It is tempting in arts management to rely considerably on personal experiences. As we proudly participate in the advances and contributions our generation offers to the arts, we find wisdom and comfort in “known knowns”, a shared understanding of areas that are little subject to change.
In these situations, it is often enough to assess, categorize and respond straightforwardly. But even reliable solutions may be blinding us to deeper problems. Can our assessment of a simple context be an oversimplification? Possibly: not only are leaders prone to habitual responses, but their teams also become complacent when things seem to be going well or “as usual”. New ideas or divergent perspectives may feel unwelcome in a business-as-usual climate.
David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone, creators of “The Cynefin Framework”, add the following:
“The most frequent collapses into chaos occur because success has bred complacency. This shift can bring about catastrophic failure… Leaders need to avoid micromanaging and stay connected to what is happening in order to spot a change in context. (…) Indeed, [workers] with years of experience also have deep insight into how the work should be done. Leaders should create a communication channel -an anonymous one, if necessary- that allows dissenters to provide early warnings about complacency.”
Certainly, our professional experience is of much value; it has led us to build the human capital we need to channel our contributions to our field and to our communities. This said we cannot expect the impact of our work to remain constant over time because contexts vary in orderliness.
When disorder presents itself, we need to be able to properly classify emerging patterns to make decisions and intervene in appropriate ways. While exogenous forces remain unclear, much insight can be within our reach within our organizations. Integrating dissent is tantamount to integrating innovation. ▣
