The job of the board at a non-profit organization is to govern, and governing an institution of which you’re an employee can be a conflict of interest. Instead, when thinking if a musician should be on the board, ask what the goals are we’re trying to achieve. Engagement? Information sharing? Both those things can and should happen without a board seat — and both those things should not be relegated to only one or two musicians.

Podcast - Season 1 Bonus Ep

===

Hello. Hello everybody. Are you surprised to hear from me?

This is a bonus episode for season one. And I wanted to do this bonus episode because this question came in as I was- I can't say wrapping up the season- probably as I was wrapping up question selection for the season. It's a good question. And the answer might be a little controversial. I am certain different people have different opinions on this question. So mine is not to be taken as gospel that's for sure. But that's one reason. This is a good question. It's very thought provoking in that way.

Two the person asking the question was very thoughtful and even how he was thinking about the question and asking it. So I really appreciated that. Looking at different sides. And then. The third and final reason why I decided to do this as a bonus episode is because as I found in my answer, it really brings in multiple themes and ideas shared earlier in the season, which you will hear me mention throughout. So just to name them,

In episode one, I talk about board expectations. You'll see that's a big theme through this. In episode two, I talked about how to get more money into the pockets of our musicians. That's a big one here. Episode three, we hit the Spider-Man principle of management. That's the idea that with great power comes great responsibility. So that theme definitely comes back.

Being transparent, sharing information, all of that. I categorizes as great power and how to distribute that widely. And then an episode six. We talked about planning for big strategic goals of the organization. That's definitely important to this question here. So the fact that this one question touches on about half of the other episode themes and yet it's a completely different question category than anything that was asked previously. All of that combined made me want to do this as a bonus episode. So here you go.

As I'm recording this, I am at home in San Francisco. The rest of the country is wrapping up summer, but here in San Francisco, summer is basically just starting. September and October tend to be very nice here. August is often called foggest. You know, we've got Karl the Fog. And anyways, all to say, I'm looking forward to some warmer weather and not an unwaverable constant 60 degrees. So, there's that. I've got a work trip on the books to Austin next week, after this podcast comes out and then a massive project taking up most of my September and October, almost all of it is dedicated to this one thing, which I will share with you as soon as I can. And then lots coming up later this fall that I'm really looking forward to as well.

So that's, what's going on on this end and for now let's do it.

(add 'Hey Everybody back'?)

In this show, I'm answering your questions on how to build the vibrant future we know is possible, both for our institutions and for ourselves as offstage administrators and leaders. To submit a question, send a voice recording to hello@aubreybergauer.com.

But there are of course orchestras who bring in one or more musicians as full board members. I've been discussing this with fellow musicians in other orchestras. And some of them think that it's non advisable for various and sundry reason. but it does make me wonder if being that close to the inner sanctum of the organization could potentially place the musician in some, what could be perceived as advantageous situations and maybe even awkward situations where strong operational opinions could jeopardize the musicians, primary connection with orchestra, which of course is to perform.

I'm really not trying to say this arrangement's right or wrong. I'm just curious to know what you think. The pros, the cons I'm really enjoying the podcast. Thank you so much.

So I want to start by saying.

There's a lot of times in this business where I have a pretty strong. Inflexibly strong. Maybe it's a better way to say it opinion. About how things should proceed, meaning there's data behind it. There's research behind Proven success, things like that, or very values based. Right. So. This answer doesn't fit those categories.

So I want to preface this with this is in the category of having strong opinions, weakly held. I've heard Adam Grant speak about this before, write about this before. Jeff Bezos is known for this some times. Have strong opinions, but have it weakly held, meaning this is not something that's uncompromisable. I'm willing to reconsider, especially as I learn more about challenging traditional power structures.

And. You know, what's coming to mind also, if it's pretty interesting is the very first episode of this podcast. We've kind of come full circle because the very first episode. Was about criteria for a board member.

So we talked about having a quote unquote sort of job description for a board member. These are the. The expectations we have, these are the. Deliverables. We need you to bring to the table. It's not just your animal gift. It's your network, all these kinds of things, right.

So with that, I am pretty dogmatic about sticking to that board. Expectation sheet.

I need more than anything. Anything, probably even more than the financial contribution. The network of the board. I've just seen how time and time again, that makes so much of a difference. When myself as the chief executive, no matter how big my network is, it doesn't have the same network as 20, 30, 40, 50 people in their networks. Right. So more and more being able to open those doors, whether it's a corporate connection or some other civic leader or other potential donors to bring in that network, I really, really cannot underscore how much that is a top priority for me

Number two probably is that fiduciary responsibility that usually translates to their gift. And sometimes when we bring on board members, I want to be a little. Full flexible in the expectations. And that sometimes there is a customizable reason to bring somebody onto the board. They have access to other gifts. For example, they've got that corporate connection.

Or the network is a specific community we are prioritizing engaging with. And they're seen as a leader in that community and brings that important voice to the table.

So that's where then enter musicians and the, as I'm formulating an answer to your question. Musicians as a general statement.

Don't bring those top two criteria of network and significant fiduciary contribution. They're generally not giving a gift at the same level as other board members. And. Just as a sidebar on this, I think soliciting employees for gifts is outrageous. Whether that's an employee on stage or off stage. I think that's pretty outrageous. We pay them not the other way around. And their network. Again, this is very generally speaking. Not necessarily true by any means universally, but their network is not as deep in the community. Meaning. A musician is not necessarily. Filling a gala table each year with friends who are coming to bid on auction items and raise the paddle and all of that, which in my mind is definitely a responsibility of a board member.

Of course, there are also exceptions to every rule. Okay. Now that's just the first piece of the answer here: job description of the board.

Number two sort of category of my thoughts on this is the role of the board is to govern. So when a musician is on the board, that means we are asking them to govern an institution. Of which they are an employee. And to me that is a conflict of interest, hands down. The same is true for CEOs and boards, to be clear. Employee of the organization being asked to govern the organization. That employs them. So I know there are some times CEOs who also sit on the board for profit and nonprofit, but the council of foundations recommend separation of management and governance period. So, again, it does happen that the CEO sometimes is on the board, but it's in the minority. And a lot of times it's because of this very reason.

And then incorporations, I looked up the stat on this it's about 8% of the time. This actually happens that the CEO is on the board. So again, even in, for-profit not super common. So I think. Just looking at myself as a chief executive at an organization.

Not only is it a conflict of interest then to be. Governing that institution. But then I look at if musicians are also on the board. I think that's a very weird dynamic being a musician and a voting member. When I, myself, as the CEO can't even vote. So. All of that. I'll put it in sort of category. Two of the reasons the job of the board is to govern.

And call it conflict of interest. Call it weird, dynamic, whatever you want to name it.

So let's break it down engagement. What do I mean by that? Well fundraising support. So I just said, if musicians aren't bringing the same financial capacity as other board members. don't have the same fiduciary responsibility. Let's talk about support for some of those fiduciary. Aspects of the organization. I want desperately want musician engagement in terms of writing. Thank you. Notes to donors, making donor calls going with me, or a major gift staff member to donor lunches, those kinds of things. Yes, yes, yes. All the way. Operations support. What does it take to put on the concerts we produce?

Why does it cost so much to do streaming and recording projects? I want every musician who's interested in knowing the details of these kind of operational issues question. Functions to get those answers, because that only helps us when we're on the same page. So let's see another example, engagement and marketing.

I want every musician who has a desire to understand the marketing strategy, to have every question answered every hole filled in for them. Mentally, because participating in digital strategy of the organization.

Is so important and I mean in some ways, yes, this matters all the way down to our union contracts and the collective bargaining of remit. It also matters in terms of their own influence. So I talked about the network, maybe not being the same at the beginning, but the influence is where I believe our musicians have so much.

Power. I did a whole. LinkedIn live video, YouTube video about activating our players to be an influencer army brought in David Taylor to talk about that. We looked at the Philharmonia orchestra. And London is a case study for this. So, I mean, everything else is a yes, yes, yes. This Hell. Yes. As much as I, as much as musicians want to be a part of the marketing strategy. I want that too.

Engagement, I'll give, I guess one other example here, engagement via education support. Of course, we need our players to participate in our organization, education efforts and get paid for it on other sidebar. But episode two of this season talks about all kinds of new ways. We can monetize this education work for the organization. And a lot of that equates into money right into the pockets of the musicians and artists to help with that.

All of this is to say, I want engagement in so many ways from our musicians. So how do we do this? I would argue. That a board seat is not the most effective answer. Okay, one other goal you mentioned in your question, information sharing. Yes. Like I said, this can and should happen. board seat or not, this can and should happen. And it needs to be more than one musician or a handful of musicians that are a part of this information flow. So communication is key. Of course, I'm stating the obvious here.

One of the past episodes I talked about.

Updates with Aubrey, just that's what I called it when I was back at the California symphony and I would make it optional. I'll give the short version here, since it talked about it longer in a previous episode, but I think that was episode six. Anyways, I am. Made it open to any musician who wanted to attack, you know, 15 minutes or so after rehearsal. And we just talk about what's going on at the organization. What are the challenges we're working through at the moment? What are the successes we are seeing in the moment.

Answered questions. What's the financial state of the union, all those kinds of things. Okay. So that's one mechanism is what I'm trying to say in terms of information sharing. I talked in another podcast episode about the need for transparency.

I think it was episode three, where I talked about with great power comes great responsibility. So the short version of that is I believe everybody should be entrusted with information in the organization and people need to have discretion.

Of what to keep. Internally it's our business as an institution. We don't share that externally. And then when is the time. And place to make things public. Cause sometimes that goes right back to the influencer army. There are absolutely some times where I want us to bang that drum as loud as we can. Pardon the pun. So, okay.

Transparency and information sharing. And then. Something else that, that I would share here in this category of information sharing: in my summer Uplevel class, just a couple months ago now we talked about. The idea of cascading communication. I didn't coin. That term that comes from a couple of different management gurus, organizational psychologists, and the premise is how are we disseminating information organization-wide? Research gives us a process and best practice for this. The quick rundown is it starts at senior leadership team, and then there's a process on how to disseminate.

Information and decisions that are made at those senior leadership team meetings to department heads on down to departments via their team meetings. There's a whole bunch of do's and don'ts, don't send it by email first, all that kind of thing. But this goes for the orchestra too. And so this idea of cascading communication and being very systematic about how information and decisions are transmitted shared. Is often lacking at organizations. When there's something big to share, there's usually a process, but on weekly biweekly. You know, decisions, regular happenings at senior leadership team meeting, there are always little things in my experience that do need to be passed along. And so to have a process for that really does matter in getting everybody on the same page.

I'm also a fan of organization wide meetings. I don't know, quarterly three times a year. They definitely don't need to happen very often, in my opinion.

At one organization I worked for, you know, they were only called when something big was going down, around of layoffs, for example. So don't do that is what I'm trying to say. Do them regularly, not often, but regularly. So what's going on? How are we tracking toward our big goals? Not just revenue, but staffing and recruitment, our community work, our EDI work, our board composition. We should be sharing those progress points to the whole

staff and the whole orchestra, again, as many people as want to hear all those kinds of updates. I'm just naming examples here of what could be shared and that type of org-wide. Meeting forum. And all of this. Is in service to the goal of getting better alignment across all stakeholders in the organization, which I think is what this board member representation in many ways is trying to solve for so better alignment across all stakeholders. And.

I just don't think two players on the board. Is the way to achieve that most effectively. Deliberate intentional communication. Does a much better job of that in my opinion. Okay, lastly.

This doesn't mean there shouldn't be. Any musician participation on the board because there's a whole category. We haven't talked about Which is ad hoc committee members who aren't voting board members. So.

I love committee members. There's not a previous podcast episode where I've had the opportunity to talk about this. So I love committee members for so many reasons. It is a way to get in, get the work done and get out. I think it's Susan Howlett who says, call it a taskforce. Don't even call it a committee. Committee sort of implies, you know, we sign up for the committee once and we're on it for life type of a thing, which that sounds, you know, like the seventh ring of hell or something. Right. That sounds dreadful. So instead, you know, call it a task force. This is our charter for the next six months. This is what the task force is going to do.

Susan Howlett, by the way, is the author of Boards On Fire. She does a lot of. Board seminar and teaching. I've got pages and pages of notes from

So again, you don't have to be a voting member to contribute in that way. So I'm totally in favor of having players on the development committee. As an example, and a way to shepherd that fundraising support I mentioned earlier.

This could totally apply to other committees or task forces as well. You want to help plan the gala? Fine. Join a committee and then fill a table. If that's something somebody listening to this is saying, well, wait, I do want to fill the table for the gala. Great. Beyond that committee. Love it.

Maybe there are musicians who really want to be an ambassador for helping other musicians understand the numbers. Somebody who has strong financial acumen. There are plenty of players like that. Great. Served on the finance committee.

The thing that committee members do or task force members do, it's a way to vet potential board members. It's also a way to get involved when. These other top responsibilities other top expectations. Are not. What this person is there for. So it really, in my opinion, focuses somebody's involvement in a way that "bring them on the board" doesn't achieve. So.

This whole committee thing is in addition to the engagement and information sharing. I stated before, not a substitute, by the way. That's where I stand on this issue. As I said, I am trying to understand more about board dynamics and what we need to do to empower this group to be more effective, to diversify who is at the table to ensure that all of the voices in the room.

Are heard and feel safe. That's true. Not just at board meetings. That's true. For any room, let's be clear. And how do we activate the board around big strategy and work to be done? I'm always trying to think about how to more effectively govern the organization, how to set up the right. Appropriate opportunities for all the various stakeholders. So there you go. Strong opinions, weakly held.

Hopefully I will keep learning and refining my views on this as well. I hope it helps. Thank you so much for the question. It's a good one.

([music fade from last answer]) That's all for today, folks. Thanks so much for listening, and keep up with more content like this by following me on LinkedIn, Instagram or Twitter @AubreyBergauer. And Definitely hit that follow button to subscribe to this podcast. And I have one more favor to ask: if you liked what you heard here, will you please leave a review and rating? I've learned it really does make a huge difference, and I'd be so grateful for your help and support in that. Thanks again. See you next time on The Offstage Mic.

The Offstage Mic was produced by me, Aubrey Bergauer, and made possible by Descript. I used to Descript to record, edit, set audio levels, and make the trailer as well as the video teasers on social media. I couldn't have done it without them. And I recommend any marketing team or individual creator should definitely use this tool too. Thanks again to Descript for making this project and many others I've done possible. This is a production of Changing the Narrative.