A Conversation with Arlene Goldbard on Cultural Strategy, Consultancy and Navigating Change
Arlene Goldbard is a renowned writer, social activist, painter, and consultant. An influential voice in the nonprofit arts sector, she is a passionate advocate for cultural democracy and a creator of cultural critique and new cultural policy proposals. Arlene is the author of several books, including "The Culture of Possibility: Art, Artists & The Future" and "New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development". She has been recognized as one of the "fifty most powerful and influential people in the nonprofit arts (USA)" and has served as a consultant to numerous community-based organizations, funders, and policymakers including the New Museum of Contemporary Art and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Your career profile is incredibly rich and there wouldn't be enough time to explore every area you've worked in. Could you briefly share your path into cultural consultancy and strategy, and the moment you knew this was the work you wanted to focus on?
«In the mid-seventies, I directed a project of the California Arts Council (the state arts agency) to provide technical assistance, seed funding, information, and a sense of community to groups throughout the state, especially those that hadn’t received much support from official sources. I’d organized many cultural projects before that, and also worked as a painter and graphic designer, but working with those groups gave me a deeper understanding of shared problems, challenges, and opportunities. I left the Arts Council in 1978 when it came under attack as a “pet project” of Governor Jerry Brown, and with a partner formed a consulting firm where I worked until the early 2000s. So I’d say 1978 was the year».
How would you explain the term cultural strategy to someone with no background in the arts?
«Cultural strategy isn’t really my flavor. You won’t find that term in my writing. By now, the term has many uses, from using cultural forms—stories, images, music, etc.—to build awareness and action around issues, shifting public perception; to embedding social messages in cultural products such as movies and television programs; to engaging artists in raising visibility and activism, as through benefit concerts; or to using the codes, symbols, and meanings that resonate with a particular group to promote engagement in your programs or sales of your products. When so many different people are using a term to mean so many different things, it doesn’t usually serve my purposes.
The concepts that interest me more are cultural democracy—the right to cultural pluralism, participation, and equity—and cultural development, collaborating with the members of a community to strengthen cultural fabric and remove barriers to cultural democracy».
When an organization calls you in, what is usually the presenting problem and what is the real problem? Could you walk us through your process from intake to diagnosis, design, and delivery?
«People often have a definite idea of what ails their organization or what they want to achieve. Not every consultation starts with an internal problem, though. For instance, I’ve been engaged quite a few times to do research and create a publication that offers a persuasive argument for something an organization promotes. But when a problem is the starting place, it’s often presented in human terms: people are in conflict, they can’t get things done, the board and staff disagree, and so on. In my experience, though, it’s never one thing. That has put me at odds with some other consultants who have a particular specialty such as financial management or board development. But I find that a holistic approach is always best, because each aspect of organizational culture connects with the others.
The first step is almost always a call from an organizational leader, usually the executive director. We have a long chat, I ask a lot of questions. If it sounds like I can help, I like to do as much reading as possible of relevant organizational documentation, which might include reports, minutes, memos, and public information. Then I talk further with the leader who is the point-person, asking questions emerging from my reading, trying to get as full a picture as possible of how that person sees the issues and who the other key actors are. From there, I propose a plan, an agreement is drawn up, and I begin to execute it. The one thing I always do is conduct a series confidential conversations (via Zoom, phone, or in person, depending on the circumstances). Confidential means that no one will be quoted for attribution, that what I learn will be reported without in any way revealing the source of any observation. People feel safe to speak their truth.
Ideally, there’s a conversation with each person who has a significant role or responsibility, but if the organization is too large for that, I work with leaders to curate a solid list. I develop questions that are sent to every interviewee. I record and transcribe the conversations. At that point, I have a foundation of information on which to build the project, and I offer a proposed plan of meetings and other interventions to leadership. If the organization in question is very large, a confidential survey or questionnaire will supplement the interviews. After that, there will be a sequence of meetings. For the group of the whole, I summarize what I’ve learned from reading and interviews. If that sounds accurate to people, there’s a foundation of confidence to build on. There will then be smaller working groups to tackle specific challenges, and large group meetings to check in on progress and discuss important questions.The final stage is to draft my report and recommendations, discuss the draft with leadership, revise as needed, and present to everyone. A period of checking in as recommendations are implemented follows, and when that ends, the consultation is over».
«Imagination, skill, and a willingness to experiment are needed to craft an organizational culture that balances authority and engagement»
From your experience, do most cultural organizations struggle with similar issues? What patterns do you see repeated across different contexts?
«If you zoom up to 30,000 feet, sure: how to support their work, how to organize it optimally, how to succeed in their missions. In the U.S. context, there’s a huge gap between the support typically available to red-carpet arts institutions and to community-based groups. Clients in the latter category almost always need help surviving—let alone prospering—and that has become even more challenging under the MAGA cultural regime, where many grants have been rescinded and grant programs closed.
In general, there is not as much creativity brought to the question of how to organize the work as to artistic creativity and fundraising. A surprising number of people have fairly primitive ideas of how to organize: some get stuck in a top-down mode that tends to alienate people who want to make meaningful contributions to their shared work; some get stuck in an idea of democracy that means absolutely everyone has to discuss and vote on everything, and process overwhelms results. Imagination, skill, and a willingness to experiment are needed to craft an organizational culture that balances authority and engagement».
What are the most common gatekeeping patterns you encounter, and what is one concrete way to dismantle each?
«I associate gatekeeping primarily with funders, and find many disturbing patterns in that sphere. I often see a lack of respect for the lived knowledge community-based artists and organizers bring to their work, as when funders have a list of “best practices” they prescribe for everyone, regardless of each community’s particular character. In the U.S., a lot of funding is short-term. Many funders are afraid of failing. So there’s a disproportionality between funders’ demands for short-term, quantifiable results and the long-term nature of good cultural development work. In the worst cases, a culture of lies emerges, in which funders ask for impossible results and recipients feel they have no choice but to say they’ve produced them. Often, funders who behave like that change their interests and priorities frequently, instead of investing in the long-term work which actually produces meaningful results. I wish I were able to dismantle them all, but power differentials are real, and unless those with institutional power are open to changing these dynamics, they won’t change».
«I'm always suspicious of consultants who follow some sort of branded system with an acronym and a fixed sequence of steps»
How do you work with leaders who want the appearance of change without committing to the cost of change?
«Sadly, you can’t make leaders implement your recommendations! It seems pointless nowadays to make multi-year plans when the ground we are standing on is moving. I prefer to work with people to achieve a state of readiness to navigate change when it comes, rather than pretending it can be predicted. I’ve seen a lot of multi-year strategic plans that were shelved and forgotten, a waste of time and money. I do my best to learn whether a given situation will be welcoming to what I have to offer. It took me a while to become discerning. It also helps that I’ve made no secret of my values. People who want to build Potemkin villages tend to avoid me».
When you evaluate a cultural strategy project, what counts as "success"? How do you measure impact at 3, 6, and 12 months?
«If my brief is helping to design a project or initiative, then any assessment of success must be built on participatory evaluation, as the members of a community always have the deepest knowledge of what they are facing and what they wish to achieve. So ongoing dialogue is always integral to the plan, and willingness to adjust to changing conditions or new knowledge is essential. It’s hard for me to imagine a project that has much to assess at three months. But certainly a semi-annual evaluation makes sense. It’s essential that the criteria for success emerge from those involved and are not imposed by any funder or other authority figure. In the cultural sphere, most of what matters can’t be reduced to a numeric score. Giving people the opportunity to speak their own truth is necessary. Deep listening is required».
What is one indicator you wish funders would stop obsessing over, and what would you replace it with?
«I don’t think it has as much impact as formerly, but some funders require a “theory of change” or a “logic model,” describing a group’s idea of how their work will unfold to maximize impact. In a funding climate where 10 or more applications are typically rejected for each one approved, this functions primarily as a culling mechanism. If an organization doesn’t have the capacity to devise one of these documents, its application won’t be considered, reducing grantmakers’ workload. I doubt many of them are read with much attention, but even if they are, it’s unlikely that program officers have any more certainty than anyone else how change unfolds in dynamic, diverse communities. I would replace it with trust that applicants generally know what they are talking about».
In your view, which leadership skills are most essential for a cultural organization to thrive?
«I’m not sure that leadership determines thriving or not, although excellent leadership certainly improves the chances. The skills I’d list line up with my ideas about what everyone needs: deep listening, honesty, accountability, reciprocity, willingness to interrogate one’s own assumptions, good communication skills, imagination, creativity, tolerance for risk, and readiness to navigate challenges when they arise».
For someone who wants to become a cultural consultant, what skills, traits, or experiences make the biggest difference in succeeding?
«I’ve had quite a few conversations with students and recent graduates who contacted me for advice based on my own trajectory. One thing that surprises me is the frequent expectation that they will be tackling major jobs and collecting major fees straight off. I did a lot of volunteering and low-fee work at first, in aid of earning a reputation for skill and dependability. As demand grew, I was able to raise my fees. So patience is important».
Some of the most critical skills build on natural proclivities: are you a good listener? Do people feel heard by you? Do you naturally ask questions before you volunteer opinions or advice? I’m always suspicious of consultants who follow some sort of branded system with an acronym and a fixed sequence of steps. When I see a series of reports from a consultant that appear nearly identical, as if “search and replace” had been used to change names and locations but most everything else is the same, that’s a major warning sign. When I need advice, I usually seek out someone experienced, someone with proven value in the relevant work. Things may well have changed since I started out, but I don’t think any amount of formal training is an adequate substitute for experience. That takes time and willingness to cultivate. If someone isn’t willing to invest in that, I doubt they’ll be very good at the work».
Soft skills are essential, but strategy also requires strong critical thinking and analytical ability. How can someone intentionally develop those skills?
«The basis of critical thinking is self-questioning. It’s easy to feel that your take on a situation is correct, but essential to scrutinize that feeling. You are the best person to poke holes in your own assumptions and conclusions. A certain ruthlessness is necessary. The cognitive scientists talk about confirmation bias: the world is full of evidence that can be used to confirm a hunch or conviction; the ubiquity of conspiracy theories makes that point. But even if you are able to heap up all the confirmatory evidence in the universe, it won’t constitute proof of your hypothesis unless you try just as hard to disprove it and find that you can’t. Bringing the same intensity to refuting your conclusions as confirming them is the key to critical thinking».
If you could speak directly to the next generation of cultural leaders, especially women navigating their way into this field, what is the one piece of advice you would want them to carry with them?
«At various points I’ve been known for my optimism. I still believe that we can create a social order of love and justice, but I’m not at all certain that we will, given widespread capitulation to the destruction of civil society that is now taking place in the U.S., and the rise of authoritarianism elsewhere. More than ever people are faced with tough questions that come down to Vaclav Havel’s dichotomy: living in truth or living within the lie. For example, museum leaders across the U.S. are now having to decide between purging their institutions of information and artifacts that portray history accurately, or defying the government. In these times, everyone will have to choose somehow, and that makes the choice of profession much more complicated and difficult than simply deciding to be a certain type of arts administrator. I wish it weren’t so, but I would advise these young people to think long and hard about what they want their lives to mean, what influence they hope to have, and what risks they are willing to take».
To learn more about Arlene Goldbard's work or to get in touch, visit her official website.
