3 Comments
Aug 30, 2023Liked by E. Andrew Taylor

I don't disagree with these three classifications, but it seems to me that they are only promoting the same model of Board structure and growth that has been active in this sector since the 1950s. I think it's well past time that we completely disrupted this model of Board governance while maintaining the idea of a body of people that are the connection between the organization and its communities. I don't know what that looks like, but I find it frustrating that we are still caught in business models that are 75 years old and insisting that they're the only way we can conduct our business, and I don't believe that this is the best way to facilitate the creation of art.

Expand full comment
author
Aug 31, 2023·edited Aug 31, 2023Author

Thanks Michael. I totally agree that this framework and its three stages describe a historical and conventional view of board governance. I do think its original purpose was prescriptive – to instruct boards on how to evolve. But I think of it now as descriptive – naming and framing the problems that arise in conventional practice. I think it's still useful as a descriptive tool, but I also agree with you that an entirely different framework and approach is needed.

I plan to include different frameworks for understanding and approaching governance in the ArtsManaged Field Guide, and in this weekly newsletter. If you, or any other reader, know of any that are worth exploring, please do let me know! I think we have a lot to learn from indigenous practice, grass-roots organizing, the solidarity economy, and the many distributed decision models now emerging online.

Expand full comment

I'd love to hear other models as well, especially since it may be the whole nonprofit structure that needs to change and update itself (legally, culturally, institutionally).

Expand full comment