I rarely critique the work of people I know in a public environment but I can’t resist commenting on a recent academic paper about leadership in the arts in Australia. It’s article, published in a good quality academic journal, that implies that for the most part, arts leadership here is poor because Boards and recruitment agents base recruitment and selection practices on out of date theory. The phrase used to capture such questionable theory is called “zombie leadership”.

With some of the theories they describe as “zombie”, I agree with them. For example, the old view is that leadershhip is just about leaders. A more thoughtful contemporary approach is that leadership is not just about the person, it’s about the relationship with staff and stakeholders. Others, such as the idea that people can’t cope without leaders they disagree with but I’m not so convinced. If there were great examples of communes and collectives I might agree but are there? However, in principle, it’s a good idea to review and analyse leadershp theories as they appear. So that part of the article is interesting.

The authors base their conclusion on the analysis of a handful of policy documents from governments and professional organisations plus a modest number of job advertisements. And that’s when their analysis starts to miss the mark. If you’d like to read more detail on my response to their research:

Their conclusion is is that “the arts are largely committed to outdated ideas bout leadership [and a]s a result, the sector implements narrow and elite leadership models that act to sustain a leadership ‘industry’ rather than address the sectors’ actual needs.” (17)

I don’t believe that the authors have successfully demonstrated their case for a number of reasons:
• Not enough evidence to show that arts leadership in Australia is in a failed or terminal state
• No clarity about what documents they actually reviewed: job ads or position descriptions?
• Failure to differentiate between artistic leaders and management leaders
• Assuming that the use of shorthand marketing phrases is an effective measure of understanding about the complexities of leadership
• Failure to consider the selection process and what occurs there to winnow candidates and find the best match for the organisation and its staff.

I don’t disagree that Boards can make wrong appointments or that Boards can hold old-fashioned views of leadership such as not appreciating the benefits of co-leadership models. But for the most part, a good selection committee knows what an arts organisation and the people who for it need in the form of a leader. Speaking recently to a recruiter who works in this area for arts companies, they consult with tens of dozens of stakeholders to determine what’s required for that specific organisation and don’t just rely on a job ad to develop a pool of candidates.

The fact that so many arts organisations survive in a political and financial environment that is deeply unsympathetic to their causes, demonstrates the strength of Australian arts leadership.