| |
By Patrick Donnelly
“What do you do for a living?” asked the
young man. “I take care of things that are not mine,” answered the wise
woman. Most performing arts centers are owned publicly, by a municipality,
by a university or through a state law that permits their incorporation as
nonprofits.
Most performing arts organizations also follow the nonprofit model and have
incorporation as an eventual goal. This common structure, where individual
owners are absent, points to a shared objective of serving the community in
accordance with the mission statement. Employees of these organizations,
therefore, are stewards who guard the physical, financial, and human assets.
As a concept, stewardship takes few arts executives by surprise. “One who
manages another’s property, finances, or other affairs” is the definition
offered by the American Heritage Dictionary. In going to work every day, it
is what people employed by arts organizations regularly do by default.
Stewardship by default, however, barely resembles its potential for creating
mission effectiveness. Through developing the mindset that nonprofits belong
to the communities they serve, organizations can make the leap from adequate
mission fulfillment to near-optimal mission pursuit. Specifically, the
opportunity lies in making stewardship a mantra.
It Belongs to Everyone
It is not uncommon to hear of leaders of arts organizations whose individual
identity is synonymous with the group or venue that they head. As founders
or long-time executives, they have built the organization and seen it
through defining moments of growth and accomplishment. Their achievements
often merit praise, for they have done their communities great service. Some
of these leaders come to think–and sometimes speak–of the venture as “my
organization” because of the enormous effort they exerted in forming it. In
doing so, their vision becomes as important as the printed mission
statement. More often than not, their vision, despite their stature in the
community, is not in perfect harmony with the aims of the organization. As a
result, the group drifts further from a stewardship model. Allowing this to
occur makes little sense for organizations that, as public or nonprofit
entities, do not in principle own any of their assets.
One way to emphasize stewardship is to treat each decision with the level of
care due to borrowed property. For example, a theater schedules an event
requiring a special audio console. The console costs too much to rent, so
the sound technician for the venue uses her knowledge of the town to borrow
one from a colleague for the event. Does she treat the loaner console
identically to the house gear, or does she care for it with an extra level
of concern? As a sensible person, she chooses the latter path, because the
console is not hers. That mindset, when applied to all organizational
resources, can redirect assets in a way that, in aggregate, moves the group
much closer to desired outcomes.
Remembering to do this can be a big challenge. With things that one touches
and uses and maintains on a daily basis, familiarity can erode the level of
care they receive. (Think of how employees treat their desks, for instance.)
But an organization’s resources have, after all, been purchased with the
funds of others. Rediscovering that notion, and extending it to all
buildings, endowments and labor hours can open a window of opportunity for
the organization. Decision-making can be predicated uniformly on how well an
idea or option serves the mission statement. Employees can be stewards in
fact, not only in name.
The Decision Tree
One path to regular recall comes in Peter Brinckerhoff’s “Stewardship
Decision Tree.” Brinckerhoff is well known in academic and nonprofit
governance circles through his writings, public presentations and consulting
work. As an advocate for achieving optimal service, he constructed the
Decision Tree, a tool for evaluating resource allocation decisions based on
their relationship to organizational mission. His Decision Tree functions as
a flowchart, allowing users to navigate closer to the “roots” of an idea, or
the organization’s action part. It contains five core questions, each with
secondary items that allow stakeholders to assess choices.
1. Does this action support our mission?
a. Does it increase the amount of mission?
b. Does it improve service quality?
c. Does it strengthen the organization?
d. Can we measure the outcome?
2. Does this action keep us focused on our priorities?
a. Is it specifically included in our strategic plan?
b. Does it involve a current core competence?
c. Does it develop a new core competence?
3. Do we have adequate information to decide?
a. Service impact? b. Financial impact?
c. Staff and administrative impact?
d. Legal impact?
4. Have we applied appropriate business analyses?
a. Feasibility study and/or business plan?
b. Cash impact?
c. Budgetary impact?
d. Impact on quality?
5. Have we consulted appropriately with these stakeholders?
a. Board?
b. Staff?
c. Funders?
d. Service recipients?
e. Community?
f. Consultants?
As a flowchart, “yes” and “no” arrows direct the process forward or back as
answers dictate. The tree provides enough flexibility to allow its use in
many circumstances, either by executives or department heads. (To see a
visual representation of this tree, visit www.missionbased.com/stewardship.htm
and scroll to the PDF link at the bottom of the page.) Making this the
official decision matrix for staff supervisors or board members can set them
on a path of serving the mission to the utmost.
Much of the effectiveness with which venues and groups fulfill their
missions depends on their regard for their assets. If the level of care they
extend to their tools, budgets and co-workers matches the care they offer to
their personal possessions and relationships, the organizations are, by
definition, less than unified in their actions toward the mission statement.
When individual staff members set the standard of care themselves, the
results range from very mission-oriented to, alas, very selfish. Plainly
stated, that is not a model of true stewardship. As Brinckerhoff advises,
“It’s not our stuff, so let’s do it better.”
Patrick Donnelly is
director of audience services at Western Michigan University’s Gilmore
Theatre Complex in Kalamazoo, Michigan.. |
|
Back to Facility Manager
Contents
