Should arts boards be made up of artists or cultural workers with direct experience of an organisation’s work? Or should we have more business people on boards to apply a corporate lens to how things ‘should be done’?
After my big rant about issues with government-appointed boards earlier this year, this month’s ‘and another thing’ vlog talks about the opposite: the more common ‘representative’ boards that elect, appoint or co-opt people based on demographics, skills or expertise.
Here’s an extract…
Read more
This episode draws from or references:
- And another thing… on issues with government-appointed boards
- Bizsplaining: Mansplaining for Nonprofits by Allison Carney
- Dear business people, please stop bizsplaining things to us nonprofit folks by Vu Le for NonProfit AF
- ICDA Spotlight Report: Arts and Culture Governance by Creative Australia (then Australia Council for the Arts), Institute of Community Directors Australia (ICDA) and Our Community
- How Can Board Diversity Improve Company Performance? from the Sustainability Directory
- Trends and Insights: Board Leadership Diversity and Organisational Performance from Harvard Business School
- Australian artists only earn $23,200 a year from their art – and are key financial investors in keeping the industry afloat by David Throsby and Katya Petetskaya for The Conversation
- Matt Fullbrook on the causal relationship between board diversity and performance on LinkedIn
- The case for those with the battle scars to sit on arts boards by John Daly and Rachel Krust for ArtsHub
- Message to arts boards in the wake of MSO crisis by Jo Pickup for ArtHub
Subscribe or support
If you’d like the full version or archive of these rants, you can join me as an advocate, ally or accomplice for rethinking arts governance on Patreon from just $2.50/month.
Or subscribe to my free occasional enews for future updates.
LARSEN | KEYS 
One thought on “And another thing: on issues with representative boards”