Guest blogger and author: James T. Parsons/Attorney at Law
While many arts entities have "young professional" groups, by and large they are not fully succeeding in these efforts of truly developing arts leadership succession inter-generationally.
While these groups are good about "introducing young people" to the art, they are within various degrees unsuccessful at grooming future leaders - with some exceptions, of course. Much of this problem relates to the "time" it takes to invest in such leaders, with most organizations believing that the "time" would produce more fruit quickly by having strong limits on these other development effort. Much like saving toward retirement, such dividends seem small in comparison to more immediate and short term returns on investments in the here and now (the seasoned leaders). However, like saving for retirement, having at least a portion of an art's effort focused at professionals from various age groups is necessary to diversify their efforts for more long-term stability.
Part of why I think the National American for the Arts Initiative model can and will work is that it does recognize the need of building in those younger leaders into the model, through professional development. Using an analogy from the military, arts organizations often want to recruit Generals and Colonels (Seasoned and experienced board members), but don't seem to understand the way that the military works. The the mass of Lieutenants, Captains, and Majors is how those Generals and Colonels ACTUALLY lead - and that those lower level officers are being groomed for promotion and leadership through the process.
Using this analogy, arts organizations believe that they ought to find promising lieutenants (their young professionals), create some entity that will "introduce them" to that arts entity, and in a few years they can start contributing at the level of the Generals and Colonels (ie, the Seasoned, board members). When that fails, they don't understand why their succession planning has also failed.
The reality is that there is a huge gulf between the young professionals and the seasoned board members, by and large, and that those young professionals may be very promising, but are not currently capable of bearing the full financial or leadership responsibilities of the seasoned leaders at the same level. Without a systematic approach of developing these professionals, from emerging leaders - to mid-level leaders - then to seasoned leaders - to board members - any other efforts will, in my experience and opinion, fail. As with all non-profit development, you have to move donors and leaders up a ladder - one step at a time - to obtain long-term development goals. Without long-term planning, quick fix solutions in such areas have a momentary splash, a headline, but quickly fade as the rose.
If the City's effort is really intending to build a garden for the arts in Austin under CreateAustin, that will live long into future decades and make a significant impact on this City's ability to nationally draw attention for its arts leadership, it must account for the emerging and mid-level leadership development as a necessary component. Continuing with a garden analogy, we are talking about the planting of trees, not annual flowers. While trees take longer to establish, maybe even decades, once they are established - they are there for generations, such as the baby trees planted 100 years ago on the Capitol grounds. Thus, while networking young leaders is more like flower gardening, the true development of strong arts leaders is more akin to forestry.
If CreateAustin does not fully engage young leaders now in the planting of those leadership trees, in a few arts seasons, these efforts will equally fade. To ensure, as well, the buy-in of this group, I would encourage the City to engage a group of young professional leaders now that will help develop and execute that portion of the plan.
