4-24-09
What makes a leader?
So, 23 mostly longtime members of American Theater Company split, and an uproar ensues. People accuse artistic director PJ Paparelli of being scheming and autocratic. People portray the ensemble as being meddlesome and ego driven. Paparelli tells The Chicago Tribune’s Chris Jones, and PerformInk’s Kerry Reid, that the reason for the split was that the ensemble didn’t like more multicultural productions leaving them out of the casting pot. Then he tells TimeOut Chicago’s Christopher Piatt that he didn’t really mean what he said, but not before Jonathan Abarbanel and Kelly Kleiman repeat the canard on the radio. Piatt, whom I like, but rarely agree with, wrote that the real issue at ATC was that there were too many chefs in the kitchen. Somebody has to make decisions. Somebody has to be a leader. Dammit.
I won’t disagree with that.
But lost in all this is a discussion about what a leader actually is. What is the nature of leadership? And how does it work in a collaborative environment like theatre? Just as importantly, how does it not work?
It used to be that the western world worked on a pyramid model. You know the structure: one president, a few vps of different divisions, regional directors, and on down to the workers, who held the whole place up. Even smaller organizations adopted this model. Much of the world still works like this. But the edifices are starting to crumble.
About six or seven years ago, the world started to change. The advent of YouTube and MySpace and Facebook and Google ushered in a paradigm shift that, I think, will be as significant to organizational structures as Einstein’s theory of relativity was to physics. Not just online structures; ALL organizational structures. The basic premise of these shops is that you provide a frame, a space, and some tools, then you invite people to come in and use that space and those tools any way they wish. You empower them. And they take ownership.
In other words, you create an ensemble; an open ensemble, that anybody can participate in, with restrictions.
Those restrictions are important. Anthony Moseley calls them roles. Moseley took the reins of Collaboraction Theatre around the time that YouTube was throwing open the doors to online universal direct participation. Moseley has the same philosophy: gather people together and give them the tools and the space to bring their best creative ideas to the table.
“It’s my job to make sure everybody knows each others’ roles,” he said in an interview in the midst of tech for Sketchbook. “If they understand they have an authority over a certain piece of the pie, I find that people are much more willing to acknowledge each other’s contributions.
“It’s really about nurturing an environment where collaborators feel safe so they are willing and able to share who they are as artists,” Moseley says of his philosophy, which he acknowledges is not always easy to pull off.
“What we’re talking about in artistic collaborations is a dance of visions and egos.”
Ah, yes, visions and egos. From all accounts, that wasn’t a dance that either Paparelli or ATC’s board was willing to do.
According to Piatt’s story, “It became clear that an internal breakdown of communications, spurred by Paparelli’s insistence that he be the only channel through which the ensemble, board and staff addressed one another, hastened the split.”
And an e-mail sent by board vice-president Jeff Morof and board member David Katz gave ensemble members an ultimatum. From Reid’s story: “…ensemble members were to decide if they could ‘support the artistic director and his artistic vision,’” or leave the ensemble.
I have two observations. First, I’m a bit awed by the fact that neither Piatt nor ATC’s board found it strange that all communications should be channeled through one person. All communications? We generally call those kinds of leaders “dictators.” Or “Dick Cheney.” We don’t usually call them “artistic directors.”
Second, the ultimatum that was sent to ensemble members represents, in itself, a troubling leadership issue. The e-mail was sent despite the fact that the board and ensemble had agreed to a 3-week moratorium dealing with issues between Paparelli and the ensemble. That moratorium was largely put in place because board president John Goldstein was going to be in Africa for three weeks, without access to e-mail. And yet knowing this—or perhaps because of this—two board members went behind Goldstein’s back to tell ensemble members that they either wear jackboots or go into exile.
What kind of leadership is that?
Stef Tovar, one of the ensemble members who split, told Reid that the issue wasn’t about supporting Paparelli’s decisions, it was about participating in the decision making process.
“Anyone who disagreed with his choices and spoke up—was asked to leave,” Tovar wrote in an e-mail.
I have a lot of questions that haven’t been answered to this point. Did ATC’s ensemble have defined roles? Did the board have a defined role? Did Paparelli have a defined role? What was the structure under which they all were to be working together? Did they even have one?
I’m also concerned with what happens to ATC in the future. No one will argue that Paparelli has brought excitement and critical notice with his play choices. And few people would argue that ATC’s previous few years were as exciting. But if you put the entire organization in the hands of just one person, what happens when that person leaves? What happens when that person just gets burned out?
Being in charge doesn’t make you a leader. Leadership is something you do. The purpose of leadership it to get people to follow, and to build something that will sustain when you pass it on to another leader. In terms of internal leadership, both Paparelli and the board have failed. In terms of external, ticket-buying followers, that leadership is only as good as the plays offered and the excellence of the productions. If and when that fails, Paparelli will find himself without much goodwill from people who can help; and it remains to be seen if the trust issues within the board can be overcome enough that they can step in.
The world is changing. The current generation of kids is growing up with the idea that organizations are a web, not a pyramid. Things get done by communicating and working together and defining the purpose of everybody on the team. Theatre has led the way with this form of ensemble structure. Which is why it is so sad to see such a venerable ensemble theatre go backwards. Destruction need not have happened. Clear, open communication would have prevented it.
Editor’s note: There is a great video on leadership and bureaucracy at NASA vs. Google that was made by astronaut Andrew Thomas. You can check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_424YskAfew.
Related stories: