Reimagining Arts Leadership: Insight From Implicit Leadership Theories, Power Distance, & Abusive Supervision

• In Event: Interactive Roundtable Discussion Session 3a

Short Description

The arts industry is at an impasse, economically and ethically. While in past, the arts industry has demonstrated compelling economic potential, both COVID-19 and the recent exposure of high-profile leadership failures have proved costly to the industry. We believe that, now more than ever, there exists a need for effective arts leadership. However, little is known about the attributes that make an effective leader in arts environments. We propose a discussion about implicit theories of arts leaders, with specific attention to perceptions of power distance and abusive supervision in arts environments.

Detailed Abstract

Introduction and Significance
The economic impact of the arts industry is often overlooked. In 2017 alone, the arts and culture sector contributed $877.8 billion or 4.5% to the US GDP, outperforming transportation, warehousing, and agricultural sectors (National Endowment for the Arts, 2020). We contend that in addition to the impact of COVID-19, an increased cultural consciousness of abusive supervision designates a critical moment for the arts industry.

Abusive supervision within the arts has proven costly, both reputationally and fiscally. One such example is James Levine, former music director at The Metropolitan Opera in New York City. In 2018, The Metropolitan Opera fired Mr. Levine, following an investigation which yielded credible evidence that he had sexually harassed numerous artists in early stages of their careers. The legal battle that followed resulted in a settlement payment of $3.5 million to Mr. Levine. This settlement came not long before COVID-19 forced The Metropolitan Opera to suspend its season and furlough artists and employees without pay. (Stewart & Cooper, 2020, September 20).

With many arts organizations confronting significant ethical and economic concerns, we advocate for an investigation into the attributes and characteristics that make an effective arts leader, in the hopes that this investigation will yield information that can be used to advance training and development for arts leaders. There are many possible lenses through which to explore competencies and failures of leaders in arts environments, however, given the hierarchical nature of many arts organizations and current conversations about influence and abuse, we propose a discussion about implicit theories (ILTs) of arts leadership with specific attention to the function of sensitivity, tyranny, power distance, and abusive supervision in arts environments.


Framework

Implicit Leadership Theories
ILTs are the cognitive structures of leadership characteristics that people use to recognize, identify, and distinguish leaders and leadership behaviors (Lord & Hall, 2020). Building from earlier work (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Offerman & Coates, 1994), Offerman and Coates (2018) identified a nine-dimension implicit leadership scale: sensitivity, dedication, intelligence, creativity, charisma, well-groomed, tyranny, masculinity, and strength. After re-examining of the original scale created in 1994, Offerman and Coates (2018) concluded that, despite subtle rearranging among some aspects between some factors and the addition of a creativity factor, individual ILTs remained largely unchanged.

In particular, given the historical stereotyping of engaging in the arts as an aesthetic, sensitive, and emotional experience, we wish to call attention to the sensitivity factor on Offerman and Coates’ (2018) scale, which is characterized by the following adjectives: sympathetic, empathetic, selfless, and friendly, among others. Additionally, given instances of leadership failure brought about by coercion, such as the case of Maestro Levine at the Metropolitan Opera, we advocate for a heightened focus on the tyranny factor on the same scale which is characterized by the following adjectives: controlling, pushy, intimidating, domineering, and risky, among others.


Power Distance
Hofstede’s classic cross-cultural research identified four dimensions, including power distance (2001). Power distance was the first dimension that emerged and describes individual, group, and societal responses to inequalities. Hofstede further articulated that power distance varies within contexts. Power distance in work contexts develops as a byproduct of hierarchical structures constructed through differing relationships between supervisors and subordinates. The relative proportion of inequality in power between the two parties is informed by historical societal factors. On the national level, cultures with greater power distance tend towards greater ethical violations (Daniels and Greguras, 2014). Furthermore, Lian et al. (2012) suggested that subordinates with high power distance orientation are less likely to experience abusive supervision as unjust. However, individuals in these high power distance cultures are more likely to act as “whistle blowers” (Daniels and Greguras, 2014).


Abusive Supervision
Destructive leadership is defined by Krasikova et al. (2013) as damaging behavior imbedded in the process of leadership. In a meta-analysis of 57 studies, Schyns and Schilling (2013) found destructive leadership to be negatively correlated with follower attitudes towards the leader, individual performance, and wellbeing. Abusive supervision, a conceptualization of destructive leadership defined as the perpetration of nonphysical hostility by a supervisor towards a subordinate, has been estimated to affect 13.6% of the United States workforce (Tepper, 2007), costing employers $23.8 billion annually (Tepper et al., 2006). One way abusive supervision and/or destructive leadership may present is through sexual harassment (Tepper, 2007). Sobering examples of the cost of abusive supervisors in the arts have become major news events, including Harvey Weinstein, whose sexual misconduct resulted in a $17 million payout distributed among fifty claimants resulted in the liquidation of the independent film studio Weinstein Co. (BBC, 2021, January 26).


Desired Outcomes
The desired outcome of this interactive roundtable discussion is to better understand how arts leaders’ and arts participants’ experiences with power distance and abusive supervision may shape implicit theories of leadership. By developing a richer understanding of how these experiences contribute to individuals’ ILTs we hope to develop more targeted and effective leader and leadership development programming for emerging arts leaders.



Roundtable Design
Participants will be offered a brief (3-minute explanation) of ILTs, power distance, and abusive supervision. Participants will be provided with a visual model of Offerman and Coates’ (2018) scale and the following questions will be presented to participants for discussion:
1. To what degree could the Tyranny factor manifest within the experience of arts leadership? (E.g. How might tyranny impact creative interactions or outputs?)
2. To what degree could the Sensitivity factor manifest within the experience of arts leadership? (E.g. How might sensitivity impact creative interactions or outputs?)
3. How would you describe power distance in arts leadership?
4. How might power distance impact creative interactions or outputs in arts environments?
5. What influence might power distance play in developing arts leaders?
6. How does the level of power distance in your organization impact organizational ethics?
7. How does the organizational structure of your organization impact creative interactions and outputs?
8. How might abusive supervision impact creative interactions in arts organizations?
9. What influence might abusive supervision play in developing arts leaders?

Participants

• L.J. McElravy, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  Presenter

• Alison Ann Gillespie, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  Presenter