12 Artistic Directors and 1 Production: Advancing the Shared Leadership Model
A few years ago, during a search for an artistic director, a provocative question emerged: Could a team collectively apply for the position?
At first, my instinct said, “Yes, of course.” But as I considered the realities of organizational leadership, the answer proved more complex.
Most organizations, both nonprofit and for-profit, operate under the structure of a single CEO. This hierarchical model has dominated throughout history, emphasizing decision-making concentrated in one individual. Success or failure rests squarely on their shoulders.
However, theaters, particularly regional ones, have often diverged from this model. For over 60 years, leadership in theater has frequently been a partnership between two individuals: one focusing on artistry (the Artistic Director) and the other managing operations and finances (the Managing or Executive Director).
Yet, even this two-leader system has its challenges. Historically, the balance between the artistic and managerial has been fraught with tension.
A Historical Perspective
The Guthrie Theater provides a fascinating case study of leadership evolution. Founded by Oliver Rea, Peter Zeisler, and Tyrone Guthrie, it initially operated as a collective. However, Guthrie’s charisma and vision naturally positioned him as the de facto leader.
After Guthrie’s departure, the theater faced a leadership vacuum. The subsequent power struggles illustrate the complexities of dual leadership. Managing Director Don Schoenbaum, for example, clashed with Artistic Director Liviu Ciulei, whose experimental programming alienated audiences. Schoenbaum reportedly manufactured a budget deficit to undermine Ciulei—a move that precipitated both leaders’ exits.
Eventually, the Guthrie abandoned the dual leadership model, opting for a single Artistic Director at its helm. This transition underscores the difficulties inherent in shared leadership, yet most theaters continue to operate with two leaders.
Now, as conversations around equity and collaboration grow louder, some propose going further: adopting leadership models with multiple artistic or executive directors. This raises an essential question: Is the theater world ready to embrace the complexities of truly shared leadership?
The Case for Shared Leadership
In today’s theater landscape, the Artistic Director role has expanded far beyond its original scope. These leaders are expected to juggle institutional oversight, donor relations, community engagement, and artistic vision—all while managing the daily operations of multi-million-dollar organizations. The result is a near-impossible standard that demands omnipresence and superhuman capacity.
Shared leadership offers a compelling alternative. Splitting the role among two or more leaders could:
Distribute Responsibility: Assigning specific aspects of the role (e.g., artistic programming versus community outreach) to different individuals reduces the burden on any one person.
Foster Collaboration: A collective leadership model mirrors the collaborative spirit of theater itself.
Leverage Diverse Perspectives: With multiple voices shaping artistic and institutional strategy, organizations might better reflect and serve their communities.
Examples already exist. The Wilma Theater and Pittsburgh’s City Theatre employs multiple Artistic Directors, demonstrating the viability of shared artistic responsibilities.
The Challenges of Shared Leadership
Despite its promise, the shared leadership model presents significant hurdles:
Decision-Making: Who has the final say? In consensus-driven models, prolonged deliberations risk delaying critical decisions.
Succession Planning: What happens when one co-leader leaves? Does their partner step down, or is the balance permanently disrupted?
Evaluation: How should boards assess collective performance versus individual contributions?
Compensation: Should co-leaders be paid equally, or should remuneration reflect differing levels of responsibility?
These logistical challenges complicate the implementation of a multi-leader model.
Additionally, the managing director’s role often remains singular, prompting the question: If shared leadership is beneficial for the artistic side, why not apply it to administrative leadership as well?
Moving Forward
Theater is inherently collaborative, yet leadership requires decisiveness and clarity. As the industry explores shared models, organizations must approach the shift with intention and transparency.
Here are three guiding principles:
Align Structure with Mission: Any leadership model should directly support the organization’s artistic and operational goals.
Establish Clear Responsibilities: Leadership teams need defined roles to prevent overlap and confusion.
Prioritize the Art: How does this decision help you advance your mission and strategy?
My take? I’m open to the expansion of the shared leadership model. But with a raised eyebrow and more questions.
