"And the beat goes on......................."

ADVOCACY WORKSHOP:
Before I forget, I want to hype an Advocacy Workshop I'm facilitating locally in Marin County on Wednesday, July 23rd from 9:30 am to 12:30 pm. Hosted by the Marin Center for Volunteer and Nonprofit Leadership. I hope a lot of arts administrators from Napa, Sonoma, and Marin will show up. It would be cool to have the start of a North Bay Arts Advocacy Alliance. Click here for registration information: http://www.acteva.com/booking.cfm?bevaid=161699

AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS CONVENTION IN PHILADELPHIA

I meant to write a recap of my impressions and conversations at the AFTA conference in Philly two weeks ago, but you know how that goes --you play catch-up when you get back, new stuff happens and the alluring charms of procrastination win more than one day.

It was, I think, one of the best of the AFTA conventions in some time. First, it was their largest gathering ever - 1400+ people. Second it was organized superbly; with some very good sessions and some excellent speakers. Congratulations in particular to Peggy Amersterdam from the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance and her staff, and to Bob Lynch and Mara Walker and the AFTA staff for keeping things running so effortlessly smoothly.

The part I usually enjoy the most, is the chance to see old friends and colleagues that I haven't seen for awhile, catch up, exchange ideas and get energized again. I have rarely come away from one of these gatherings without some new idea or project to throw myself into, and this one was no exception. More on all that in the future.

I would like to share two things I carried away from this conference. And BTW, if you would like to read more about the conference, they asked a number of people to blog about their experiences (what a good idea)and you can access those blogs by clicking here: http://blog.artsusa.org/

The National Arts Policy Roundtable is a project of Americans for the Arts and Robert Redford's The Sundance Preserve. It is an annual meeting of an 'A' List group of people from various sectors - arts, business, government, civic, academia etc. etc. to talk in relatively general terms about very big issues. This year's focus was on creativity and business - specifically "The role of the arts in building the 21st century American workforce." The Roundtable made a number of generalized recommendations on conducting research, facilitating a dialogue, developing a vocabulary, increasing awareness and fostering more alliances.

Whereas once our sector's focus was on the general economic impact of our sector, and creativity as an economic engine, two decades plus of successfully making the case for our economic value, has allowed a shift now to creativity's impact on business, innovation, job preparedness and other factors critical to America's competitiveness in the global marketplace. This is still an economic argument, but it is targeted towards our value to business and industry.

Most certainly for all of the dozen years I have been involved in the arts & culture field, the idea of having a more solid, meaningful relationship with the business community has been high on our wish list. We've talked for a long time about a partnership with business. Of course what we really meant, was that we wanted business to support us more -- more vocally to the media and elected officials, and with more money. Perhaps it was all too apparent to corporations and companies that we were much clearer on what we wanted from them, then what we offered in return. Progress on this front has been painfully slow and one of the reasons is that we didn't clarify what we brought to the table.

But now we have begun to focus on what we have to offer. As usual with us, the first stage of our getting serious about pushing realtionships we know will be of value to our missions, is to codify the advantages invovlement in the arts means to those we are making our case to. So with government officials (and the media and wider public too), our economic arguments were that the more the arts grow the better it is for local, state and national economies. We pump money into the system, create jobs, add to tax coffers, support key industries blah blah blah.

And now we are arguing that invovlement in the arts is good for business people with bottom lines. Employees trained in arts make better workers; workers that produce more ideas, deal better with problems, work better as team players, are more comfortable with risk taking, and generally have more of the skills companies are looking for. We need more research, more concrete ideas, more specificity on our value to industry, more conversation and dialogue with business about what they need and want -- and how we can respond to those needs and desires.

We have noted (correctly I think) that businesses are beginning to wake up to the idea that creativity -- creative thinking and idea generation - are good for their companies. And so we want to capitalize on that opening and move the arts agenda along by zeroing in on what the arts do to help foster, nourish and support creativity in the business sector. Like our claims about our economic value, we will have to explain not only what we do that works, but "how" the arts accomplish the objectives important to business, and why it works.

WE GOT A LONG, LONG WAY TO GO BABE:
But while this is all exciting stuff and unquestionably we have made progress over the past decade, nonetheless things have been moving pretty darn slow on this track. There have been untold numbers of initiatives and forays into this area in the past decade - some very small, initiated by a single organization or even person, some larger but still local, some on state levels, and some national, and we are still some ways away from any benchmark success to which we can point. It's hard to remember that things take a long time to accomplish some times. This is one of them.

The session on the National Arts Policy Roundtable - led by Marian Godfrey of the Pew Foundation, with input by AFTA's Gary Steuer and others, released some key findings germane to this topic by The Conference Board which is a business & industry 501 (c) (3) nonprofit mechanism that "creates and disseminates knowledge about management and the marketplace to help businesses strengthen their performance(s)" (their definition). They are highly influential and respected within corporate America. The Conference Board surveyed educators and business executives to sample each group's thoughts about arts education and its value to business. (click here for a copy of that report: www.conference-board.org/publications/describe.cfm?id=1452

Not surprising, the executives favor creativity. The see it as valuable, impactful, crucial. But that's a lot like waving the flag and championing motherhood. Who's against creativity? There's been enough made of cretivity in the last five years (kudos to our team for being party responsible for that), enough written about it or enough said about it in the media, that every CEO is going to be "for" creativity. That's a long way from them and us being on the same page.

See, we are still at square one with all of this. Even though we have spent thousands of hours talking about how to develop, solidify, expand and promote a relationship with business that benefits the arts, and even though we have actually made progress in the overall scheme, we are still really early in making it happen -- somewhere akin perhaps to where we were 15 years ago in making the economic argument.

NOT EXACTLY ON THE SAME PAGE, YET:
One result of the survey by the Conference Board was most telling. When CEOs and School Superintendents were asked to rank which skill best demonstrates creativity - the school superintendents choose "problem solving" (and we in the arts have long pushed problem solving as a skill we can teach and impart). But the CEOs choose "problem identification" or "articulation", and that is something altogether different. The CEO's ranked problem identification #1, the superintendents ranked it #9. And the CEOs ranked problem solving #8, while the superintendents ranked it #1. At this workshop there was some discussion of how companies believe that once a problem is identified, then resolving it in their favor is more of a technical exercise. Creativity is in the identification process and you know, from their point of view, that makes a lot of sense, because the sooner a company can identify problems, the quicker it can address them and the less potential downside there will be. Business is still not all about taking risks, it's about minimizing them. It's not that they fail to realize risk taking is part of the competitive process, it's that to survive they must have the capacity to minimize the costs of the risk process.

VOCABULARY - "so Tonto, Kemosabe means best buds, right?"
When we talk about creativity, we mean "the arts" and how it fosters and promotes creativity. When business talks about creativity, they are primarily talking about "innovation" and "entrepreneurism." When GE changed their slogan to: "Imagination at work" - they don't necessarily mean what we in the arts take that to mean. Yes they definitely mean the generation of new ideas, for that is the lifeblood of any business enterprise, but they also mean advanced thinking in the execution of those ideas. In the process of moving ideas to reality, that process must be managed effectively and efficiently - and that management needs to be creative too. The point is that our community and the business community are yet to agree on the basic vocabulary for creativity. We mean different things when we use terms like creativity, innovation, value etc. We must now make as our next priority arriving at a consensus with business and industry on what we mean when we talk to each other, and to define what values we are looking to expand. Both them and us, not just us. Otherwise we aren't going to get anywhere.

Two things need to happen next. First we need to begin to approach our interaction with business and industry not just from the point of them ultimately supporting us, but also from the point of what can we specifically do for them. And second, the best way to begin to figure out what we can do for them, is to first agree on our vocabulary. In short, we have to demonstrate to them that we understand what they want when they talk about the value of creativity, and we can talk with them about how the arts can help them get it. Now in the long run we can hopefully expand what they think of as creativity and our role in its creation, sustainability, application, function and the like, but first we need them to understand that we understand what they are talking about ---- because we aren't yet there folks. I think it's time to move from the smart and strategic recommendations that we've come up with over the last few years, to specific, albeit small, action steps.

THE FUTURE - PREDICTIONS FROM AN EXPERT:
One of the most interesting and entertaining of the featured speakers was Andrew Zolli - a mid-thirties, well regarded and highly networked, self-described "futurist" whose keynote presentation was witty, chock full of "who knew" data, and provocative intimations as to what it all might mean.

I am a big fan of futurists - I find the very exercise of looking at data and today's realities and trying to hypothesize as to what all the current reality might morph into down the line to be fascinating. As Mr. Zolli freely admitted - more often than not we all get it wrong. All futurists love demographic, and especially population data, and Mr. Zolli was no exception. Here's a few facts: By 2050 there will be 9.2 billion people on the planet. We're looking at a steady 40 to 50% growth rate -- in Africa the rate is 120%, only in Russia and Europe is the rate on the way down. For the first time in history, we are on the cusp of being truly urban - more people living in cities across the planet than in rural or suburban areas. There is also a fundamental shift from the western to eastern worlds. So for example, London is currently one of the top Twenty Cities by popultion in the world. By 2020 it won't even be on the top 20 list. And by 2020, the number three biggest city in the world will be Lagos Nigeria. By 2025 there will be far fewer people on the planet who are in the middle of their lives, and far more either older or younger.

What good is all this information to us? Well, here's one example: as older people may need to stay on the job longer to maintain their own longer life spans, that fact may mean we will be looking towards boomers who would otherwise be retired to fill some of the nonprofit arts leadership posts that will go unfilled because there aren't enough people in the younger cohort available to fill all the jobs that will need people. Ironically, maybe the solution to some generational succession challenges will be the older generation. If older women - who outlive their husbands - begin to increasingly move in with their daughters or daughters in law, that may change the nuclear family dynamics. How does that affect us?

America is headed towards a national no majority ethnic group. Whites may be the largest group, but they will not have a majority (no group will)by 2050. What will this mean to the arts provision of "content" in the future?

For the first time ever in America women outnumber men in college. Can the glass ceiling last much longer? Does this impact financial support for the arts in future?

We are seeing the rise of social networks, because it seems the smaller the community, the better and more meaningful the communication. Networks become the water cooler of the future. Too big and there goes any meaningful converstion around the water cooler. Haven't the arts been doing that for awhile? How can we do it better will be one of the primary challenges we face in the future of audience development.

Zolli suggested that we are in the midst of a change in public attitudes on some fundamental levels. For example, America is moving towards re-evaluation of brands based on citizenship criteria. There is a growth in people's evaluation of the cultural implications of a company's actions as a core of its brand. Thus a favorable brand identity is based increasingly in part on social, environmental and other stewardship questions. Won't that be good for the arts in making arguments to the business community that involvement with us will be good for them on multiple levels? (see early discussion on business and the arts above).

I suppose the most significant shift is that we have begun to make major shifts in almost everything. Faster than we can manage, our lives our changing. In just the past six months, the price of a barrel of oil has fundamentally changed the world. And where will it all lead? Who knows? If America were at war with Iran over something like nuclear capability, some experts predict that it is not inconceivable that oil could temporarily rise to $300 to $400 a barrel! Then what would happen around the world? Then again, other experts insist the oil crisis is largely the result of speculation and manipulation (that the demand in China isn't yet as large as some would have us believe, that American demand is already down, etc.) Where the truth is in all of this is elusive.

We are looking at food shortages and riots in some places already. There are other actions, seemingly small on their face, that might have equally monumental impacts. Most of these large issues do not impact us in the short term - not individual organizations -- then again do they?

Is the oil crisis good or bad for the arts. I've suggested on many occassions that I wish we had think tanks to deal with these big issues on behalf of the arts field as a whole. These issues are simply too big for any one organization or region to deal with in any meaningful way. Perhaps we need a National Arts Policy Roundtable with a full time staff that didn't meet just once a year to talk in broad terms about a single issue, but one that worked day to day to see the implications, problems, obstacles, and opportunities for our sector in large trends and developments. Isn't that exactly what other industries do - both in the private sector and even in some quarters of the nonprofit world?

POLITCS:
The report from the Arts Action Fund - the PAC arm of AFTA was encouraging. For the first time in a Presidential primary contest, several of the candidates adopted pro arts positions - from Obama to Huckabee - Hillary Clinton, Governor Richardson and others acknowledged the value of arts & culture and committed to support. There is actually an Obama Arts Policy Committee. The McCain camp is apparently also interested in developing their own arts & culture policy position and hopefully both parties will include support for our sector in the campaign platforms at their conventions. Candidates from both parties - at all levels - are beginning to include support for the arts, and recognition of the value to our society that arts & culture offer, as part of their campaigns. To insure this isn't just rhetoric, we need to be active players in this election year. If you care about arts funding and government support, you need to consider how you can best impact the system.

This election year presents extraordinary opportunites for the arts to make significant advances in establishing itself with widespread, broad based congressional support. Someday perhaps every state will form their own PAC and we can at long last harvest the massive potential of our field to wield real political power. Not until we have that power will we ever be safe from funding cuts. Think about it please.

I would like to thank Nina Ozlu (and Jay Dick)for inviting me to sit on the convention session on advocacy.

It was a very good conference.

COMING SOON:
BARRY'S BLOG FIRST ANNUAL RANKING OF THE MOST POWERFUL AND INFLUENTIAL LEADERS IN THE NONPROFIT ARTS.

Have a great week everybody.

Barry

"And the beat goes on....................."

RACE AND GENDER - TIME FOR A NEW LOOK:

Like many of you I have been following the ups and downs of the Democratic Presidential race, including the issues of race and gender – both the insightful and carefully thought out comments on these issues, as well as the mindless, and at times, offensive rhetoric that has also been heard.

Barack Obama's nomination is an historic milestone in our country's history and shows that we have come a long way in terms of equality of opportunity. As is Hillary Clinton's extraordinary support. We have a long ways to go to be sure, and it remains, of course, to see what the future holds, but I think this nomination is something of which the country can take pride irrespective of November's election. Perhaps not yet the promised land Martin Luther King dreamt about, but another step up the mountain. Change seems to always be about taking one step after another.

Because race and gender are increasingly prevalent on the media radar screens (unfortunately, as often as not, for all the wrong reasons), I wonder if this isn’t a good time to see if there aren’t some issues attendant to those broad topics that our sector should take another look at.

While much of the thinking in America still sees race and gender issues (at least in politics) as a potential, if not real, problem ---in the arts sector, I believe we have long thought of the diversity of race and gender as an asset.

So this blog is devoted to asking some questions of ourselves about what race and gender issues (as the same may apply to our field) might deserve more attention. I think there are three areas that might benefit from an examination: Art and Artists, Access and Audiences, and Administration (or Leadership).

Let’s take the RACE issue first, and by race, we are talking about what our sector calls multicultural diversity.

Art and Artists
I think there has been a long period of basic consensus in our field that it is critical to the health of a vibrant arts & culture sector to promote, nourish, and sustain the continuing growth of a wide and deep multicultural arts component as part of the totality of what we offer to America. In California, for example, every culture on the planet is represented as part of the population, and each of those cultures has its own individual artistic heritage and legacy as currently practiced to contribute to the whole. Elsewhere across the country, we are as diverse a society as anywhere on the planet, and it seems to me there is near unanimity that we all benefit enormously from every single culture being represented as part of our arts and culture future.

The first question that occurs to me is: “How are we doing in terms of supporting and facilitating the growth and health of that diversity?” When I was Director of the California Arts Council and the agency had a relatively healthy budget, when the Governor and Legislature were both supportive of insuring that we provided direct support for multicultural organizations, we had programs that did just that. We not only supported multicultural arts organizations as a separate category deserving of special attention, we tried to be directly supportive of multicultural artists, and of the various parts of the whole of multicultural arts – including Latino, African-American, Asian Pacific Islander and Native American arts so that each constituency would have a seat at the table and an umbrella service organization to represent their interests as sub-sections of the larger whole. We thought there were a host of reasons why it was important to do whatever was possible to nurture and nourish the growth of multicultural arts. I believe that same feeling was echoed by virtually every state agency across America.

Now, of course, California is entering the fourth or fifth year of virtually no real per capita state support (California continues, alas, to rank dead last), and much of the money that previously specifically supported multicultural arts organization growth no longer exists. I am sure many of the foundations that have at least tried to take up some of that slack, together with most of the municipal agencies – cities and counties that have maintained grant programs for diversity – continue to recognize and champion support for multicultural arts organization growth, health and survival. But is it enough? We continue to grow, the economy shrinks – are the multicultural arts communities growing, shrinking, or simply holding their own? Are the needs that were previously identified and acknowledged being met? Are there new and different needs that have arisen? Are those being met? Can we meet old or new needs in the current climate?

I don’t think we know. There has been no statewide attempt (or national that I know of) that has tried to take a look at multicultural arts provision of late – to even map what exists in 2008, and to compare what exists today with what existed five years (ten years) ago as a means to assess where we stand, what has been or is being lost, where the growth has been, what is needed to address various old and new challenges and obstacles, and to take advantage of current or coming opportunities. We haven’t any basis or study to analyze the health of this part of our sector at all really. I think we need more research and data – both for practical reasons and to help us make new arguments for new support.

In California, I suspect that the lack of state funding, coupled with the collapse of the economy, and rising fuel costs and the impact of fuel costs on inflation, has hit the multicultural arts sector particularly hard. I know too that foundations have been aware of this fact and have tried to address the needs of the multicultural community, and with encouraging success, but I suspect it isn’t really enough. So what has been the impact? Where do we stand? What is needed? And how can we address the issues – of both multicultural organizations and individual artists?

Having been in the proverbial political hot seat at one time, I acknowledge the argument that all boats must rise and that we must address and protect all sectors of the arts universe, but I think there are compelling reasons why we must make sure that the growth, capacity and stability in the multicultural arts field that we collectively worked so hard to establish and promote over a decade or longer, doesn’t now recede so that we lose a lot of the ground we had won.

While race may yet divide us politically (and one hopes to the smallest possible extent at this point in our existence), I believe most of us believe race and diversity in the arts & culture sector can unite us and make each of the other sub-parts that much more vibrant and alive. Though I know there isn’t unanimity on the proposition that individual arts organization territoriality and the “what’s in it for me” attitude really doesn’t serve us well, I think here in California (and elsewhere) we made great inroads into thinking of ourselves as a “community”. I suspect that many multicultural arts organizations and even individual artists are feeling the pinch particularly hard right now – though I accept and acknowledge that belt tightening and downsizing and other unpleasant decisions are facing everyone in the arts.

Access and Audiences:
One of the real issues for the multicultural wing of the arts & culture sector is, of course, access to the arts and development of their audiences (both within the individual cultures and across the wider culture).

I wonder how they are faring on this plane? Are multicultural arts organizations and the artists they serve making progress or falling behind in their attempt to increase public access to their art, to widening and deeping their audiences – both from within their own communities and the crossover to other cultures and other communities? Do we know?

Certainly economic considerations, leisure time availability, competition in the marketplace, and other factors play within the multicultural communities as they do in the wider community as a whole. Everything from ticket prices to program content to marketing and media management are all issues that affect and impact the success of any arts organization or individual artist in making their art more accessible, and expanding their potential and real audiences. Everyone is trying to cast a wider net, with mixed results. Tourism is actually up and so, I think, is the public’s positive feeling towards the performing and exhibition arts. If there has been some contraction in the overall efforts of the arts in audience expansion, because of obstacles and barriers - new and old - has it hit the multicultural arts communities harder or substantially the same? Do we know? Would it be helpful it we did know?

I do wonder to what purpose some of the new and increased arts education money might ultimately help to foster and promote both multicultural arts understanding and appreciation, new creativity, access and future audience development, and hope that those goals might benefit at least in part from the arts education expenditures in the future, (though I do also recognize that even though $105 million – the California arts education allocation - sounds like a lot – it is but a miniscule drop in the bucket given the size of California’s school population, and the recent history of treating arts education as an unnecessary luxury, the first of the so called electives to get the ax in tough times, and the fact that schools across the state have the most basic of needs – teachers, supplies, instruments, space and time – all essential to get arts education provision anywhere near where it ought to be.

Administration:
Then there is the question of leadership. Within the whole of the arts sector we have a multitude of issues to face on this issue: how to provide competitive compensation; how to manage training and technical assistance provision so as to facilitate on-going learning with the goal of our administrators becoming better managers; generational succession issues; recruitment and retention of the best candidates we can attract; time management (far too many things to do in the course of a day than there is time for); protecting the institutional memory of so many people leaving the field or likely to leave in the next decade, to name but a few. How do all of these and all the other issues of professional, effective arts administration differ (if at all) for multicultural arts organizations? What special challenges and needs do multicultural organizations have that ought to be addressed? And, of course, can any such needs be addressed in our current situation?

Clearly, the future of protecting and expanding multicultural arts and all that might mean to our society’s future, lies largely in the hands of the leadership of the multicultural arts sectors themselves. But, what are we doing to make sure we provide every advantage to that sector so that it can provide leadership within its community?

Of course, many might argue that the needs of the multicultural arts communities are no different than the whole (or any other sector of the whole) of the arts & culture community – and that as we identify the needs of the whole, and prioritize them, addressing those priorities benefits everyone. I agree. But I would also argue that there is a fragility to certain aspects of multicultural arts provision that demands and deserves (in all our best interests) some special attention particularly in the tougher times.

Let’s move on to GENDER as the second issue:

Art and Artists
I don’t think gender is really an issue here. I think we have relatively equal opportunity for both men and women to be artists. Creativity is largely, in the arts sector anyway, gender blind. I suppose there might still be some general bias within the education system that continues to teach young girls that they have limitations boys don’t – but I think (and hope) that we continue to make progress in finally getting rid of that dangerous, stupid admonition.

Access and Audiences:
Here too I think Gender is less of a challenge than multiculturalism and race. By and large women have as equal (or even greater) access to arts, and to being artists, as do men. Our audiences – from dance and theater and music to museums and film - have as many women in the seats as men (perhaps even more – and maybe the Gender issue here is even how to involve more men and boys).

Administration:
It is in the area of Arts Administration and Leadership where I think Gender raises issues that we ought to address.

Though I don’t know for sure, observation suggests to me that there are probably more women running arts organizations than men, more women on staffs, but with more men running the very biggest cultural organizations. I’m not sure if that holds true in the multicultural arts organizations, but I think it probably does. In part, of course, this is a legacy from our past when the arts weren’t considered important enough for men to devote careers in the field, and the pay was so low that it discouraged breadwinners from looking to it as a steady source of income. Of course much of that reality has, or is, changing – though still, unfortunately, not completely. The arts are an industry attracting talented, smart people of both sexes from all backgrounds; everybody is a breadwinner today by necessity; and the pay is getting better (though, I think, not yet actually competitive).

Again, I don’t know, but I suspect women are paid less than their male counterparts even in our sector – at least at certain levels and in certain places - both horizontally and vertically within an organization and within the field as a whole. I know for a fact, based on the ongoing Youth Involvement Study I am doing with the Hewlett Foundation, that there is a current (and growing - due to the failing economy) problem with mid-level, mid-career women arts administrators who simply cannot afford to stay in the field and are opting out for higher paying jobs either in other sectors of the nonprofit universe or in the private sector. With increasing inflation, kids reaching college age and the looming expense of providing higher education, and even future retirement needs greater now than they were in the past, more and more women who would like to continue to pursue arts administration as a career path can no longer afford to do so. Is that or will that be true for men too? What do we do? Having mid-level management exit the field is a potentially huge problem -- for those are the leaders we have been cultivating to assume the helm of our organizations.

To what extent is there a glass ceiling still in place in our industry? While there are women in all kinds of leadership positions within our field, is it the norm at the highest levels? Certainly well qualified women lead many major institutions, head foundation programs, occupy government seats of power, run boards of directors and come from all areas of the private sector. But is there still any remainder of inequality in our field? I’m just asking? I don’t know. But I do know that we ought to know answers to these and other questions raised herein and lying out there. Because we need the answers to questions like these if we are to make intelligent choices in terms of what strategies we embrace to address our challenges.

Fortunately, the arts & culture universe has come a long way towards establishing a level playing field based on gender. Perhaps more so than on race – but that may be true across our whole society. What are the special Gender issues for the arts & culture nonprofit universe? And what might we do to address issues that arise? These are just questions for us to consider and not ignore.

Considering race and gender – multicultural arts provision and the challenges facing women in arts administration as part of addressing all of the needs of our sector - points to the crushing need we have for an overall arts & culture sector public policy in these and other areas.

PUBLIC POLICY FORMATION:
We don’t have a single, consensus based, comprehensive, well thought out, strategic public policy for arts & culture in this country. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised – we don’t have a real foreign policy, we certainly don’t have an energy policy, we don’t have a comprehensive ecological policy – we pretty don’t have any consensus, overarching policies to deal with all of the challenges, obstacles, barriers, opportunities and possibilities for our country’s future. I would think we in the arts & culture sector could do better in this area.

Somebody ought to convene a national conference with a representative sampling of our leadership (not all the big name, important people that tangentially touch our field but who are really academicians, celebrities, business leaders etc., and not just the name recognition national leaders either (although them for sure)-- but also the average, common “in-the-trenches” typical arts organization leadership too (at least for the first go round) and begin to hammer out a comprehensive, well thought out, overarching national arts & culture public policy that addresses issues from multicultural arts provision, to gender participation; from arts education, to audience and access development; from funding, to government support; from economic development to international cooperation and collaboration; from leadership issues to business coalitions; from media coverage and so on and so on. And the process ought to somehow involve the whole of the field. It might take two or even three years to complete, and, of necessity, this must be a recurring event, because no policy, however arrived at, will be on point and relevant over a long period. Changes in circumstances dictate that public polices in any sector need on-going revision and updating.

I know there have been some very worthwhile and meaningful efforts towards this goal in the past – both localized and more far reaching; from valuable Manifestos to smaller Strategic Plans. This isn’t a new idea – and all those efforts that have already come should be used as a foundation on which to build. But I think a truly national all-inclusive policy – comprehensive (but not so bogged down in minutia and petty detail as to be crippling and exhaustive) and one that was specific, would help us to make our case better to all those to whom we wish to make our case, would garner us more public support and media attention, and provide critically needed guidelines and blueprints so that we were all of the same mind, all on the same page, about what we believed was important, necessary, immediate - and would underpin our actions and words. I think this is just another element in efforts to galvanize the arts as a community – a goal that still seems too elusive for our field. I think we continue to pay the price for not being a cohesive, united force. We continue to move in that direction, but still, too often, we go our own way and think our own self-interest trumps the good for the whole of us. I think, to the degree that attitude continues, we are harmed by failing to harness the power we have together - particularly in comparison and competition with other sectors that have put away some of their self-interest to act in concert.

Race and Gender are two subjects. How are we doing in those two areas? Is it time to take another hard look? Doubtless there are countless other subjects to examine as well. I know there is little money or time to support continuous research, data collection and analysis and planning - but it is expensive and time-consuming NOT to engage in those activities too.

I hope somebody gets us to the point of a national Arts Policy someday. I know a lot of people have been talking about it for years. We can, and should, develop mechanisms for real public policy formulation – dialogue and debate that deals across the board with the critical issues of the arts and which involves everyone. Just the process would reap enormous benefits.

And we should at least begin to get a better picture than we have now about the current status of multicultural arts provision and the challenges facing women in our leadership model.

Just my opinion anyway.

AFTERTHOUGHT
On another topic having absolutely nothing to do with anything really, I just can't help but comment on something not so important perhaps, but that strikes me anyway.

All during the contentious contest between Senators Obama and Clinton, there has been both threat and fear that the supporters of one would not support the other. Party stalwarts, fearing such an eventuality, have as staunchly and frequently as they could reassured the media and the public that on the contrary, given what is at stake in November, the party would unify behind its nominee. I think that's right, they likely will.

But the media in wanting to reduce this entire subject to a sound bite, as only the media can, began early trumpeting such unification as: "Oh yea, and everyone will sing "Kumbaya"- thereby trivializing not only the issue but, and I find this insulting, the song too.

I remember first hearing the song sung by Joan Baez at a concert in Berkeley when I was a sophmore in the 60's. And, like millions of my generation at the time, found the song hauntingly beautiful. It became one of the anthems of the 60's and the civil rights movement and the protest against the war in Vietnam. And now it is in danger of becoming the equivalent of some b.s. kind of touchy feely thing.

According to Wikipedia - which Gore Vidal insists is 100% wrong on everything, 100% of the time, the origin of the song is either a reverend in Oregon in the 1930's or it has African slave and even Arabic antecedents that go farther back. No matter, it is a song about the common shared plight of man, it is a song of all of us in it together and it is a quite beautiful song.

I hate that the media is making it synonymous with sappyness.

Have a great week.

Barry

"And the beat goes on..................."

SCENARIO PLANNING:

This is kind of a rant I guess, but the topic of the extent to which we, as a field, can and do plan for our future - is, I think, a critically important topic. Stay with me here - read on if you will.

A couple of years ago, we did a HESSENIUS Group live at the Americans for the Arts conference in Madison, Wisconsin focusing on planning for the future - specifically what the arts might do in the face of possible catastrophic occurences - e.g., what would happen to audiences were there to be a highly contagious pandemic outbreak of something like bird flu. Would people stop going to cultural events? for how long? what would be the impact financially? and what could we do to prepare for such a disaster to protect our field - if anything?

Of course we haven't had that disaster scenario come to reality. Planning for disasters is more often than not an academic exercise - thankfully so. And it is kind of fun making wild, unfounded projections about what kind of world the future might bring and how we might be impacted.

But the purpose of the exercise was more basic and fundamental - it was to get our field to begin to think about strategic planning in a larger context; one that would encompass a deeper and broader consideration of our place in the overall world and to, at least, begin to consider what global, national or local trends, events, and the like might have on who we are and what we do.

Strategic planning has long been ingrained into the organizational psyche of the arts. Almost every organization engages in some sort of annual ritual of board retreats and strategic planning. And we engage in strategic planning because it makes sense; it is logical to set forth our goals and objectives and try to figure out how we can get there from where we are and who has to do what and when to make that happen.

When I first started in the arts, it was common for arts organizations to (ala the Russians or Chinese I guess) create five year plans. I, and apparently many others, came to the conclusion that trying to plan five years into the future was an exercise in futility - because it was basically impossible to even conceive of what circumstances might be five years down the road. Planning even for two years out would have to allow for changes in circumstances that simply couldn't be conceived of as of the date of the plan - and flexibility and adaptation should be in every plan. Still, projecting goals and considering the variables that would likely impact the process of reaching those goals was, and remains, a valuble pursuit to help an organization move forward.

The experiment we did in Madison was an attempt to widen the things that might be considered in the process of planning or trying to plan. The problem, of course, is that the big issues - particularly ones that are potentially negative, and which are larger than any single organization is likely to be able to plan for, demand attention from people and resouces that are beyond the scope of the typical arts organization. If one wants to consider what a bird flu pandemic might do to audience attendance at performing arts events or museums, that is simply too big an issue for any one arts organization - it is really more appropriately the province of the NEA, or government, or state agencies or the big foundations, or think tanks.

One point that came out of that Madison experiment is that we don't have a systemic approach or infrastructure that spends time dealing with these large issues. Government, state agencies, the NEA, big foundations - none of them deal with this kind of scenario planning. I suppose it is fair to ask why should we? And I suppose as long as there isn't a bird flu pandemic or some such calamity, spending time considering what to do were there one, isn't necessarily time well spent -- given all the demands on our limited time.

My guess is that the private sector does engage in some of this kind of thinking and planning, and one would hope that government does (though there is increasing evidence that from the defense department to FEMA - the government obviously doesn't do enough of this kind of planning). But such planning takes time, money, commitment and is somewhat of a luxury. It's like expensive earthquake insurance - great if there is a disaster - but expensive and perhaps not affordable in the here and now - and no one likes to think too much about disasters and the like happening.

All of this - the issue of what we consider in the overall organizational dynamic of strategic planning - came to my mind because of the recent spike in fuel costs and specifically American Airlines decision to start charging $15 to check your bag (the first bag, no less). My first reaction was the humor in where this would lead:

"Yes Mr. Jones, that will be $15 to check your bag. By the way would you be wanting a seat belt? Only ten dollars. How about an arm rest - only another $5. Leg room - yes we sell leg room. $2.50 per inch. How many inches would you like? This is a four hour flight - would you like to purchase a card key for the bathroom or just a wet towlette should you need one? Oh, and when we arrive - would you like to exit the plane via the jetway? $10. Or would you prefer to just jump out the exit door?"

And I've seen television reports about angry people saying they think American Airlines is just nuts. "Charging for checking your bag? My gawd." So people will now likely try to take more and more carry on bags - ones that doubtless will NOT fit in the overhead bins or under your seats, and that will cause getting on and off the airplane to take even longer than it already does. And that will cost the airlines time and more money. But what are they to do? Another television report suggests that for every one dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the airlines incur an additional $80 million in fuel costs. And oil goes up one to three or four dollars a day. The airline business isn't such a great business during normal times. How can they afford to stay in business unless they increase income? They could just raise the fares to meet costs, but that might mean ticket prices would be so high people would just stop flying. And maybe that's where we are headed.

And there's the hub of the issue. Will we get to the point where only the very rich can afford to fly anymore. Will oil costs simply climb to the point where there is no way people can afford it and no choice to the airlines. Planes are expensive. There are no hybrids on the drawing boards to make fuel more efficient enough to keep things going. Fuel is a major variable over which they have little to no control. What to do?

Why is this of any relevance to us and strategic planning? Well, one possible scenario would invovle the future of tourism - which is important to the arts - at least tangentially. We are part of the tourism eco-system. Most major cities and regions depend ever more heavily on tourism for local dollars and economic activity. Tourism means jobs, means local tax money, means hotel and hospitality industry income to the arts - and perhaps even adds to our audience bases. And it's important to a vibrant economy - and a healthy economy is important to us.

So if flying becomes increasingly prohibitive (particulalry when combined with increasingly expensive gas for car travel) how will that impact tourism? And how will that impact us? And with the incresing demand for oil and gas in China and India and around the world, and the reality that oil prices aren't likely to go down, isn't this a very likely scenario (as compared let's say with bird flu pandemics)? A dramatic shift from air travel (and car travel too)on a global basis will have profound impact on a lot of the way we live our lives beyond it's impact on tourism. And some of that other impact may affect us too. So, for example, were global tourism to experience a downturn because of the cost of fuel, we could expect a downturn in the fortunes of the hospitality industry (hotels, resturants etc.), and because that industry has (in Europe and America anyway) long been dependent on cheap immigrant labor, what kind of impact would that have on immigration trends and movements? And would that impact change the patterns of growth? And would that change the issues attendant to the growth of cultural diversity? Everything seems somehow inexorably connected to everything else. The "butterfly effect" -- where a butterfly that flaps its wings in Hawaii changes the weather pattern in Asia.

I don't know the answers to any of these or countless other questions. That's the point. Do we need to discuss any of this? Do we even have the luxury of discussing these kinds of issues? Should, or rather, CAN we include consideration of these scenarios in our strateigic planning - if not by individual organizations, at least as a field? Even if we did, is it likely we could do anything positive to protect ourselves anyway? And if not, why would we bother? Should anybody bother?

I think what does make sense is that - arts & culture (as a sector) - does need to continually question and debate what should and shouldn't be included in our approach to strategic planning. We should continuously debate and discuss what kinds of things we should consider, and how we might as a field, at least not ignore what other sectors may be addressing.

And these kinds of questions as to what we should be aware of as part of the future world we might face certainly can have practical resonance in areas that are much more real and immediate. So, for example, I am working with the Hewlett Foundation on a second phase of a study we did on the Involvement of Youth in the Arts. This specific phase is designed to try to ascertain what people in a younger cohort actually think might help arts organizations to attract, recruit, retain and expand the involvement of young people to become the next generation of arts leaders. Since the release of the initial study, we have noted an expansion of the awareness that generational succession is now and will be an ever more critical issue for the arts. And that is because of the fact that millions of jobs will be vacant in the next decade and there simply won't be enough people in the pool to fill them all - let alone enough of the best educated, best thinkers, most talented people. There simply won't be enough people to fill all the vacant jobs - period. What will the arts do to at least compete? And what will happen to the ones who can't attract succession leadership? Will they accept less than qualified people to lead them? Will they fold and cease to exist? Will they merge with other organizations? The point is even though there is no time to consider issues like this that won't come to an immediate head right away, we must consider them. We must plan now. Or we are in big, big trouble when the reality begins to hit home. And while bird flu may not happen, a change in tourism patterns might; and retiring baby boomers creating a generational succession challenge for the arts will absolutely come to pass.

We discuss all kinds of policy issues about culture in America, and rightly so. But what else do we need to discuss? There are seemingly broad issues that are academic in scope, but that will soon enough be very practical concerns for us. What should our approach be now? Can we at least begin to think of creating mechanisms that might be able to devote energy to these kinds of challenges on behalf of all of us? Can we begin to consider systemic ways for the field as a whole to address the bigger picture on an ongoing and regular basis? Can government agencies or our national umbrella organizations or the bigger foundations or the university degree programs help in any way?

Maybe a downturn in the ability of the world's population to travel will turn out to be a boon for the arts - people will stay home and the arts will become more important. Maybe then revenues and tax income to the arts will increase. Maybe there will be opportunities in that eventuality that we should think about how we can exploit. And maybe we ought to think about those things now.

Maybe not. Shall we discuss these things?

Have a great holiday weekend.

Don't Quit.

Barry

"And the beat goes on........................."

With national Arts Advocacy Day just past, and during this election year, I thought it might be fun to publish an Organization Advocacy Self-Assessment Quiz that I included in the Companion Workbook to my book "Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits"

Take the quiz, check out your score and organization's level of advocacy readiness at the end. Feel free to pass the quiz on to other people.

ADVOCACY SELF-ASSESSMENT QUIZ: (NEEDS ASSESSMENT)

Here is a simple test to assess your organization’s level of Advocacy involvement and preparedness. In an ideal situation your organization would be able to answer yes to most of the questions (see ranking at end). Don't be discouraged. This isn't an ideal world. This instrument will, however, help you to both identify your Needs and your Assets.

MY ORGANIZATION:

Has a strong relationship with our:

City Council members ___Yes ___No
Board of Supervisors ___Yes ___No
State Legislators ___Yes ___No
School Board members ___Yes ___No
Special state legislative caucuses ___Yes ___No
Congressmen / women ___Yes ___No
U.S. Senators ___Yes ___No
Mayor ___Yes ___No
Governor (Administration) ___Yes ___No

Has a process to regularly (and ongoing) brief / inform elected officials as to the value the organization brings to the community?
___Yes ___No

Schedules a meeting with elected officials at least once a year?

___Yes ___No

Regularly invites elected officials to scheduled meetings, events / performances, exhibitions?
___Yes ___No

Regularly provides locally elected officials with a calendar or information about the organization, its programs, services, and events?
___Yes ___No

Sends a copy of the Annual Report to elected officials?
___Yes ___No

Seeks out newly elected officials to solicit their support for the organization’s mission?
___Yes ___No

Regularly finds ways for elected officials to increase their profile with our organization and its members/audiences, such as having officials introduce people, bestow awards to supporters et. al ___Yes ___No

Raises funds to support a separate Advocacy / Lobbying effort?
___Yes ___No

Funds are sufficient to hire full time staff for the Advocacy / Lobbying effort?
___Yes ___No

Engages the services of a professional lobbyist (either by ourselves or in concert with a coalition of other organizations)?
___Yes ___No

Has a staff member charged with overseeing advocacy / lobbying issues?
___Yes ___No

Has its own (or is affiliated with a coalition that has) a 501 c (4) nonprofit organization charged with advocacy management?
___Yes ___No

Has a Political Action Committee (PAC) affiliated with the above 501 c (4)?
___Yes ___No

Has a 527 organization affiliated with the above 501 c (4)?
___Yes ___No

Raises funds to support each of the above entities? organization?
___Yes ___No

Is a member of a coalition of similar groups formed to handle Advocacy efforts?
___Yes ___No

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Invites elected officials to address our board meetings:
___Yes ___No

Includes advocacy in the Board job description?
___Yes ___No

Recruits corporate leaders with political contacts for the Board?
___Yes ___No

Trains new board members to develop their advocacy skills?
___Yes ___No

Has a standing Advocacy Subcommittee of the Board of Directors?
___Yes ___No

Includes advocacy news / reports as a regular item on the Board meeting agenda?
___Yes ___No

Encourages Board members to develop personal relationships with elected officials?
___Yes ___No

IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION, WE:

Include in our regular newsletter or other contact with our constituent base a regular column or information on legislative issues important to the organization?
___Yes ___No

Collaborate with other organizations within the city / county to maximize political clout?
___Yes ___No

Meet regularly with advocacy representatives of other organizations within the coalition?
___Yes ___No

Participate in local / state advocacy efforts?
___Yes ___No

Meet regularly with local media (editorial boards) to promote endorsement of the value of the organization to the community?
___Yes ___No

Actively encourage client / constituent base (including audiences) to advocate for support?
___Yes ___No

Have an advocacy section on our website?
___Yes ___No

Have materials / tool-kit explaining how to advocate for people interested in helping?
___Yes ___No

Provide advocacy training for volunteer supporters?
___Yes ___No

Reach out and work collaboratively with stakeholder organizations who can help drum up support for the organization (e.g., unions, civic / business organizations, etc.)
___Yes ___No

Recognize and thank elected officials for their support?
___Yes ___No

POLITICALLY, WE:

Have a process to inquire “candidate” positions and report voting records during election cycles?
___Yes ___No

Raise and distribute funds in support of candidates for public office via a PAC.
___Yes ___No

Work on campaigns of candidates who support the organization via our PAC?
___Yes ___No

Actively support or oppose legislation that impacts our organization?
___Yes ___No

Explain to our board, staff and client base the IRS rules governing advocacy for non profit organizations?
___Yes ___No

SCORE: ADD UP THE NUMBER OF "YES" ANSWERS.

All Yes answers: You are the penultimate force in Advocacy / Lobbying and the envy of all. You have a lot of influence and clout and politicians know it.

43 + Yes answers: Congratulations your organization has an exemplary Advocacy program and ranks at the top in being politically savvy. Your power and clout depend on the amount of money you raise and the number of volunteers who work on your behalf. Politicians are aware of you and watching.

33 to 43 Yes answers: Your organization is pretty good in terms of Advocacy preparedness and action, but you must still go the last steps. Close, yet still so far, you aren’t quite competitive. You aren’t yet on the political radar screen, but you’re close. You already have some friends in high places – just not yet enough.

21 to 33 Yes answers: Your organization is half-way there but you are vulnerable. Your victories are more the result of fate than your efforts. Politicians don’t take much notice of you.

15 to 21 Yes answers: You have some of the basics down, but you really need to work on it more. You don’t have much influence. Politicians have no idea who you are or what you want, and probably don’t care.

10 to 15 Yes answers: You’ve scratched the surface, but you have a long, long way to go. You are virtually invisible to politicians.

0 to 10 Yes answers: Are you kidding? You don’t have an Advocacy strategy or program. Your organization has zero political clout. Politicians find you irrelevant and inconsequential.

© 2007 Barry Hessenius All Rights Reserved.
This work may not be copied or reproduced by any means without the written consent of Barry Hessenius

It's not likely the average arts organization (or even the average arts advocacy coalition) will be able to answer yes to most of these questions. But hopefully the exercise will give you pause to think about the kinds of assets that come to play in the advocacy / lobbying game as we strive (as a field) to move in the direction of gaining political clout and influence.

AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS PHILADELPHIA CONFERENCE: I will be on the Advocacy Panel at the AFTA gathering June 19 -22. Hope to see you there. This is going to be a really outstanding conference, and Philadelphia is an amazing city. Click for info: www.artsusa.org/events/2008/convention/default.asp

Have a good week.

Barry

"And the beat goes on....................."

THE DYNAMICS OF MOTIVATION:

We talk a lot about leadership, but rarely seem to get into what leadership really entails. My experience in past advocacy campaigns that have involved the creation of coalitions and collaborations have taught me that the skill of being able to motivate people to action and to sustain a high motivation level over time, is invaluable in setting and achieving specific goals.

But how do you do that? How do you motivate people to support and become part of your agenda? And how do you keep them involved in helping you to realize the mission statement of your organization?

Robert Louis Stevenson once said: "Keep your fears to yourself, but share your inspiration with others."

I came across an article on the internet by Carmine Gallo about American business leadership and how they might learn to be more inspiring. The lessons are applicable to us as well I think.

Here's that article:

THE SEVEN SECRETS OF INSPIRING LEADERS:
by Carmine Gallo

"American business professionals are uninspired. Only 10% of employees look forward to going to work and most point to a lack of leadership as the reason why, according to a recent Maritz Research poll. But it doesn't have to be that way. All business leaders have the power to inspire, motivate, and positively influence the people in their professional lives.

For the past year, I have been interviewing renowned leaders, entrepreneurs, and educators who have an extraordinary ability to sell their vision, values, and themselves. I was researching their communications secrets for my new book, Fire Them Up. What I found were seven techniques that you can easily adopt in your own professional communications with your employees, clients, and investors.

1. Demonstrate enthusiasm -- constantly. Inspiring leaders have an abundance of passion for what they do. You cannot inspire unless you're inspired yourself. Period. Passion is something I can't teach. You either have passion for your message or you don't. Once you discover your passion, make sure it's apparent to everyone within your professional circle. Richard Tait sketched an idea on a napkin during a cross-country flight, an idea to bring joyful moments to families and friends. His enthusiasm was so infectious that he convinced partners, employees, and investors to join him. He created a toy and game company called Cranium. Walk into its Seattle headquarters and you are hit with a wave of fun, excitement, and engagement the likes of which is rarely seen in corporate life. It all started with one man's passion.

2. Articulate a compelling course of action. Inspiring leaders craft and deliver a specific, consistent, and memorable vision. A goal such as "we intend to double our sales by this time next year," is not inspiring. Neither is a long, convoluted mission statement destined to be tucked away and forgotten in a desk somewhere. A vision is a short (usually 10 words or less), vivid description of what the world will look like if your product or service succeeds. Microsoft's Steve Ballmer once said that shortly after he joined the company, he was having second thoughts. Bill Gates and Gates' father took Ballmer out to dinner and said he had it all wrong. They said Ballmer saw his role as that of a bean counter for a startup. They had a vision of putting a computer on every desk, in every home. That vision -- a computer on every desk, in every home -- remains consistent to this day. The power of a vision set everything in motion.

3. Sell the benefit. Always remember, it's not about you, it's about them. In my first class at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism, I was taught to answer the question, "Why should my readers care?" That's the same thing you need to ask yourself constantly throughout a presentation, meeting, pitch, or any situation where persuasion takes place. Your listeners are asking themselves, what's in this for me? Answer it. Don't make them guess.

4. Tell more stories. Inspiring leaders tell memorable stories. Few business leaders appreciate the power of stories to connect with their audiences. A few weeks ago I was working with one of the largest producers of organic food in the country. I can't recall most, if any, of the data they used to prove organic is better. But I remember a story a farmer told. He said when he worked for a conventional grower, his kids could not hug him at the end of the day when he got home. His clothes had to be removed and disinfected. Now, his kids can hug him as soon as he walks off the field. No amount of data can replace that story. And now guess what I think about when I see the organic section in my local grocery store? You got it. The farmer's story. Stories connect with people on an emotional level. Tell more of them.

5. Invite participation. Inspiring leaders bring employees, customers, and colleagues into the process of building the company or service. This is especially important when trying to motivate young people. The command and control way of managing is over. Instead, today's managers solicit input, listen for feedback, and actively incorporate what they hear. Employees want more than a paycheck. They want to know that their work is adding up to something meaningful.

6. Reinforce an optimistic outlook. Inspiring leaders speak of a better future. Robert Noyce, the co-founder of Intel INTC, said, "Optimism is an essential ingredient of innovation. How else can the individual favor change over security?" Extraordinary leaders throughout history have been more optimistic than the average person. Winston Churchill exuded hope and confidence in the darkest days of World War II. Colin Powell said that optimism was the secret behind Ronald Reagan's charisma. Powell also said that optimism is a force multiplier, meaning it has a ripple effect throughout an organization. Speak in positive, optimistic language. Be a beacon of hope.

7. Encourage potential. Inspiring leaders praise people and invest in them emotionally. Richard Branson has said that when you praise people they flourish; criticize them and they shrivel up. Praise is the easiest way to connect with people. When people receive genuine praise, their doubt diminishes and their spirits soar. Encourage people and they'll walk through walls for you.

By inspiring your listeners, you become the kind of person people want to be around. Customers will want to do business with you, employees will want to work with you, and investors will want to back you. It all starts with mastering the language of motivation."

I tried to deal with the issue of motivation in my book on advocacy (Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits)

Here is a thumb-nail summary of those points (many of which I think echo the points in the article above):

1. Constant communication is essential for your people to have a sense of ownership in what is going on. You have to keep people "in the loop".

2. Keep it simple. If you want people to do something on your behalf it will be easier for them to comply if what you ask is easy, simple, clearly understood and the goal is ultimately perceived as attainable.

3. Promote a sense of community. People will be more likely to do what you want if they at least perceive that they aren't acting alone.

4. Everybody counts. You have to make everybody feel that their contribution is critically important.

5. Fun. It is easier to inspire people to help if you can figure out ways to make their participation fun and enjoyable.

6. Contagion. You have to promote the "bandwagon / momentum" effect. Nothing is so contagious as success. Thus it's smart to set early goals that can be achieved so that people begin to taste success early.

7. Outrage. People are more likely to join in some effort if they are outraged by some set of circumstances. This is perhaps just another way of saying that you need to make what you ask of people "personal" some how.

8. Training. People will often times want to help, but feel they lack the skills or knowledge to do so. Take away that excuse by providing training, answering their questions, and empowering them to succeed.

While I discuss these strategies in my book as relating to advocacy and lobbying efforts, they are, I think, applicable in large part to any task of trying to motivate and inspire people within your organization.

I also discuss the notion that you need to:

1. Respect your people - don't ask them to do too much, don't presume to invade their privacy by sending them too many unsolicited "asks", don't ignore the demands on their time and energy etc.

2. Use rites, rituals and ceremonies. For eons human beings have understood that participation in rituals and rites and ceremonies help cement loyalty and alligence. Something as simple as a monthly welcome to the volunteer corps coffee meet can make people feel special, and that's what you want to do.

3. Give Credit. As Paul Minicucci use to say: "Give credit where it's due, and give credit even where it isn't due." Saying thank you is the easiest thing in the world and one of the most inspiring tools you can use. Do it more.

4. Be Passionate. If you're passionate, it's easier to ask someone else to be.

It's not always easy to lead the charge for something; to inspire other people to join you, to motivate large numbers of people to help -- but that is the challenge of leadership and, I think, critically important to those of us in the arts & culture field.

NOTE: I am participating on an Advocacy / Lobbying Panel at this year's Americans for the Arts Convention in Philadelphia - June 19-22. Click here for a link to register: www.artsusa.org/events/2008/convention/default.asp

I hope to see many of you there.

Have a great week.

Barry