Constructing teams to do the technology work needed in a given organization is a common place strategy. What gives the teams a unique flavor is their composition, the relationship to the larger organization and the demands on leadership.

The composition of these teams is complex. First, teams are often lead by senior or middle managers who have been with the organization for a period of time. They bring a ‘lived’ understanding of the organization, its power politics and its values. Nonetheless, as the work begins to cut across tradition boundaries between units or departments, the leaders face a new and complex set of politics.

Within the team, a certain number of employees are seconded from across the organization in recognition of their talents and their interpersonal skills. Like the managers, they understand how the organization makes sense out of change. The third group are hired for their knowledge and skills. They are often ‘generation X’ people i.e. in their early twenties to thirty-five or so. Their perspective on work is quite different. As they work on contract, their loyalty is first to the project and does not necessarily include the organization. Their standards are high and they are often unwilling to compromise them. Their creativity is not limited to their software expertise but is a part of their personal lives. Some are writers, others musicians, sculptors, painters. Sometimes there is an overlap between the creativity in their personal lives and their contract work – sometimes not. For example, in one project a sculptor was hired to transform two dimensional figures into three dimensional representations!

Leading such a diversified group poses many challenges. The nature of the projects demands a timeline and a breakdown of the different stages of development. This means that staff are subdivided according to expertise. To produce a quality product, good communication at each step of the way is essential and not easy to maintain under the pressure of time demands and politics.

Communication with the other units of the organization is also fraught with misunderstanding. Because of the technology changing the fundamental nature of the work on a daily basis, it is accompanied by a multitude of ‘demons’: fear of down sizing, fear of not having necessary skills, fear of the unknown, inhuman aspect of technologies, etc. With the ‘right’ champion, i.e. someone who has formal and informal power , the changes and innovation make progress quickly. However, if the champion or sponsor is not highly regarded and well positioned in the bureaucracy, the challenges and barriers grow significantly. Time is lost. Attitudes freeze and cooperation withers.

The lack of a careful study of the context of the institution with the proposed changes in technology cause immense grief: escalating costs, lost time for regular staff , confusion in the unit of change, constantly shifting deadlines, poor morale in the technology unit and across the organization – and so the list continues. It pays to make changes to technology with great care and deliberation. The technology give us the opportunity to re-think how the work is done. And as it is people who do the work, the change is always significant.

As governments cut back their support, leadership in the not-for-profit sector faces new challenges. This sector includes a wide range of authorities, boards and commissions. In a recent paper , the Bethany Care Society (founded in 1945 by the Lutheran church in Alberta) underlines the importance of the sector as an ‘early warning system’ for a broad range of issues in health. They go on to challenge the current stand of the Auditor General in the province whose demands for governance and accountability do not acknowledge the role of advocacy which is fundamental to the governance of the community by the community.

Their concerns are mirrored in the Fine Arts Community as well. Long known for their fund raising abilities, the Fine Arts organizations are facing serious competition from other organizations. In recent years in Alberta, support and understanding of the role of the arts in society has also been eroded. However, what is becoming apparent – and until now had been taken for granted – is the importance of the Arts in creating a ‘world class city’. Neither Edmonton or Calgary have the population to claim world class and yet both cities are seen as desirable by companies moving here. One of the key factors is the presence of the Fine Arts: ballet, symphonies, theatre, museums and art galleries. A recent survey showed that 71% of the population participates in the Fine Arts.

To work on the board of a fine arts organization is to re-examine the nature of leadership, vision and how to balance funding, quality performances, equity for employees and customer ‘service’. As most boards are voluntary, the recruitment, orientation and retaining of ‘good’ members is vital to their success. The dividing line between employees and members is fuzzy. For example, cooperation in fund raising is a shared activity as boards increasing look for executive directors to play a larger role.

Finally the model of leadership which includes the executive director, artistic director and the chair of the board is complex and demanding. It requires shared values and vision and a strong sense of working collaboratively as peers. As vision in the arts is highly individualistic, catering to audience taste while cultivating an appreciation of new art forms is difficult as the Bolshoi recently found out.

So what action can the Fine Arts organizations take?

• develop a voice in the community advocating the role of the arts in everyday life
• form a strong collaboration among the arts organizations to increase fund raising and to cut overlapping costs
• develop a fund raising approach which benefits the supporting businesses as well as the Fine Arts organisation
• consider action research on the unique characteristics of outstanding leaders in the field of the arts
• develop professional growth programs such as coaching, workshops, mentoring

For any of us who have come through the last decade of cutbacks and mergers the mayhem is only too real and an everyday phenomenon. Given the distress, the possibilities of innovation are readily observable. However, they do exist and it is worth spending some time, stepping back from the mayhem. I’d like to present several innovations which were brought in during such changes and which positioned the organization for greater success. All of this because the old system had crumbled.

• Innovating a team whose mandate was to work with principals to develop strategies for the self managed school. The team was developed before the policy on self-managed schools thus positioning principals for the change
• Re-designing a professional development delivery system so that leaders were able to work together in collegial groups as well as access workshops
• Changing organisational culture by focussing on the needs of general staff as well as teaching staff through the new department of staff development
• Acknowledging informal ways which were already operating successfully outside the organisational framework e.g. amalgamating curriculum and personnel units
• Developing a short term strategic plan which enabled staff to bridge the mayhem and begin to create innovation

This year’s Freefall Workshop brought many insights, contact with others and the pristine beauty of River Rock Studio, such a private place. At one point, Barbara quoted Ted Solotaroff “Your most vulnerable side is your working side as an author. And this to someone who will be rejected – often.” This seems to be the way it is if one would live passionately.