Reflexive governance: Board member governance and identity work in small volunteer-operated artistic organizations

"You operate on a voluntary basis, but you have a professional result". (Funder to Board Chair, 28.04.2018)

What happens when – operational – volunteers are also board members? How do their different perceptions of organizational identity influence the way they accomplish governance? Little is known about how such dual roles contribute to the organization's identity and governance.
Large artistic organizations are characterized by interaction among a plurality of actors of different status, e.g., board members versus operational staff (Rentschler, 2015). Each actor brings very different skills, working habits and professional cultures (Daigle and Rouleau, 2010). Managing the ensemble requires a great deal of coordination and sometimes paradoxes (Bechky, 2006; Reid & Fjellvær, 2023). In contrast, small arts organizations often have no operational staff and rely on the volunteerism of individuals who serve pro bono in a short- or long-term capacity, usually providing low-level generalist/operational functions to audiences, such as box-office service and hosting (Weiner & Brudney, 2000) and also specialist services at the apex of the organization (Hersberger-Langlob et al., 2022) as board members.
Small artistic organizations are of specific interest as they are extreme cases combining the tensions of any arts organization with the fact that board members are also operational volunteers who are not paid. This distinctive organizational dynamic allows an enhanced understanding of the profound identity beliefs that drive board members, whose alignment with the organization's identity holds significant implications, as any discordance may precipitate their departure (Kreutzer & Jäger, 2011). Thus, we state the following research question:
How do board members do identity work and realize organizational governance in small artistic organizations?

Our study is based on a single case study (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The Music in the Mountains festival was founded as a legal association in a Swiss village in 2012 on the initiative of two local residents, a retired teacher (who acts as board chair) and a professional orchestra manager (who acts as artistic director). The organization is characterized by a growing number of spectators and the refusal on the part of its volunteers to employ any paid staff that might professionalize the management of the organization (Havet-Laurent, 2020). Only the artists are paid. In our case study all board members also volunteer as unpaid staff, a dual function model which is frequently found in small arts organizations, but which has been neglected in the arts governance literature. Using Goffman’s (1959, 1967) relational and social framework theory, as a means to analysing our data, we investigate how volunteer board members do identity work and also realise organizational governance in a small artistic organization. We focus on the impression management undertaken by board members to position themselves with respect to others and how this effort contributes to organizational identity. Our study delves deep inside the boardroom of a very small non-profit organization, using observations, interviews, and documents to reveal the tensions that play out as small arts organizations ‘do’ governance. While identity work has been little examined in governance studies, it is timely and salient to do so, to uncover and understand more about processes and dynamics inside the boardroom (Renz et al, 2022).
We contribute to theory and methodology in three ways. First, we place the literature on the governance of arts organizations in dialogue with the literature on organizational identity in order to highlight the tensions experienced by these organizations. Then, our empirical study finds that board members’ face-work occurs differently “frontstage” and “backstage” (Goffman, 1959) depending on their view of their role as volunteer board members. Our analysis revealed that individual volunteers’ identity work produced two board levels coalitions. We label Community-focused the board members who prioritize their face-work actions towards local inhabitants and Project-focused those who seek approval from professional artists and music specialists in the audience. These somewhat opposing conceptions of organizational identity, influence how board members interrelate with stakeholders, creating complex portrait of governance. Finally, our research contributes to understanding identity-related board member behaviour as well as governance dynamics. It underlines the integration role of the board to ensures a balance between coalitions, thus avoiding the loss of volunteers.

 
References
Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 3‑21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0149.
Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot (2006). On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Daigle, P., & Rouleau, L. (2010). Strategic plans in arts organizations: A tool of compromise between artistic and managerial values. International journal of arts management, 13‑30.
Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays in face-to-face behaviour. Routledge.
Havet-Laurent, S. (2020). L’identité organisationnelle des organisations intermittentes : Le cas des associations du spectacle vivant [Organizational identity of temporary organizations : the case of performing arts associations]. Thesis defended on 16th November, 2020 at Lyon 3 University, Lyon, France.
Hersberger-Langloh, S.E., von Schnurbein, G., Kang, C. et al. (2022). For the Love of Art? Episodic Volunteering at Cultural Events. Voluntas 33, 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00392-0
Kreutzer, K., & Jäger, U. (2011). Volunteering Versus Managerialism: Conflict Over Organizational Identity in Voluntary Associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 634 661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010369386
Reid, W. & Fjellvær, H. (2023). Co-leadership in Arts and Culture: Sharing values and vision, Chapter 8. Oxon-Routledge.
Rentschler, R. (2015). Arts governance: People, passion, performance. Routledge.
Renz, D., Brown, W.A. and Andersson, F.O. (2022). The evolution of nonprofit governance research: Reflections, insights and next steps Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 1-37. DOI: 10.1177/08997640221111011
Weiner, W.W. & Brudney, J.L. (2000) Marketing management in arts organizations : Differentiating arts and culture volunteers from other volunteers International Journal of Arts Management 2(3), 40-52.

Rentschler (2015, p. 18) defined arts governance as, “an emerging and changing concept not fully examined empirically or grasped in practice.” If this is true, then the board represents the pinnacle of a cultural organization’s arts governance, leadership, and philanthropy. One can also easily understand why cultural organizations struggle to build and maintain audiences reflective of their communities. While passion remains pertinent to a board’s performance within cultural organizations, she further extended arts governance to include board diversity, an aspect of the practice key to helping boards and the cultural organizations that they serve effectively practice access, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) (Cuyler, 2023).

However, scholars have not fully explored the relevancy of this definition to diverse societies across the globe, but especially within the U. S. Or if this definition only has relevance because the global minority has imposed their reductionist understandings on cultural organizations and required historically and continuously oppressed board members to conform to these norms. For example, a participant stated the following: "I want somewhere in what you do to talk about the real etiology of where all this came from, and the whole patron mentality and elite British society that they brought over, their descendants and ancestors brought over here from England and set these things up, and so a lot of it is really trying to deconstruct that, because that is not what we need right now in our communities. Not even in their communities do they need that." By global minority, we mean the 15% of the world’s population who identifies as of European descent and who have historically and continuously inflicted their greed for wealth and lust for power on the 85% of the world’s population that identifies as of African, Arab, Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous descent (the global majority) through colonialism, expansionism, imperialism, and racism (Campbell-Stephens, 2020).

Though Radbourne (2003) and Turbide et al. (2008) contested the validity of a single theoretical approach to arts governance, Rentschler and Reid (2021, p. 7) argued that “because understandings of arts governance are culturally rooted, investigating other cultural perspectives and practices will enrich the conversation and engage new voices in the trend towards diversity and inclusion in arts governance.” Such studies will yield insights about access and equity in cultural engagement as it relates to artists, audiences, boards, executives, partners, staff, vendors, and volunteers, but also the practice of ethics in arts governance, leadership, and philanthropy (Cuyler, 2023; Rentschler and Reid, 2021). Rentschler and Reid (2021, p. 7) categorized extant arts governance literature into six categories: arts boards and strategic decision-making, crisis-based arts governance, change management and arts governance, global south and non-Western traditions of arts governance, power, executive leadership and ethics in arts governance, and philanthropy and governance in the arts. Extant arts governance scholarship in the U. S. has explored the culture of elite cultural organization boards and philanthropy (Ostrower, 2002; Ostrower, 1997), but mostly and has consistently revealed that cultural organizations’ boards do not reflect the racial demographics of U. S. society (Ostrower, 2014).

In this study, we co-investigated our lived experiences as board members of African descent serving on non-museum cultural organizations’ boards. We considered it advantageous that the initiator of this inquiry has expertise in conducting qualitative research, has served on non-museum cultural organizations’ boards, and also identifies as of African descent. Therefore, we investigated two research questions: what experiences have board members of African descent in the U. S. had on non-museum boards with arts governance, leadership, and philanthropy? In addition, in what ways can the experiences of board members of African descent in the U. S. serving on non-museum boards enhance understanding of these practices?

Because of the history of anti-Black racism in the U. S., these research questions necessitated a phenomenological approach. In 2013, Creswell stated that, “a phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a phenomenon (p. 76).” The purpose of phenomenology, then, is to synthesize individual experiences with a phenomenon into a description of its universal essence. The phenomenon we studied is board members of African descent’s experiences with arts governance, leadership, and philanthropy on non-museum cultural organizations’ boards. Focus group interviews served as our sole units of analyses in this study. Creswell (2013) also suggested recruiting 5-25 cases for conducting a phenomenological study (p. 149). We used focus groups to reflect the dialogic approach that people of African descent use to discuss their lived experiences with anti-Black racism in the U. S.. Dr. Antonio C. Cuyler initiated recruitment of focus group participants by promoting participation in the study on Linkedin which received approximately 1503 impressions. After hearing from only two people, he emailed colleagues throughout his professional network and used the snowball method which yielded 20 commitments to participate in the study. Ultimately, 15 people attended 4 focus groups. Five people who could not attend a focus group offered their feedback through the member checking process which enhanced the believability, credibility, and trustworthiness of our findings. He used content analysis of the focus group transcripts to identify five findings in this study which affirm and advance previous knowledge.

The characteristics of White Supremacy culture inform understandings of professionalization and what some within the creative sector consider success that Black cultural organizations often have to choose to allow the system to tokenize and reward them monetarily for their tokenization. Or Black cultural organizations can practice strategic assimilation which allows them to pursue and reap the benefits of cultural significance and financial success. But, this is not easy. Furthermore, we have to prepare to protect ourselves from unnecessary racial suffering and trauma. As some of the stories shared in this study illustrates, one should anticipate and strategize responses to racialized macro and microaggressions. For example, upon hearing the story in the section of the study on ADEI lessons about the symphony, one participant shared, “Can I just say thank you? Yes, thank you, because that is trauma that we have to relive on a regular basis.” Another participant responded, “And then you're volunteering for it, right?”

Five themes emerged that affirm and advance previous knowledge ascertained from the BTA 2022 Art Museum Trustee Survey. The themes include motivation, recruitment, retention, lessons on ADEI, and Black vs. non-Black cultural organizations. In this study race intersected with other social identities. Age, as an indication of generation emerged as warranting additional inquiry. For example, even if a commitment to service compels us to say yes, cultural organizations should also consider that generational perspectives may and should inform how they recruit us. Those who identify as baby boomers, Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z will likely have different motivations for saying yes to an invitation to serve on the board including a commitment to serve.

In addition to deeply exploring the five themes that emerged across the four focus groups and 15 participants, we advised potential board members of African descent to ask the following questions of cultural organizations that might seek to recruit them. These questions include the following: (1)what is the impact of the organization’s work? (2) why does the organization want you to serve? (3) assuming that the person who is recruiting you knows you, ask them how they have engaged in service on the board? (4) where is the organization on their access, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) journey? (5) if the board is not diverse, why not? (6) What work has the organization done to fully engage and receive you? (7) how many people of African descent currently serve on the board? (8) if none, is the organization recruiting other board members of African descent while also recruiting you? (9) Why did the last person of African descent leave the board? (10) can they connect you with a previous board member of African descent? (11) do other historically and continuously oppressed members currently serve on the board? (12) how does the organization center humanity while doing its work? (13) how does the organization treat its staff? (14) what does liberation look like to the organization? (15) does the organization require you to give or get? (16) is it a governing or working board? (17) how does the organization plan to put itself out of business?

In addition to seeking answers to these questions, we advise that potential board members of Africa descent speak to former board members, and people who might have been invited to join the board, but declined to do so as a way of understanding and learning about external perceptions of the organization. One participant stated the following, “I will say when it's clear that you're a statistic and not actually being used for the skills that you have, I am usually seen departing those boards fairly quickly. However, regardless of what they say when you might join or even be recruited or whatever, once you're in the room, certain things become clearer. And that's when I don't have that kind of time, to be honest. So it's like, "Well, that was interesting. Bye."

Purpose
How do observations provide aesthetic insights into board director dynamics in the arts boardroom? Studies in governance, including those in the arts, have largely overlooked the value of observations to gain insights about board director dynamics in the arts boardroom. Indeed, most studies in arts governance use interviews (Rentschler, 2015), surveys (Lee, 2021) or document analysis (Guo, 2022) to compile their data. Yet observation provides a rich source of data that draws on aesthetic traditions relevant to arts governance. Additionally, while the importance of arts in the modern world is deeply rooted in aesthetic expressions (Araújo et al., 2020; Elias et al., 2018) and interpretations, the studies on governing the arts often rely on traditional, cognitive methods (Caruana et al., 2019; Yermack, 2017), potentially missing out on sensory perceptions that the aesthetic approach can unveil. Aesthetics plays a pivotal role in understanding the subtleties and nuances within the realm of arts and organisations (Strati, 2007). In the context of board meetings within arts organisations, aesthetics offers a lens through which one can observe the myriad of sensory perceptions (Warren, 2008) of board directors and their judgments (Taylor & Hansen, 2005) that emerge from verbal and nonverbal communications (Ellingson, 2017).
Hence, through observation, this study explores board dynamics in the aesthetic realm in board meetings of performing arts organisations (PAOs), aiming to uncover layers of communication and interaction that traditional methodologies might miss.

Method
This study uses observations through aesthetics (Strati, 2007) and embodied nonverbal communication (Ellingson, 2017) to comprehend board director dynamics in the arts boardroom. The observation process was centred on three primary organisations: ' A', 'B', and 'C'. The board meetings observed for this study took place between June 2022 and January 2023, either online or face-to-face, with the detailed dynamics of each meeting recorded.
Nonverbal communication analysis was guided by Ellingson's (2017) typology. Data from the observations were coded following Saldaña (2021) method. This involved converting observations into descriptive jottings. The analysis was further refined by focussing on events directly related to the research question, which provided depth and context. Events relevant to the broader arts governance field were also prioritised.
This study was undertaken with the approval of the university ethics.

Findings

Through observations, this study unveiled three themes delineating the dynamics of board director interactions in arts boardrooms labelled Interest, Interaction, and Influence. Under the Interest theme, distinct codes highlighted diverse elements that affect the board director’s sympathy for the artistic or the financial voice. Some board directors manifested an apparent lack of engagement with artistic or financial voices; for others, either was a critical point of interest. It was observed through their gestures, tones, engagement and advocacy for a certain topic and confidence in approaching either of the voices (the AV or FV).
The theme of Interaction delves into how board directors communicate, discerned through various verbal and non-verbal cues. The physical layout of the boardroom, including seating arrangements and proximity of directors, was observed. Further aesthetic elements in certain meetings, like flowers or refreshments like cheese, bread and juice, indicated a conducive and friendly environment. Additionally, the mode of communication was paramount; directors either communicated directly or, in certain instances, required mediation through figures like the chair or executive director. Instances of collaboration juxtaposed with moments of isolation and engagement further highlighted the nuanced boardroom dynamics. The theme Influence examines the prominence and subsequent control certain board directors exert in meetings, discernible through both verbal and non-verbal cues. Leadership styles and the concept of dual leadership became evident. Observations highlighted who dominated conversations, whose ideas were propelling decisions forward, and the reactions of others when specific directors spoke. The tangible and intangible responses revealed which directors set the meeting's tone and the overall level of engagement.
Each arts organisation exhibited its unique board dynamics. While the themes mentioned earlier were universally present, their manifestations and interplays were specific to individual organisations, demonstrating that the elements of interest, influence, and interaction unfurled differently across different boardrooms.

Originality/value
This study stands out as an uncommon effort in governance research, particularly in the arts. Prior research has mostly relied on demographic data and standard multivariate analysis. In contrast, this study delves deeper by directly observing board directors, capturing a rich and detailed perspective on their verbal and nonverbal communications. The aesthetic observational approach is a fresh addition to governance research, offering new insights into board dynamics.

Conclusion
This study examines board director dynamics within the arts boardroom by embracing the aesthetic observational approach rooted in verbal and non-verbal communication, a method often overlooked in favour of conventional methodologies like interviews, surveys, and document analyses. Three arts boardrooms were observed, and three categories, interest, interaction, and influence, emerged from the observations as ways board directors articulate aesthetics in the boardroom. The findings underscore that each board director, individually and indeed collectively, has unique boardroom dynamics, providing a complex and multi-level analysis of dynamics. As prior studies have primarily employed more traditional methods, the observational approach has shed light on the aesthetic nuances and subtleties of boardroom communications, emphasising the importance of a comprehensive methodological toolkit in the field of arts governance research.

References
Araújo, B., Davel, E., & Rentschler, R. (2020). Aesthetic Consumption in Managing Art-driven Organizations: An Autoethnographic Inquiry. Organizational Aesthetics, 9(3), 63.
Caruana, J., Brusca, I., Caperchione, E., Cohen, S., & Rossi, F. M. (2019). Financial Sustainability of Public Sector Entities The Relevance of Accounting Frameworks (2a ed.). Palgrave. http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15782
Elias, S. R. S. T. A., Chiles, T. H., Duncan, C. M., & Vultee, D. M. (2018). The Aesthetics of Entrepreneurship: How Arts Entrepreneurs and their Customers Co-create Aesthetic Value. Organization Studies, 39(2–3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617717548
Guo, W. (2022). Institutional entrepreneurship through network governance: a social network analysis of NEA’s creative placemaking national initiative. Cultural Trends. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2022.2082863
Laura L Ellingson. (2017). Embodiment in Qualitative Research (1st ed.). Routledge.
Lee, Y. J. (2021). Nonprofit Arts Organizations’ Pursuit of Public Interests: The Role of Board Diversity. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 12(4), 563–587. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0036
O’Brien, D., Rees, G., & Taylor, M. (2022). Cultural governance within and across cities and regions: Evidence from the English publicly funded arts sector. European Urban and Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764221113750
Rentschler, R. (2015). Arts Governance: People, passion, performance. Routledge.
Rubio-Arostegui, J. A., & Villarroya, A. (2021). Patronage as a way out of crisis? the case of major cultural institutions in Spain. Cultural Trends, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2021.1986670
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (fourth, Vol. 1). SAGE Publications.
Strati, A. (2007). Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning, 38(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607073023
Taylor, S. S., & Hansen, H. (2005). Finding Form: Looking at the Field of Organizational Aesthetics.
Venkatesh, A., & Meamber, L. A. (2006). Arts and aesthetics: Marketing and cultural production. Marketing Theory, 6(1), 11–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593106061261
Venkatesh, A., & Meamber, L. A. (2008). The aesthetics of consumption and the consumer as an aesthetic subject. Consumption Markets & Culture, 11(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253860701799983
Yermack, D. (2017). Donor governance and financial management in prominent US art museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-017-9290-4