me think about how unhealthy our business can be.

Let’s start with the concept of tech.  AEA standards and what producers can afford comes in packages of 10/12 hour days.   Now let’s be honest on any given tech day very few people involved in the production work 10 out of 12 hours.  Crew, designers, stage managers, etc. are always called before the actors and stay after for production meetings.  Even the actors working under union rules usually work longer than the 10 hours, whether they are running lines, reviewing their blocking, etc, most actors during the tech period through opening are focused on the show they are doing more or less from the time they wake up until they go to bed.  The theory is that the higher the contract tier, the more ten out of twelve days you can do.  For example a Broadway show often does 10/12s from tech to press nights.  Off-Broadway shows may do a week of 10/12s and then rehearse up to 5 hours more each day.  It is exhausting.  And in most cases, designers live in this process the majority of their lives.  Even when a show is up and running there are understudy rehearsals, publicity events, put-ins, etc.  The point is there is a heck of a lot of work outside of rehearsals and performances that most people don’t really think of they just live it. 

The staffs of nonprofits, don’t escape the rigorous schedules.  In addition to regular office hours, many leaders and staff members attend tech, have early morning committee meetings and evening board meetings, must participate in a variety of social events, should see shows at other theatres, and must be at the curtain of a show most nights. 

In addition to the exhausting schedule, theatre folks spend the majority of their lives in building that are either so cold in the summer that you need a sweater or so hot in the winter that you can feel your throat dry the minute you walk in the door.  Many theatres are in older building that don’t have the best air circulation.  In tech or in nonprofit offices you can spend hours sitting in the same place, in the same position.  Or you can spend all day running from meeting to meeting, rehearsal hall to audition space, etc. always in transition in and out of the elements back indoors.

An exhausting schedule, cabin fever, lack of fresh oxygen are just the beginning.  For some reason, theater greenrooms, rehearsal halls and offices are usually filled junk food, snacks, endless supplies of caffeine, and tons of fast food or takeout.  Between short meal breaks, long rehearsal hours and too many cocktail parties and events, keeping a healthy eating schedule is more or less out of the question.

As a group we are not eating well, can barely keep our eyes open and our minds focused, and spend less time outdoors than vampires.  Then many theater folks are smokers.  Musicals can wreck havoc on the body without proper training.  Raked stages tear bodies apart (let’s just admit it – you try walking on a rake in high heels, I have had to do it too many times and I’m just short not an actor).  Haze fills their lungs – sorry it aggravates allergies and asthma.    And after a day filled with all of the above, who doesn’t want a drink.

Of course I have described the worst of it all.  There are plenty of folks who make frequent appearances at their gyms or yoga classes.  Many even train for advanced body conditioning.  There a lots who have unbelievable discipline in what they eat and treat their bodies like temples (at least reformed temples if not orthodox ones).  But as with many careers this takes a lot of hard work.  Yet when theatres are built (and goodness knows we have built or renovated a whole lot of them recently for good or for bad), staff and artist amenities are the first things cut.  What would happen if every theatre created a small gym and mediation room on site?  What would happen if changed the rules and schedules so people could get a little more sleep and a bit more fresh air?  What if we planned the entire tech process for each production rather than by industry standards?  I challenge that rather than making the process take longer it may actually make us work more efficiently and with much greater focus.  Who says you have to do 10/12s?  What if we said that production meetings couldn’t go into the wee hours of the night and finance committees weren’t allowed to demand 9am or worse 8am meetings?   What if we made all of our nonprofit staffs stop eating lunch at their desks?  Sure it would be a big change, but actually it would be pretty easy to test.  Of course there would still be people who don’t take of themselves, but maybe if we found a better balance more folks would take care of themselves, just a bit better and not have to take a break from working in theater to do so.

If you are reading this post via Facebook Notes, please click-thru to Off Stage Right and be counted (and keep reading other posts).

A smart e-blast…

Maybe I am late to the party, but I was very impressed with the message I got on facebook from a couple of friends. 

Give the gift of great theater - go to www.reasonstobepretty.com/share and send a customized e-blast to your friends. It's that simple.

I was struck by not only the simplicity of this but the pure genius of getting instant word of mouth from a trusted source.  This is the third example I have found/discussed that asks an audience member to participate directly in the marketing of a show.  Long Wharf Theatre puts postcards in their lobby and asks audience members to address them and return them to the box office to be mailed – a “wish you were here” campaign and I have been having several conversations about encouraging audience members to tweet about shows during intermission or after a show. 

Of course the one problem with the e-blast campaign is that it is not immediate.  I have two friends performing in the show, worked at the theatre it was originally produced at, know most of the production team and producing team, and I LOVED the show off-Broadway, yet, I still haven’t made my own e-blast up.  Now I could tell you that I am seeing the show May 2, and I was waiting until then to send it out, but it would be a bit of a lie.  Frankly, I have been touting the show left and right on facebook and twitter – to the point that many friends thought I was working on it.  Unfortunately even though I see the box office grosses each week, so I know that I should have sent the blast the minute I got the message, the message itself didn’t imply any urgency to me. 

This is the issue with all three ideas.  If you are going to ask the customer to work for on your behalf, you need to make them feel needed.  Some how you have to get them to know that if they loved the show, they HAVE to tell everyone they know or the show won’t be around for them to see or their friends will miss out on something.  In the case of the Reasons e-blast you are asking them to take the time to type up to fifty emails.  That is a lot of work and time commitment (at least suggest they copy paste them too).  I have to wonder if it would have been a good idea to have hire a few people to stand outside the theatre at the end of the show with postcards with the link on them – with a message that implied “save this show.” 

For the postcards, what if they were handed out with the programs and the pre-show announcement asked people to turn them into the box office (and said where they could pick up more in the lobby). 

Certainly we can also think of ways to ask audiences to tweet their thoughts on the show through encouragement in announcements – I noticed at least one or two nonprofits must be using computers in their lobbies to send out tweets of audience responses on their institution’s twitter account. 

After all if I got an email, postcard or tweet from someone whose opinion I trusted, I would check out the show.  It certainly seems worth the cost of a bit of manpower to make it happen.

I have to go now – I have an e-blast to send out through www.reasonstobepretty.com/share.  In case I don’t paste your email in.  TRUST ME GO AND SEE THIS SHOW.  Don’t wait, buy your tickets now.

 

Why is entertainment a bad word?

Yes, I know many artists and theatre folks find the word entertaining a "bad" word. Some how entertainment has come to refer to work that has no value or is fluff. If it is entertaining it isn't art.

However I believe it is a very subjective word and unfortunatly as it often is individuals want to believe their individual interpretations are universal. Entertainment has gotten a bad rep.

Last year I was at lunch with a group of gentlemen from our local Y's Men group and this was basically the topic of discussion. I had given an overview of some of the Playhouse's plans for expanding programming in the building and on the internet, and after the presentation, a member of the group told me that he had been VERY bothered that I had not used the word entertainment when discussing our shows. I told him that I purposely avoided the word since I found it to be so subjective.

At lunch I asked each of the gentlemen what they found entertaining. It was not surprising to me that the answers ranged (and I am paraphrasing) from I want to laugh to I want to taken to another place to I like to be made to think to I love to have a good cry.

We have to admit as practioners and audience members that being ENTERTAINED isn't the same thing for each person and it IS NOT a bad thing for someone to leave the theatre feeling as if they have been entertained. There is no reason that art can't be entertaining.

What do the artists of theatre do for us?

Theatre Artists do us a tremendous favor.  

They bare their souls in telling a story inspiring us to speak or be safe in silence.  

They create a world on stage where they often titter on the brink of destruction or utter happiness. We can experience being on the edge through them, but we don't have to actually do it to understand it and learn from it. 

They state the unthinkable.  They do the unforgivable.  They act in weakness.  They are trapped in fear and do nothing.

They state what must be said.  They act heroically.  They take risks. 

They make us laugh. They make us cry.  Sometimes they make us do both at the same time.

They teach us about our neighbors, people of distants lands, people from the past, and people from the future.

They make us lean forward in our seats, holding our breathe, waiting for the next word, moment or action.  They make us feel alive.  

And all we have to do is show up.

Measuring Impact???

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact

How do you define the impact of theatre? It seems easy to quantify the work of other non-profits. But what about the arts?

In nonprofits we a talk a lot about assessment and measurement. “You need to do an assessment of your thinking before you invest!”

In business you need to be ahead of the curve. You need to manage situations – be in a constant state of awareness, assess how things affect your organization, and have the ability to act (create change). You are in a constant state of assessment. But can you assess a situation without some form of quantitative analysis.

I can hear everyone screaming – well Jodi, just count the number of people in the audience and you will know how you are doing, but I just don’t think that is actual analysis of whether or not we are fulfilling our mission. Seating capacity has its place, but it comes in later.

So how would you do an auditable analysis of the Playhouse’s attempts to fulfill its mission? What data do we need to tell our story? And how do we get it? How do we add evaluation to the planning of programs?

You can evaluate the process or you can evaluate the impact.

So how do you audit the results?

First and foremost, we can measure outcomes through the audience’s future participation in more Playhouse events. The number of events an individual attends reflects a deeper experience and more engagement. If an individual participates in play club, talk-backs it reflects a deeper experience and more engagement. If they bring their children to the playhouse for education programs it reflects a deeper experience and more engagement. If they donate money or time to the theatre they are having a deeper experience and are more engaged. And yes, if they are deeper engaged they will bring friends of like minds and seating capacity will increase.

Next, we can measure if we are adding to the theatrical canon by the on-going life of plays and musicals we develop and premiere.

We can watch the progress of our education programs participants. We can see if they apply the skills learned in theatre programs to other areas of learning and life.

But if we just count seating capacity without the assessment of audience experience and engagement aren’t we are measuring the effectiveness of marketing and public relations not the effect of the programming.

So, how do you evaluate in the impact. We need to identify what we need to learn about results to assess impact. We need to know the intended impact and search for the unintended impact. We have to talk with people before and after they attend performances or education programs. We have to discipline ourselves to track audience and participants for several years.

In practical terms to plan for such assessment, our staff (the entire staff from interns to, well, the Artistic Director and I) need to know WHY we are producing a particular play or why we are offering a particular education program. The staff needs to decide what we want the experience to be for each “client” from first contact to follow-up contact. The entire staff needs to participate fully in all aspects of programming and be able to talk about the programming if intimate detail and with great knowledge. If the entire staff is not fully versed in the programming – the audience never will be.

So with our crazy busy schedules what should we do? It is pretty obvious. The staff should talk about what we do with each other. We should talk about the community we live in on the local, national, and global level. If we have to schedule these discussions until we learn to do it organically we better start scheduling!

Market Research

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact


So, let me step away from the Harvard classes...


Back at the Playhouse, we are talking about embarking on a market research study. Let me frame this with the fact that I believe that some people are predisposed to like certain art forms. Just like there are born readers, natural lovers of music, and those with an innate love of visual arts, I think there are people who are drawn to the theatre.

So after we carefully think through what we want to learn and the methods of collecting date, where do we start? It makes sense that we talk to the people who are coming to the Playhouse about their experience with the Playhouse. But who else do we talk to?

Conventional wisdom says we also talk to the people who are not coming to the Playhouse. But what type of person who is not coming? If I am right that some people are drawn to theatre and the other simply are not, the first group of “non-attenders” we should talk to are the people in our area who went at least once to another theatre in Connecticut or New York but not to the Playhouse in the last 3 years. We know from tons of data research that there is only a small cross-over between art-forms, but it might be interesting to talk to people who attend other performing arts disciplines in the area but not the Playhouse (but you may have to convince me).

But what about people who just don’t go to the theatre, any theatre? Let’s assume they tried it at some point in their life. Some school trip or friend got them into the theatre. Let’s assume they saw a GREAT show that was relevant to the things happening in their life. But they just didn’t like the act of going to the theatre. Can you really convert someone into liking theatre? I don’t think so. I would go so far as to say that what form of arts speak to you is genetically determined. So do we just forget about those folks. Can't we just be happy if they agree that we are doing some good in the community but they don't have to ever come see a show? It will give us more time to get the folks who are predisposed to attending through the doors.

But there is a lot of talk about getting new audiences. Getting more people to come and experience theatre. I would argue it is our mission to create opportunities for children to see theatre. And give folks their first theatre experience (that way they will probably figure out it they are theatre folks or not). But if I am right up above than that means there is a finite group of people who we can get into shows and our goal should be to get a larger share of that group.

But for any other kind of new adult audiences, I wonder where these we could find them – Mars?

I bet Eric, Beth, Jenn, Marica, and Laura S. can't wait for me to get back and schedule our first meeting about this!

As promised...Value Chain for the Playhouse

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact

Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact


Third class today revolved around theory of change (causal result of if I do A I will get B).

GREAT article about tools for cooperation. Long discussion about culture shift requiring more than tools - you need agreement! Nothing new here but really interesting framework that broke out the tools. The document is locked so I can't copy it into this entry. (I promise to post and discuss when I get back).

The final session today (well yesterday now that it is 12:25) was all about mission! Surprise! Imagine that. The real surprise it that a t a nonprofit strategy program we waited until day two to thoroughly dissect the importance of mission and what are the components of a good mission.

We looked at sample missions from some of the program participants. Of course since Harvard is so savvy, they went to the organizations websites to find the mission versus asking the participant's to provide it. This lead to several vision statements being pulled, organizational descriptions being pulled, or other narratives. Tricky how they slid in a lesson about clarity on communications espiecally your website! You Harvard folks!

Breaking down what should be in a mission with 82 nonprofit peers makes for some interesting discussion. All of the missions answered the question "what the organization does?" Some of the missions answered "who the organziation is?" Some answered "What the organization will achieve - how the organizaiton will transform its community (values and vision are of course inclusive in this)?" We were back to auditable and aspirational - go back to earlier post (I promise I will put links in when I am back and not so tired).

So began the debate - should missions be auditable? Do you include aspirational goals in the mission? What is the place of that value chain (see next post about value chain and the playhouse) we talked about yesterday (I know links). What is the difference between a mission statement and vision statement - do you need both. If mission talks about value and social impact of organization, does vision than talk about the relationship between the results of what you do and how it changes the world?

Of course at this point I think - wow we need to rewrite our mission statement, immediately followed by wow am I too critical of our mission statement.

Why do we have mission statements in the first place? Well we have to have a purpose right? We know it isn't to fill shareholders pockets or any individuals pockets with profits. We have to have an identity right? A uniqueness? A reason our community needs us? We have to use our resources and capabilities to fill some social need, don't we. Isn't is our job to search for the highest value for our organizational assets (this one was Professor Moore's). I guess that's why we have mission statement. We need something to guide us in our decisions and work.

But let's go with Professor Moore...If a leader's job is to find the highest value use of the organizational assests, what does that mean...

The Strategic Triangle!

Legitamacy and Support / Organization / Mission

The value chain connects organization and mission.

Balanced off of Needs, Task Enviroment, Clients, Donors, and a collective agreement about value reinforced by donor "approval of the collective value!"

Okay so we still don't have agreement from 82 people about what goes in a mission statement!

So how about this criteria - suggested from class:
1. Mission mobilizes legitmacy and support from a third party (donors)
2. Mission is a direct statement of organizational value (value chain)
3. Mission gives guidence, focus, direction, and measurement to operations

If we go with that it is an auditable mission. But there was a call that it should also make a promise. (absolute vs. relevence)

So back to my thoughts on our mission...

...to transform lives through the power of theatre. Our aim is to enlighten, enrich and engage a diverse community of theatre lovers, artists and students by presenting excellent professional theatre and offering a welcoming experience that perpetuates the long tradition of the "red barn."

How does it stack up against the above criteria? If that is the right criteria? Well that is certainly something to explore with others when I get back?

Note to self - seriously in the blog not from class - I think our shared vision statement get to some of this...Must check. Thank goodness it is hanging above the desk in my office :) On the bulleton board next to this theatre OGSM (Objectives, Goals, Strategies, and Measurement).

Okay it's 1:00Am I better go to sleep if I want to gain any knowledge from tomorrow's classes.

Social entreprenuers, Strategic Service Vision

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact


Interesting assignment tonight. We had to write about a strategic issue we are facing within our organization. One page only (I used really small type and small margins). And we will work through the living groups issues Wednesday and Thursday afternoon. I will really interesting and I think really helpful to get insight from such a diverse and smart group. I think I speak for us all when I say Living Group 32 is the best!

I feel like I should be humming I wish I could go back to college from Avenue Q. I am really learning a lot and the professors are all really phenomenal. I am so glad that I am recording my thoughts and discussions from class via this blog. It is really helpful.

So it was a really long day of classes (4 of them) and I have only covered one so far...going to be a long night, since I am committed to capturing all of my thoughts on paper (well not really paper, but you know what I mean). You may be wondering what I will write about when I get back home. LOTS. I have raised a ton of questions, and I plan to work through with my staff and board and share what we come up with.

Our second class today centered on Strategic Service Vision. The case concerned a community based organization (that had arts programs -yeah). The founder of the organziation wanted to create a similar organization in every major city - goal of 100 in the United States.

This founder was an amazing man, charismatic, brilliant, visionary, and got things done. He took a simple idea (aren't the best ones always the simple ones) and built "a miracle" in the worst neighborhood in Pittsburgh.

If the definition of a social entreprenuer is (and Harvard Business School says this is the definition, so I won't argue) someone who achieves goals by managing opportunity without resources under his/her control - this guy in the case study is that definition!

The entreprenuerial way is to test then invest, experiment then replication, but first you have to know the stategic vision (target market, service concept, operating strategy, support systems - see yesterday's post).

Now I have to admit I got VERY passionate in class today about this program replicating across the country because I thought it shouldn't. The success and beauty of it was that it was so organic to its community. The services offered grew from local partnership. The founder was from the neighborhood. I didn't believe that they should GO into new communities and try to force organic growth (since you can't) and that they would be better off inspiring and training leaders who might be able to create their own model in a their own communities. Three things set me off on a passionate rant was that it was donor driven and not based on need - hey it's cool what you are doing want to come in and replicate it in this community instead of what does my community need and the straw that broke the camel's back was that they were taking planning money from local business to create these sites and there were organizations in the communities that were doing the work and these guys were taking the funding opportunity away! And, finally it was basically all about the founder and his ego - which the follow-up information on the case proved. (My living groups tells me I didn't embarass them - that they were actually proud - thank goodness).

This does circle back to the Playhouse and theatre. Being a leader in theatre, whether it is managment or artistic means that you accept a responsibility. You must get to know your local commmunity. You must be a participant in that community. You also have the responsibility to bring the national and global community home and explore how it relates and why it is important. Remember that question the other day...What is relevant - well this is step one in finding out. It will never be relevent if it doesn't grow organically from your community (local) needs or the national/global relationship to your community. It is not something that can be forced.

Organizational Scale

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact


Just finished chatting with members of my living group. I have to say the way this program is set-up is BRILLIANT. It is so interactive and we are really building a community here.

Today started with the head of the program Dutch Leonard working through a case about replication in a nonprofit or "bringing it to scale" and for-profit ventures within a nonprofit. Of course this brings up sustainability, but was great was relating it into scalability.

It brought up a lot of interesting ideas - first and foremost what in the world would bringing it to scale mean for theatre? Can we "franchise?" Would co-productions, touring, or moving a show be a type of franchising in the theatre? Is the Playhouse operating at the right scale? Do we know the right scale for the Playhouse as a year round theatre? Or has it not been a long enough period of time? Or have we been so busy trying different things that we don't have any real idea of what the scale should be? And a somewhat ominous question how much of the scale at which we produce was determined by the building renovation rather than the organic needs of the institution?

The case study led to an interesting concept regarding budgeting for social and profit oriented ventures. Now, I think most people know that for a nonprofit sustainability is not based on the ability to fund the organization through "commercial" activities (but I put it out there since it is important to the next ideas). Sustainability and scalability go hand in hand.

Of course when budgeting you have to budget for all costs (including in-kind). But the organization in the case study separated their costs by social and "business" ventures. In this case they were not very accurate about what went into each column. This is important because the discussion we had today was about should an organization have an aspiration that certain costs will be covered by certain revenues? If you mush all of the funds together, do you have accountability. If you match up certain revenue to certain expenses it helps define the scale of different parts of your organization. It can also help you decide if you need to run with a surplus or deficit on different programs based on their relationship to the mission.

This certainly isn't shocking concept - we have talked around it in finance committee meetings and board meetings at every theatre I have worked at it. But, believe it or not this is a radical idea if is actually were applied to a theatre's budgeting process. All performing arts agencies have been trapped by the idea that your revenue should be 60% earned and 40% contributed for decades. What if you threw that out the window and said some expenses have to matched to certain revenue?

Should our box office revenue cover production expenses? Should marketing expenses be included in that? Should they be broken out by show marketing and institutional marketing? If you do this, you can't do it by show since they have different needs, can you? The process of accountability would require constant and rigorous assessment of revenue and expenses (this would be a very good thing). How expenses should be broken out is a common discussion between board members and myself. Which expenses you count in which column can tell you whether a show or program pays for itself. What would the effect be from a constant tension between sales and programming? Wait, who am I kidding there is a constant tension between sales and programming, could this help balance it?

But if you play this idea out...

Should our building rental income cover the building and systems expenses? Should contributed income cover full-time staff expenses, administration and fund-raising expenses? What about the other alternative revenue streams? I leave out should education income cover education expenses because it actually does (go Debra and Laura S.).


This system could be a key factor in making sure an organization doesn't have mission drift (taking on random activities), mission creep (taking on seemingly related activities that are really outside of the mission) or mission sheer (systematic pushes away from the mission). I can see how it works for many organizations. I can see that it might be a real key in breaking down our budget. It is certainly worth thinking through.

We went on to talk about the balance score card for businesses (easy definition - thinking about how different perspectives are related to one another).

We looked at the relationship between value/mission, support, operational activities (capacity in motion [love that phrase]), customers, learning/growth, finances. Of course, strategy is embedding in the relationship between value/support and capacity. Needless to say everything serves the value/mission. But the interrelationship of the others is fascinating to map out. It really is more of a loop for nonprofits with finances at the base. Big question is how the relationship between customers and mission and if there is a link between customers and activities (hint - for theatre there sure is). How things are connect though help develop how we measure it! Note if one of the relationships is out of scale - the model breaks...


Of course for-profits it is (top to bottom, hierarchical) finances, customers, operational activities, and learning/growth.

Back to sustainability and scalability.


First in our 7:30AM discussion group (still not a good time for a theatre person). We talked for a while about the definition of sustainability. As leaders of nonprofits, we noted the need for resources to fulfill your mission (appropriate capacity), a strong management plan, guiding principles and values, working capital, etc. No one mentioned breaking-even or surpluses. It was also noted the organizations aren't infinite.

Scalability offers a couple of different strategies:

1. Get support for fixed costs (and maybe semi-variable costs), and have variable (and maybe or semi-variable) costs covered by earned income.
2. Franchise.
3. Engage in partnerships (or even possibly mergers).
4. Create a subsidiary of a commercial business (many ways this could apply to the Playhouse).


Now I have said for years the "model" of producing in a nonprofit theatre is broken. We have put so many expectations on productions that is exploding our expenses to try to meet them (by "we" I mean the staff, the board, the artists, the audience, the reviewers, the crews - everybody.) I also think the model of how and what we produce needs some work. I took the job at the Playhouse because I was intrigued about working on this very issue. We are a 78-year-old start up with a one-of-a-kind history, but we have so much opportunity on our doorstep. There are a lot of great things happening in theatres across the country (nonprofit and commercial), but there are a lot of bad habits/bad practices too and even more that can be improved upon. This is why I embrace the transition we are in at the Playhouse. We have a chance to forge our own way, to LEARN from others, and to be INNOVATIVE. We can actually create a new model.


It may be a bumpy ride, but I know that when we arrive at our destination, we will have created something amazing for our community and for the world of theatre. Care to join me?

Procrastination - a poor example of leadership...

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact


I really should be reading. On my shelf in my "dorm" room is a stack of 15 or so case statements. I am procrastinating.

I was just thinking that anyone who is reading this will think it seems messy and little all over the place. It most likely is. I am using this as an exercise for clarification for myself. I am throwing everything out there honestly so that an honest discussion may be had.

Today there was a lot of discussion about leadership.

Some of the interesting concepts:

Leadership's job is to frame the need for change.

The role of leadership is acting in time. You must notice the problem; formulate a plan; and execute a solution. What are the conditions that you need to act in time? What can a leader do to create those conditions?

Innovation is all about learning to make progress. Who needs to learn what? What are the circumstance for learning?

Leadership is the process of bringing a new and generally unwelcome reality to an individual, group, organization, or society and helping him/her/it/them adapt to it. This produces stress in the organization and the natural response is avoidance (we're to busy, what problem, it won't work).

In some situations leaders need to provided a clear answer or direction and in others leaders need to be bold enough to explore, invent, develop, and create.

Of course this makes me question what kind of leader am I. I know I have a lot to learn. Overall I am a good manager, but that isn't a leader. I think I am able to inspire people when I am on my game. But without question I need to listen more often and I need to learn to let people arrive at knowledge at the own pace and their own method. What is that saying "let your mind catch up with your mouth?" I have the opposite problem, my mind is always going so fast, I have to remind myself to not interrupt or jump to the next topic before others arrive there with me. Unfortunately this means I am good at multi-tasking, but the problem with multi-tasking is that some things need your full attention, especially people. I am pretty self-aware of what I need to work on, I just need to remember to do it!

We talked a lot today about learning as well. A leader should orchestrate the process of learning not dictate it (see things to work on above). But you have to be a rapid learner (see positives above).

What is the question to which this process is the answer? What is the decision process (the weighted criteria)? Exploration, invention, and noticing are longer processes and more ambiguous. It's all about pacing.

People have to look at the reality. If you learn the reality you can make the decision because you will know the answer. (a little like a fortune cookie).

And finally we ended the day talking about formulate non-profit strategy, in the road from mission to programming there is an interim step a platform/theme.

Which brings me back to a question I have written 10 to 20 times in the last two days.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF RELEVANT? Practical not literal.

Won't you be glad when I get back from Harvard!

Capacity, Satellites, Franchises

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact


What a day! Three classes, two discussion groups and now is the first real break since 7:30 am.

Funny tidbit. High tech Harvard has of course amazing classrooms. But the coolest part is the blackboards that are layered and move up and down when the professor needs more space. Needless to say a bunch of nonprofit folks are in awe, so everytime the professor moves the blackboard - we ooh and ahh...

So we started the day talking about the strategic service vision (market focus, results, leveraging results/costs (operating strategy), and excellence in service.

Lots of questions that the Playhouse has been grapling with came up. Who do you serve? Who don't you serve? Who will you serve? What are we accomplishing (people don't fund or buy into concepts - they buy into results)? How do we achieve excellence? How is excellence defined? Do we have partners? Who are they? Do they share our definition of excellence?

Note on the side of the page to myself. Revise last nights thoughts. How about this:

We use theatre to create an experience for relavent issues to be explored.

Second note to self. The Playhouse is in transition. We have embraced that. We know we are on the brink of major change. And although it scares us we will not and can not let the fear of change prevent it from happening. Asking these questions is a necessity of where we are not some failure on anyone's behalf!

Since we were talking about capacity, satellites and franchising in the first class, I begin to think about how so many theatres stretch their resource capacity without corresponding results. Leveraging results/costs - interesting to define that for theatre. What is quality control in theatre? That is an entire entry of its own that I will get back to later.

But what is at the top of my mind is why so many education programs become satelites of theatre organizations and even spin-off into their own organizations. Why isn't education deep in the core of more producing theatres. At the Playhouse, I believe we have made the committement that education programs remain in the core of our mission with productions. But it isn't as easy or organic as I would like it to be. It seems logical that making sure there is a future audience, a future generation of artists, and future funders should be a moral imperative for every theatre, so why is it so easy for education to be thought of as the annoying step-child of the theatre by theatre professionals no less. Didn't each of us theatre professionals have some encounter in our childhood with the arts that sparked our interest. Didn't that spark start a fire of passion inside of us that made us pursue a life in the theatre often with great sacrifice (at least financially).

The case study that made my mind spin was about a mega-church that was dealing with focus and growth. It's capacity was stretched to the limit, so they looked at the history of Christianity to identify and define the tenents that should guide their next steps.

What happens when we look at theatre history? Theatre started out as a social convention to TEACH people morals and values through the experience of watching actors on the stage - including those "masses" of people that today would be priced out of the experience. It has and remains to be a way to "experience" an issue - family drama, war, disease, marrying your mother, without actually having to live through the issues in real life.

A day at the theatre (and yes it was often a day) was educational and entertaining.

Today most people think of entertainment as a dirty word - why?

Entertainment according to Merriam-Webster on line means a: amusement or diversion provided especially by performers hired to provide entertainment> b: something diverting or engaging:

Isn't all theatre supposed to be a diversion and engaging. It says is can be amusement but doesn't say it IS an amusement.

More than anything, in theatre's early history, it was a social experience. It was a gathering for people to share in an experience at that moment in time. I am constantly asking myself everyday, if in today's world do we have to gather in one place or has technology in some cases removed place from the community experience? If we are in the same moment but not in the same place can the experience still be valid? What would be different about the experience? Is it still theatre?

Whew...I need a diet coke!

Orientation

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact



Greetings from Harvard Business School...

So this week I get to think about the big picture. I should say I get to focus on the big picture. I will share with you that the Playhouse staff actually spends a lot of time on the big picture. A time of transition forces you to.

After a fun 3 hour drive during which I could not figure out how to make my IPOD work in the rental car (it just kept repeating a podcast that I had already listened to) and 3 separate times I missed 3 separate turns, I finally made it to MacArthur Hall. The executive education center is not your normal dorm. I have my own private room with a bathroom (bigger than my first NYC apartment). There are 8 rooms per Living Group. Each Living Group has a central room that has a kitchen, conference room and sitting area.

After checking in and unpacking, I headed down to registration. Met a nice guy from my Living Group who works for Habitat for Humanity in Tennessee. It made me start to wonder how many arts folks would be here.

After a quick nosh, it was off to orientation and our first class. (Things move fast at Harvard!)

At orientation we learned a bit about the 144 participants. 12 countries are represented. Average age is 48. The organizations represented cover a wide range of nonprofits (including 10 that fall in the arts, culture, and humanities). The seminar is Strategic Perspectives in Non-Profit Management and is part of Harvard Social Enterprises Iniative.

Fun tidbit...they did this little bit about interesting facts about some of the people who attended and the first one was that one of the participants was the general manager of several critically acclaimed off-broadway shows (ME). Fun tidbit number 2...they actually turned people away from the program. Filling out the application didn't automatically get you in. This made me feel pretty good about myself - espiecally since I am here on a full scholarship.

After orientation it was straight into the first class...Oriented Managment for Nonprofits.

The professor started off by asking a few participants what their organizations do. Interestly enough most people described their organizations by the outcomes of their work i.e. we teach people skills they need to get a job and be productive members of society. This lead to a long discussion about measurable claims and aspirational claims. And how we have to be careful not to limit ourselves by measurability. It is necessary to have asipirational claims - they build hope, inspire people, make something important. Aspirational claims are a map that guide you to your destination (what you want the world to look like).

At this point I start jotting down notes and questions to myself about the Playhouse.

We aspire to be a nationally recognized theatre (everyone in the staff and board agrees on that). Is that enough? Should we also aspire to live in a world where theatre is a prominant and relevant art form and a primary form of social media (as it was with the Greeks and Elizabethans)? Should we also aspire to live in a world where people explore an idea or experience a "life moment" through a play or musical as often as they watch TV, go to the movies, or socialize on the internet. How does or can theatre make the world a better place to live?

Back to class...and the discussion about measurable and aspirational claims...

inputs --> activitites --> outputs --> outcomes --> impacts

As you go from imputs to impacts, you move from the center of the organization, down in measurability, up in abstraction, and down in attributability.


What are we trying to do?

The most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what we were trying to do - Nietzsche

Of course the answer to this is the guiding point for the organization but the day-to-day can make us lose sight of it.

More notes to self about the Playhouse...

Is what we are trying to do - create that magical moment when the audience connects with the work and literally feels it in their gut? Is what we are trying to do - to examine a relevant issue? Is what we are trying to do - to give someone a voice, to create a dialogue?

Why are we here? And, more importantly, why theatre?

Is it about the activity of producing theatre...or is it about the power of theatre...or both...or neither?

What is the statement that guide us?

Is it - something about a community gathering to explore relevant ideas (what does that even mean???). How do we create an impact? Or worse do we create an impact?

I drive some of the people on my staff crazy about guiding principle and my Southwest Airline stories. It is really simple for Southwest employees to know what do to do - the goal is to be the lowest cost airline, make it cheaper to fly than drive. Every corporate decision is guided by this. Should we serve danishes or pancakes on a morning flight - doesn't matter, don't do either because it doesn't help the over all goal of being the lowest cost airline. I will leave you to go read all the wonderful research about how successful they are - seriously it is a really good stuff.

But back to class - we drilled down to QUESTION ZERO - what exactly are we trying to accomplish?

Corresponding questions...How do we know if activities are producing an effect? What is the effect of what we do?

This lead to a discussion about our day-to-day work and how as Leaders we are pulled in a million directions and everyone has an idea for us,a problem that needs to be solved or a favor that is needed. And frankly we spend too much time on things that aren't related to our "clients." There was a entire upstream and downstream discussion I won't bore you with, but basically the point was we only have so much capacity and so much support and the mission should guide us to focus on the things that align with all three.

For every thing we do we should ask do we have the capacity to do it (or can we get it), do we have support for it, and is this part of our mission, does it create value for our organization. The organization should focus on the area where all three intercept. (I will add a little picture when I get home!).

Interesting challenge from the professor. Should we as leaders spend the majority of our time on items that we have capacity and support for that are completely in line with our values and mission? Trick question...the answer is NO - our staff should spend their time on it. We as leaders should spend our time on the innovations that meet our values and mission. Our job is to move support and capacity to make those innovations happen! Now in the day to day hoopla and distractions - "how do you keep an eye" on that is the challenge but also the necessity.

And then class was over and on to dinner.

Oh - on the way to dinner - I thought of an interesting answer to all my questions about the Playhouse. We use theatre to bring people together to foster an experience or discussion around a relevant issue.

It's a start.


Before I go read three case studies (all of which are really long), just a note about dinner. Fascinating discussion about American politics and the presidential election with a group consisting someone from Nigeria, Australia, New Zealand, Indiana, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Talk about perspective. And I found another arts person...from Australia! She is a lovely woman from Melbourne who runs a multi-disciplinary arts access program.

Going back to school is GREAT. Of course I might change my tune tomorrow when the first seminar starts at 7:30am!

Another opening another show

Last night was opening night. The show went well.

However, I can't help but wish our schedule allowed or more previews for the cast. It seems so unfair to give the actors 2-4 performances with an audience before opening. We allow them 3-4 weeks for rehearsals. I wish I had more time to give them with the audience. It simply takes more than our limited time for things to settle, for the actors to know what works.

Perhaps I feel so strongly about this because I spent 10 years in New York theatre. When I first started previews were 1 week long for a 4 week run. Now the same theaters do 3 weeks of previews for an 8 week run. Perhaps I feel so strongly about it because I am married to an actor. I know and understand the process intimately.

Traditionally regional theatre has had shorter preview periods and shorter runs. But is that really fair to the production and all the wonderful people who work on it? Of course the reason we open earlier is to get the word about the show out so we can get the audience in. It is really a chicken and egg kind of problem.

This issue is one of the many "traditional rules" by which we produce theatre. If the goal is to produce the best production we are capable of producing - well then frankly most of these rules should be thrown out.

Why is it so much easier to do the wrong thing that everyone has been doing for years, versus striking out on the correct path?

Number One Posting

Several months ago the Playhouse's new website had its official debut. Each time I visited, I was haunted by the link in the upper right hand corner of the screen labeled "Playhouse Blog." I tried several drafts for an initial entry. Only one that I had the confidence to share with our marketing director (it was all about all the wonderful teacher I had that helped me discover a career in theatre).

Today, I decided to try a different approach. I thought I would just start writing.

We completed an annual ritual today at the Playhouse...the mailing of the gala invitations. This is a complicated multi-day process that I could go on and on about and bore you to tears. But what is important for you to understand is that it takes every single staff member, intern and apprentice to make this happen.

But sitting at my house at midnight, I am in awe of the wonderful staff of the Playhouse. Very few people have the opportunity to get to know our staff and interns - which is a shame. I, however, am fortunate enough to spend long, seemingly-endless days with group of dedicated and talented people.

It only seems appropriate that the first posting should simply be a THANK YOU to the people who really make the Playhouse come to life.

So from my couch I raise my glass to you (yes it is really a diet coke bottle as though who know me assumed)...

Kim F., Tim O., Ruth, Ammie, Bruce, Buist, John, Joe, Rich, Barb, Beth, Pat, Marcia, Debra, Gabe, Deirdre, Kimmie M, Laura F., Laura S., Jeanne, James, Tess, Tim B., and both Jenn Bs.

And to our wonderful interns and our amazing apprentices...

Sara E, Laura J., Holly, Rachel, Josh, Helen, Megan, Julie, Mike, Brian, Ashley, Kim, Chris, Kate, Kristin, Amy, Sara L., Sam, Peter, Whitney, Julia, Emma, and Rasheem.

I guess I am making the commitment to you to let you in on what it is like off-stage at the Playhouse. I will do my best to write regular postings. Until next time...