What’s behind the spate of arts leadership departures in Australia? Perhaps a mismatch of values

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather L. Robinson, Research Associate in Cultural Studies, Flinders University. "Beyond the Books: Culture, value, and why libraries matter" will be published late 2024 through Wakefield Press., Flinders University

The past few months has seen the sudden departure of leadership from some of the country’s most prestigious artistic companies: the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, Queensland Ballet, Queensland Theatre, Opera Australia and the Adelaide Festival.

These women cited various reasons for leaving, from job opportunities in government, to funding issues, to disagreements with artists and the board.

It certainly seems like a difficult time for arts organisations and their boards.

Australia’s arts and cultural sector has suffered decades of ongoing funding cuts and, until recently, lack of policy direction. Now, the cost of living crisis means participation in arts and culture is seen as a luxury.

Boards and companies become more risk-averse within these tightened financial constraints.

This may be behind the departure of Leanne Benjamin from Queensland Ballet in July. Her appointment as artistic director only six months prior was celebrated as a “perfect fit”.

She described her reasons for her shock exit as:

Ultimately, as we have worked together to design a vibrant season for 2025, it has become very clear that my artistic aspirations for our company […] is not immediately possible within the funding constraints faced by the company.

Jo Davies was Opera Australia’s first female artistic director, coming on board in December 2022. By August 2024, she described:

a real difference of opinion on how [Opera Australia] should balance its artistic ambitions with its commercial imperative.

Opera Australia chair Rod Sims put it more bluntly:

Obviously any artistic director wants free rein to spend whatever they want and do whatever they want, and that must also always go through a financial filter, in any arts company.

A volunteer board

Emotions can run high in arts companies, where (underpaid) staff and (unpaid) volunteers donate their time, expertise and passion to deliver experiences for their audiences.

While some arts boards in Australia are paid an honorarium, most arts organisations are headed by volunteer-run boards. The makeup of boards has also been changing. Recent decades have seen an increase of leaders from the corporate sector on arts boards, especially on those that are government-appointed.

Research shows most board members enjoy their association with arts companies. However, arts consultant Kate Larsen has found that 58% of members of Australian arts boards “do not understand what their organisations need from them at all”.

Board members tend to come from very different socioeconomic and professional backgrounds than paid members of staff, and have limited exposure to the day-to-day running of an arts company.

They do, however, carry the weight of responsibility for the company’s big-picture strategic and financial directions.

Perhaps this is the mismatch we’re seeing between boards and arts leaders such as Benjamin and Davies.

Capturing what we value

There are three different facets to what we know as “cultural value”: intrinsic value, instrumental value and institutional value. I believe we are currently seeing an imbalance between these three types of value.

Intrinsic value is the intellectual, emotional and spiritual value of experiencing culture for audiences and artists.

Instrumental values are the coincidental impacts or effects, usually recorded in numbers, such as an increase in tourist visits or mental health outcomes. Often embedded in cultural policy, instrumental impacts are given greater weight than artistic outcomes in evaluation and acquittals for government funds.

Institutional value reflects how cultural institutions and organisations relate to and engage with their public over the long term, becoming active agents in the creation or destruction of what the public values.

We are currently witnessing a clashing of priorities.

At Queensland Ballet and Opera Australia, we’ve seen a mismatch between the financial priorities of the board and the artistic priorities of leadership. The storm at the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra can be seen as a risk-averse team, sensitive to current political concerns, overreacting in the absence of board support.

I believe we are seeing a diminishing of institutional value in many corners of the sector. Decades of funding cuts means arts companies and cultural institutions understandably step away from perceived risks to their relationships with audiences and sponsors, and make more conservative programming decisions.

This response limits the public’s opportunities to experience new works, and puts the core creative business of an arts company or institution at risk. Economic performance, rather than artistic endeavour, takes centre stage. If that is the whole company’s priority, all well and good. But at Opera Australia and Queensland Ballet, it seems this priority could have come at the expense of their artistic directors.

Uniting strong governance and artistic risk

No one wants our cultural sector hamstrung by instrumentality and shifting government policy flips. Arts companies and cultural institutions require ongoing support and public understanding of their role so they can be confident to take risks – artistically and financially – and provide the public with opportunities to learn, grow and embrace a diversity of cultures, people and experiences, within the safety of a theatre, gallery, concert hall or festival.

To fulfil their role as mediators and generators of knowledge and understanding for the public, companies must be equipped and backed up by their boards to deal with these responsibilities.

A job position description for the role of artistic director for Queensland Theatre describes the board as “an enabling force of strong governance”.

Arts companies and cultural institutions need the participation and support of an army of advocates, audiences and ambassadors across the community to survive. There are promising steps being made at the federal level to enable artistic vision and courageous leadership for the Australian cultural sector – but there is still a long way to go.

This is both the challenge and opportunity facing everyone across all levels of the Australian cultural sector, and they have to face it together.

Heather L. Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What’s behind the spate of arts leadership departures in Australia? Perhaps a mismatch of values – https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-spate-of-arts-leadership-departures-in-australia-perhaps-a-mismatch-of-values-238583