The Clore Programme for Leadership in the Arts

Aside

Clore’s Leadership Programme – a note

The Clore programme, founded in 2003, is explicitly for leaders – in the arts – with some experience behind them. A 7-month programme, it aims to provide opportunities for its two dozen fellows per annum with a bespoke programme of intensive leadership courses, workshops and other learning opportunities, mentoring and coaching, a three-month placement in another (different) organisation, followed by research (and later) execution of a major project of their own design. (It later spawned sister programmes – for social leaders).

An expert report (1) evaluating its performance (in 2013, ten years after the start of the programme) commented on the fact that in the arts sources, roles and even locations are becoming less specific and more collaborative as a result of the interactivity of the internet, and innovation more common, faster and more invasive. It also raised questions about the impact of the two dozen Fellows whom it supports annually, and the number of qualified candidates that it did not include.

Driven in essence by the reach of the Internet, the programme had been seeking to increase its emphasis on the leadership of creativity (as such) – by broadening its perspective – in a world in which boundaries are more fluid, sources, roles and locations in the arts less circumscribed, more flexible and less predictable, life more complex and insecure; but sharing and more collaborative. [I picture prize-winning students producing multi-media ten minute playlets at the National Theatre every morning for a week. Or Hull hosting a poetry competition for children inspired by the Royal College of Art.]

For the future of the programme, proposals included:

  • More emphasis on individual Fellows and less on structures and institutions
  • Greater emphasis on systems, networks, behaviours, technology, organisation and influencing
  • More about collaboration, management and self-management, contracting and commissioning
  • More understanding of entrepreneurialism
  • More understanding of technology
  • More input to the programme from outsiders including expert amateurs
  • More research
  • More pastoral care (for participants lives)
  • More influence outside the arts sector
  • A higher profile for the programme

The essence of these proposals was about ‘finding ways of creating [change] that we cannot foresee’.

(1) Creative Leadership: A future vision for the Clore Leadership Programme, Robert Hewison and John Holden

John Whatmore, April 2018

Advertisements

The stark tale of a startup; its dramatic ups and downs

Aside

THE STARK TALE OF A STARTUP – ITS DRAMATIC UPS AND DOWNS With intangibles now possibly the largest part of our economy, it is bad news to find seed-funding tied by fixated criteria and subject to protracted delays. This project shows that support is quite as valuable as funding; and support alone can make the difference.

 A new and radically different approach to production suggested itself to two experienced and talented people who worked in one segment of this multi-skilled field. They had come to feel that the ways in which material was produced in a related segment could be better served by adopting an approach that would transfer from a third segment.

The segment in question, they felt, though successful to its dedicated customers, was somewhat stylised, and stuck in its mould; and its output is exceptionally expensive.

They had developed a clear concept of how to demonstrate that a new way was possible; they had assembled experts who would take part in the demonstration, they had located where it would take place; knew how long it would take; and how much it would cost.

After looking for some long time for seed funding from one public body that would have added considerable credibility to their project (it had encouraged them to make an application), they eventually came to appreciate that its criteria required something more proven, with immediately widespread side public benefits, as well as post-completion benefits; and they had to abandon that line of approach.

There proved to be no public body either in this field or in any related field that would put up the necessary seed funding; and other organisations in this field had their own incubators.

So they turned to people who were passionate about this field (‘friends and family’); but they first had to enable them to contribute in the form which they required, and attract their interest – in settings that appealed to them.

Finally after eleven months of hard labour, they were able to embark on the ‘real work’ – two months of creating a demonstration that their approach was feasible; and it was very well received by its customers and by the Press.

 

If this was in industry, it had all the elements of a project that would attract grants from Innovate UK – as a pathfinder project. But it is in the Arts, – where every project is in the nature of an innovation; and this is in a specialised sector.

 

Instead of working mainly with established opera productions, one of which is dustied off, recast, and presented in an established opera venue with a new director and conductor, the plan was to take an existing opera and in six weeks, to develop a new production before putting it on stage – in the way that most theatre is produced; and – this was a twist – not in an established venue, but in an intimate setting. They sought ‘to create an exquisite world-class production in an intimate space’.

The idea was conceived by two friends who had often worked together in writing music for shows and directing plays. They hit upon an existing opera – The Rake’s Progress – whose libretto was by W.H.Auden and Chester Kallman and music by Stravinsky, which happened also to be set in the eighteenth century, an opera that one of them (an actor and director, who had produced eighteenth century theatre) had previously worked on in a project at the National Theatre’s Studio. And they knew world-class performers who would be interested in this. ‘We had a fit; but no money!’

They contacted key singers and set and costume designers (one person just led them on to another) all of whom they had worked with before; and decided to have a go.

With 12 months to go, they registered a company, and 4 months later (crucially) booked the theatre (Wilton’s) – on the basis of sharing the takings; ‘and all our key contacts then started to turn down other work. And we revised the budget – cutting a third off it – making savings on performers, sets and costumes, but not on the orchestra.’

They then made an application for funds to the Arts Council – ‘a monstrous process’. Encouraged there to apply for a big sum, it emerged later that they might only hope for £15k and that there were many boxes that they could not tick: they were a new company; they had no community outreach nor benefits to offer; their work offered no legacy etc, etc. And they got the thumbs down.

 

In March (ie 6 months before opening day), they sought to register as a charity. But approval was delayed – the Charity Commission was overloaded; they didn’t hear and didn’t hear, despite continually trying to communicate with them; and only at the end of August did they get approval (ie only 3 months before opening day). Though that felt quite scary; it gave them enormous commitment.

They realised that they had to raise the funds themselves; and started by employing a fund-raiser, but ‘he was hopeless’ and after a month they gave him up; and everyone said: do it yourselves.

‘Opera fans tend to be boundlessly enthusiastic and sometimes quite rich; so we were looking for donations from their trusts or charities. We ran a series of fund-raising events – in the likes of small museums (the Soane Museum, the Handel Museum), at which we offered enticing performances, drink and commentary. They were all about networking; grinding work – most of it negative, that got you down.

‘On the advice of an expert fund-raiser (though for another opera company, and too grand for us) who helped us with how to go about it and how to approach people, we did briefly employ a marketing person and a PR person.

‘Our best donor gave us £20k with no strings; and another supporter offered his house for an event and a small donation, because he believed in us even though he had doubts about whether we could do it.

‘And four months before rehearsals started, we lost one singer – who was too busy getting divorced, and the month before rehearsals started, another, who had to go and look after his ailing father.

 

‘If we hadn’t booked the theatre, there were moments when we would have rethought the whole project – usually when a possible donor turned out to be a dead end. Unless we got there, it was a dramatic failure – we were naïve enough that we knew we would never pull out; we would do something somehow! The product itself was never in doubt; but the business stuff was so difficult and so new to us. But once we had decided, we were very upbeat and it was exciting.

‘We reached the first day of rehearsals (in October 2017) with great pride; and then our work started – to create our vision.’

The six performances were completely sold out and were very well reviewed (with four stars) in the Times and the Guardian, and accorded Pick of the Week. They have achieved their objective: they have proved that opera can be performed to high standards, in less grandiose settings and through different creative channels – which ought to cause the Arts Council to reconsider its approach to the production of opera.

What would they have liked that would have made made it easier for them? Two things: first, someone who could have helped them with strategy – what to do and how to do it; and second, more fillips to their flagging confidence that Arts Council approval would have given them.

So what’s next, people ask.

 

John Whatmore, January 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

A uniquely comprehensive development arena

Aside

A UNIQUELY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ARENA Quite unlike most startup or scaleup programmes such as Techstars or Startupbootcamp (which tend to be short term injections), the programmes at Goldsmiths Centre are unique in that they aim to cover comprehensively all the stages and aspects of development for people in its field. The startup world needs something of this sort. 

The essence of the Goldsmith Centre is the professional training of goldsmiths. While these people are charmingly depicted as bespectacled, white-haired, elderly craftspeople, the skills and talents of the next generation are clearly an important target.

This training takes the form of a ‘community that works and learns together’ – a community of trainees, working goldsmiths and other interested parties – to help them grow and thrive; funded substantially by the Goldsmiths Company, and overseen by a Board of Trustees.

The Centre which opened in 2012, runs for budding goldsmiths a progressive series of programmes that are aimed at developing their future – for what will mostly be small craft businesses. Here are six of them:

* a one week programme of intensive workshops, seminars and talks called ‘Getting Started’ – for recent graduates in precious metals, which introduces its 30 participants to the basics of business.

* a one-year programme called ‘Setting Out’, which is currently home to 8 young goldsmiths, carefully chosen (this year from 30 applicants), who take part in a curated programme that aims to equip them with business, creative and product development skills.

* a one-year Foundation Programme in which 10 young goldsmiths are attached to the Centre and enabled to use its excellent working facilities.

* an appenticeship scheme, under which some 40 young goldsmiths are attached to ‘Masters’ and meet regularly at the Centre for further training.

* a membership scheme called ‘Creative Links’ for people with aspiring or established businesses to attend events and make and meet contacts at the Centre and a special membership scheme for craftspeople requiring ad hoc access to benches, hotdesking or a meeting room.

* and the Centre houses some 80 resident makers and businesses on the premises – on special terms as providing work collaborations for the goldsmiths who are connected with the Centre.

In addition to short courses on specialised subjects, the Centre has also created a number of videos and runs taster workshops; and there is a substantial programme of all sorts of events.

Some 50 craftspeople are linked to the Centre as providers of skill, tutoring, information etc; as are some 15 business people as contributors to the Centre’s business programmes.

The Centre houses the latest equipment and facilities into a meticulously crafted old building, and provides an atmosphere of spare elegance in which design, skill and beauty meld.

It includes spaces of all kinds: there are 24 professional workshops and 4 educational workspaces; tool rooms (one containing over 150 different kinds of hammer!); a CAD room with terminals; a conference room; a snug; a high quality café cum meeting space (depicted as ‘coffee, kitchen and craft’); and an area for exhibitions, conferences, product launches, receptions etc.

*

In the startup world, training and development do not have a place: that world relies instead on ‘entrepreneurs’ to emerge spiritually. There is an urgent need for some organisation in the startup world to take up these roles.

John Whatmore, October 2017

The Leadership of Creative Groups

Aside

The leadership of creative groups is more relevant than ever in to-day’s competitive global business world: innovation and disruption have given a new impetus to creativity; but the skills of leading creative groups have changed little.

The Leadership of Creative Groups has seemed increasingly vital as year by year the creative industries have burgeoned, product-oriented industries have become more creative and the service industries more important. The Dysons, the Nick Serotas, the Reid Hoffmans are the leaders of to-day: what makes them great leaders?

Creative people are often seen as difficult to manage – as experimental and intuitive, open to experience and extravert, but also sensitive and temperamental. Yet some people have a knack for getting the best out of them: they are more concerned with developing individuals and their talents, and creating or sustaining culture and climate than achieving particular objectives. ‘Creativity can be led, it can be channeled and fostered, but it resents being managed’ Martin Sorrell once opined.

Leading creative teams is different: it consists in taking the lead when you have the most appropriate contribution, (‘leadership hops from shoulder to shoulder’,) whether that contribution is technical, process, the making of contacts, the finding of resources, supporting someone else or whatever. It is authority and responsibility without domination or control.

Research (see footnote) has shown first and foremost that leaders of creative groups tend to be Visionaries, (or Ideas Generators or Ideas Prompters). Experts in their field, they see opportunities for doing things differently that others did not see, that are tough, will unlock other issues and have big pay-offs.

These leaders play a variety of roles: they are very often Team Builders and Coaches, and Entrepreneurs. In the big organisations which were the main participants in these studies, they were also Spokespersons and Shielders – as they often are to their shareholders in young businesses.

They are described as having empathy and understanding:

  • in selecting their team,
  • in using the constraints as the very challenges that would help members of the team in the development of their own talents,
  • in providing the freedoms they appreciate, and as an encouragement to experiment,
  • in using milestones and other opportunities for setting up tensions that might lead to creative breakthroughs,
  • in making themselves available as constant ‘supporters’, and
  • in ‘shielding’ them when necessary.

‘Warm and approachable, passionate and enthusiastic’, they are described as providers of all kinds of support, as very ‘process’ aware – as projects evolve and change, and as creaters of climate and culture.

These leaders tend to see everything as a learning opportunity – they have a ‘rage for learning’ – as a close parallel with creativity. They learn by doing and then reflecting on it (‘the way we learn cookery, burglary or sex’) – the very approach adopted by the latest growth programmes for SMEs, like the new Judge Institute programme and the UCL/RBS programme – which provide regular periodic meetups for CEOs for some 12 months at a time (See http://wp.me/p3beJt-hW.)

Is the time ripe for more programmes like the Clore Leadership programme in the arts, with its emphasis on experience?

John Whatmore, January 2017.

“Releasing Creativity: how leaders develop creative potential in their teams”, John Whatmore (www. Amazon.co.uk.) is based on a study for the then Department of Trade and Industry of 40 leaders of project groups – including in science, r&d, design, marketing and the arts. Out of it there emerged a self-assessment instrument (not unlike Belbin’s team roles test) designed to help leaders to identify their own typical leadership roles.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi-growth ventures need close support

Aside

Hi-growth ventures need close support

Backers, investors and partners are essential supporters for these businesses, says the Barclays Scale-up Report – and experienced new-business leaders, says another.

The Barclays Scale-up Report, just published, has focused on paths to success for early-stage hi-growth businesses. So what support will help them most to achieve successful growth?

A recent report conducted by Deloitte Denmark and Board Network – The Danish Professional Directors Association, called “Radical Innovation and Growth: Global Board Survey 2016 ” opens up concerns about the current boardroom and its great difficulty with managing more radical innovation.

It suggests that there is a need for greater insight into the area of innovative initiatives, grappling with organisational design, dealing with risk and failure, and for sheer experience in working in the huge discomfort zone driven by accelerating technology.

The Barclays Report portrays the problems of scaling up in terms of a series of challenges that businesses need to recognise and handle at the right moment – as they start up, take off, and accelerate into sustained growth, in particular:

  • aiming high – ambition
  • building a strong team
  • establishing partnerships
  • putting effective management systems into place
  • identifying core competences, and
  • articulating competitive strengths and new market opportunities.

While there may seem little new in these challenges, several of the recommendations emphasise the role of stakeholders in supporting scale-ups; and the research illustrates the importance of two factors: the timeliness and firmness with which the relevant issues are tackled; and the value of support in doing so.

The Report refers repeatedly to the functions of the Board, and implies a need for board members who are both involved and active, and for a board that meets frequently, with an eye more on the future than the past.

It underlines the importance of frequent and regular reviews of directions, resources and progress, including ‘strategic activities and partners’. (Telefonica’s Wayra Lab mandates a ‘board’ meeting once a month, as do many companies).

The Barclays Report emphasises the importance of including in this process backers, investors and partners (and the Deloitte Report would add: experienced new- business leaders) to bring to bear a range of perspectives on the issues under discussion – especially as regards technology and competition.

And a focus at board meetings on the future helps to underline the importance of ambition, progress, opportunity and the evolution of the business, but also on the imminence of change.

John Whatmore, May 2016

 

A board agenda (based on the recommendations in the Scale-up Report)

  • Are our current targets and plans based on ambitions that are high enough.
  • What do we now need to do to position the skills and abilities of our team for achieving the growth that we envisage.
  • Do we need to change our partners and suppliers so that they accord more closely with our strategic objectives.
  • Are we satisfied with the level of and plans for the standardisation of our systems and processes.
  • Have we identified and can we articulate our core competences – the unique knowledge that underlies our capability to compete.
  • Are our competitive strengths in the eyes of our customers related to our processes and knowledge; and are they the foundation of our strategy.

 

Scaling up: a challenge for Innovate UK

Aside

Scaling up: a challenge for Innovate UK

A new report identifies the challenges that the UK must meet if our SMEs are to underpin economic growth to the substantial extent that they can.

Seldom has a piece of business research been designed to be so authoritative. Inspired by arch Angel Sherry Coutu, sponsored by Barclays and executed by the Business Schools of Oxford and Cambridge, its findings hit hard.

The research addresses a problem that has been relatively hidden – by the vibrancy of Tech City and the startup scene. While hi-growth SMEs generate 20% of all jobs growth in the UK, recent evidence from OECD shows that the UK has the highest number of start-ups compared to the OECD average, but we also have the lowest proportion of hi-growth SMEs. The biggest problem for the UK is not in starting companies, but in growing them.

 The report focuses on two closely linked obstacles to their successful growth. It seeks to identify the things that characterise successful hi-growth SMEs – with a view to stimulating them. And it seeks to make recommendations that would improve their financability.

It portrays their problems in terms of a series of challenges that they need to recognise and handle at the right moment, in particular:

  • aiming high – ambition
  • building a strong team
  • establishing partnerships
  • putting effective management systems into place
  • identifying core competences, and
  • articulating competitive strengths and new market opportunities.

While there may seem little new in these challenges, several of the recommendations emphasise the role of stakeholders in supporting scale-ups; and the research illustrates the importance of two factors: the timeliness and firmness with which the relevant issues are tackled; and the value of support in doing so.

In the financial capital of Europe, it is surprising to read of as many recommendations to tackle the financial support of these SMEs as there are about the management of the business – which seem to have caught the City unawares. These recommendations are about:

  • increasing the number and quality of VC funds
  • growing the number of experienced investors with sector and market experience
  • developing a UK venture debt market
  • establishing the UK Stock Exchange as the European leader in this field
  • enhancing the liquidity of private company equity
  • collecting better data on VC financing.

The report says little about how these objectives might be achieved, but the researchers participated in a new programme for such hi-growth companies at the Cambridge Judge Institute, which brought together the CEOs of all the participating companies at a series of six bi-monthly workshops, each of which addresses one of the classic challenges that early-stages ventures progressively face (eg shaping the value strategy/marketing and competition/developing the team/future finance).

These were structured so as to help each participant work with all the others: to assess progress, gain insights into and articulate their problems and opportunities, problem-solve collaboratively, set objectives and develop plans and ways to implement them. And a dedicated member of staff makes regular visits and contacts with each participant.

I have come across several programmes in the UK structured in this way (which I will discuss shortly in my blog). Innovate UK is ideally suited to enabling well-established and located incubators to set up targeted programmes of this kind, and this report should help ensure that it does so. For the full report, see home.barclays/scaleup

John Whatmore, May 2016

 

 

 

WeWork is sharing at work

Aside

WeWork is sharing at work.

WeWork has launched a huge new co-working space in London: based on the fact that startups in communities learn mostly from each other, WeWork provides flexible work space that encourages the sharing of experience.

In WeWork’s concept, designs and operations, sharing experience is fundamental:

  •      it creates physical communities – of work spaces
  •      it creates social communities – of business developers
  •      it creates internet communities for them
  •      and it aspires to creating international communities.

Its latest work space in London – the largest co-working space in Europe – is designed to maximize encounters (‘70% of members make use of other businesses in the building’): it is in the shape of a cube, with an atrium in its centre; and almost all of its internal walls are glass.

With 3,100 work spaces across 7 floors, each floor has a wide variety of different size offices and well-equipped meeting rooms, with every office need catered for (copying, document handling, private phones etc). In any incubator, a large kitchen/diner is a great place for unexpected encounters; and small meeting groups a great place for problem-solving.

Here, each floor has a large communal meeting area where there is a café providing food and drink and a bar for beer. Opened in July 2015, it is already 80% full and expected to be completely full by March or April 2016.

With a buzz of intensity and enthusiasm, it feels like a market place of entrepreneurs, in which every encounter may have possibilities. There events for members every day – about such things as Yoga, marketing, Pilates or legals. And an Entrepreneur-in-residence has just been appointed, with whom you can book sessions. On the first floor, there is a games area, where there is darts and a Table Tennis table. And there are personal services on the premises, such as hairdressing; and a reception service for deliveries eg of online orders.

Membership – on a monthly basis – provides you with a key, a T-shirt and a password.

The latter gives you access to the WeWork App, on which you put up information about you and your business, and where there is a Wants Wall where you can post recommendations, news etc; and you can pin up your current needs, and expect someone to come back to you who will tell you about how they solved that problem – either from your own work space or another location.

Started by two entrepreneurs in New York in 2011, WeWork now has 42,000 desk spaces in 63 locations, many of them in the US but fast expanding elsewhere, though none yet in the UK outside London (where there are already 6,000 WeWork desk spaces). Membership also gives you access to WeWork facilities in other locations and even in other countries.

At around £425 a desk per month, it is well priced for its City location. While its pricing favours small companies, WeWork also has its larger ones: Skyscanner and Bla Bla Car among them (unsurprisingly both internet based.)

What distinguishes WeWork is its size and its focus on mutual connections. It is unlike Google Campus, the Hub and most other co-working spaces in that it is more of a co-development space. It is unlike the Tramperies in that it is not sector specific; and unlike Accelerators and mutual support groups in that mentoring is not part of the deal.

 We Work is unique – as about sharing at work.

John Whatmore, February 2016

See also: Co-working spaces are designed to promote change and action in Silicon Valley’s megaliths

Silicon Valley’s megaliths are passionate about change and about providing working environments that will echo their mission – to challenge the present and to develop the future. Nothing is exempt: projects, teams, spaces, furnishings, messages, are all designed to provide relentless pressure to try something new. http://wp.me/p3beJt-7P