MythBusters: Shared Leadership Edition

Shared leadership in larger theatrical organizations is becoming increasingly popular as a way of breaking hierarchy, diversifying the decision-making voices in the room, and combating a strictly patriarchal structure of leadership. These leadership structures expand artistic titles and responsibilities, which is a great move forward! But let’s not get it twisted—adopting shared leadership doesn’t mean that hierarchy, toxic power dynamics, and burnout automatically get thrown out with the old models.

We know a bit about this at The Movement Theatre Company. At The Movement we nourish, develop, and produce herculean ideas and new works by artists of color through a shared and collaborative leadership structure. We’re a haven for artistic experimentation and community building, and our work is big, bold, and vibrant. We live by the adage that nothing is unproducible. Through all our shows, readings, and innovative one-night events, we foster joy and a sense of belonging. Lead writers for this piece are Deadria Harrington and Ryan Dobrin, two of the producing artistic leaders of The Movement (you’ll learn more about that below).

As a small-ish theatre company, we had our own moment of expanding leadership styles over a decade ago when it became clear that simply copy-and-pasting traditional structures was not working. Through a yearlong process with a strategic planner, we developed the Producing Artistic Leadership Team, a shared title that encompasses artistic director, executive director, marketing director and every other theatrical department . Over the last fourteen years, we’ve picked up a thing or two about what shared leadership actually looks like and what makes it successful. Inspired by the early aughts Discovery Channel hit MythBusters, we thought we’d “bust" a few shared leadership myths of our own.

Before we dive in: Yes, we could point fingers and scold large institutions that are wading into shared leadership because it’s ”in” right now. But we’ll stick to sharing examples from our lived experience, because regardless of institutional size, shared leadership is not for the faint of heart.

Myth One: Oooh, Shared/Collaborative Leadership, So New and Shiny

It may be en vogue now, but it is certainly not new. Many organizations, especially Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC) organizations and those run by and serving marginalized communities, have been using collaborative leadership models for ages. This often isn’t because it’s chic, meets the demands of a published statement, or breaks down hierarchy, but out of necessity and probably an ancestral propensity for collaboration to survive. Shoutout to our fellow contributors in this series: UrbanTheater Company in Chicago and No Dream Deferred in New Orleans.

Fourteen years ago, The Movement had no paid staff. The members of the leadership team had a variety of full-time, part-time, and gig work to meet basic needs. We also had traditional titles within the organization. Whenever a grant was due or an e-blast needed to go out while folks were on their shifts at the Apple Store, Amy’s Bread, or the Bryant Park Hotel, having strict lanes did not spell success. In practice, those siloed roles were quickly thrown out the window. We learned that just because someone was the executive director didn’t mean that the artistic director couldn’t jump in and draft the budget or that the administrative director couldn’t weigh in on choosing our next projects. This breaking down of hierarchy and sharing of responsibility simply occurred because it had to. The e-blast needed to get built, the artists needed to be supported, and all that mattered was who could step off the floor at their day job to get it done.

In the early days, we collaborated because that was the only option. This bucked up against our traditional titles, which were admittedly steeped in an unhealthy hierarchy, and caused a lot of tension within our organization. People didn’t feel heard or appreciated for the work they were putting in, because it was in relation to titles and a structure that were incongruous with how we were operating. Creating the Producing Artistic Leadership Team embraced the way we were already working. Shared leadership wasn’t something shiny and new but came from within, and it certainly wasn’t glamorous.

Myth: busted.

Shared and collaborative leadership can certainly support breaking down toxic power dynamics and unhealthy hierarchy, but it’s not a magic bullet.

Myth Two: We’ve Got Shared Leadership, So Our Toxic Power Dynamics and Hierarchy Issues Have Been Solved!

Now, embracing the co-leadership model that was in our bones didn’t mean we automatically vanquished toxic power dynamics. These dynamics have been stewing in our field for years and often show up as micro-managing, lack of appreciation for boots on the ground staff, and a dismissing of said staffs members’ expertise and experience in decision-making. Shared and collaborative leadership can certainly support breaking down toxic power dynamics and unhealthy hierarchy, but it’s not a magic bullet. Tackling these takes intentionality and practice.

In the early days, we had our share of screaming matches. We were shaking off those traditional titles and the power they held in the industry at large. Those who had the artistic and executive director titles before had to put their egos aside, and those with the administrative and marketing director titles had to shake off insecurity about their status and stand in their power as full-fledged members of the leadership team. We had to find new ways of communicating, making decisions, and even disagreeing in order to fully embrace this structure for ourselves and demonstrate to the field what it looks like to be at the table equally. We embraced longer meetings so each leader could have an equal opportunity to chime in on each topic. We carved out time to learn what each person needed to fully participate and uplifted team members when their voices weren’t heard. When potential producing partners reached out, we made sure at least two of us could take each meeting and included every leader on the email. Adopting the shared leadership model wasn’t the magic bullet that broke down toxic power dynamics and unhealthy hierarchy; it was hard work and a commitment to uplifting the full humanity of each leader on the team.

Myth: busted.

Myth Three: Shared Leadership Is Easier Because We’ve Got More People Doing the Job with the Most Responsibility

Carrying the responsibility of the organization (i.e. tough decisions like how to close that budget gap) is definitely easier with a team of co-leaders, but shared leadership in action requires hard work, time, and honesty about your capacity. It takes a lot of communication and a lot of trial and error. 

Uncovering the way your leaders work together is like learning a new language. You might learn quite a bit by getting those Duolingo stars, but the only way to become fluent is by going to the country. Similarly, full immersion in a company’s ethos, culture, and decision-making processes ensures the success of the team. Sadly, there’s no manual to teach this type of collaboration.

Let’s take the journey of our newest producing artistic leader, Ryan Dobrin. He started as an intern in 2018, observing and supporting the producing artistic leadership team on our production of What to Send Up When It Goes Down by Aleshea Harris, directed by Whitney White. When the show closed, he kept attending meetings and working with us, so we gave him the title associate producing artistic leader. Ryan continued absorbing information and started bringing his own voice into the room. Nearly two-and-a-half years after being an intern with The Movement, Ryan became a producing artistic leader. That “language immersion program” allowed Ryan not only to develop his own voice as a leader, but to fully understand The Movement’s language and way of working.

Myth: busted.

There is no power to wield over anyone: Each voice must be respected because it could be the voice that solves the challenge at hand.

Myth Four: Shared Leadership Streamlines Decision Making

In a more traditional organizational model, you don’t have to necessarily trust your boss for them to be your boss. They give instructions; you follow said instructions. Simple. Even in a small team, clear, separate, and distinct titles streamline workflow and decision-making.

A shared leadership model requires intense trust. The best choice wins in this model. You must be open to the best idea—and the fact that the best idea might not be yours. The amount of time it takes to build that kind of trust (see above myth) means the team becomes an idea powerhouse. Releasing the need for your decision to be the decision means you inherently trust that the solution will be okay wherever you land. And once again, while shared leadership is not a magic bullet for breaking down toxic power dynamics, this kind of trust-based decision-making certainly helps. There is no power to wield over anyone: Each voice must be respected because it could be the voice that solves the challenge at hand.

Myth: busted.

Myth Five: Hierarchy Is Inherently Bad

We have a shared leadership model, but there are still locales of hierarchy. This does not mean that any leader has more power than the other, but rather embraces that we each bring our own expertise that should be recognized. So, when we’re negotiating a sticky contract or complicated budget, Deadria, who has the most experience in those areas both inside and outside of the organization, takes the lead. She may build the budget, but that budget is based on the collective priorities decided by the group, and her work on it is followed by deep discussion and question asking. That being said, at the end of the day we may still defer to Deadria’s expertise. If we’re deciding on the tech schedule or a director-playwright matchup, we might turn to the directors in the group, as they can speak from their expertise of running the room from that seat. Our decisions are a constant feedback loop. Some decisions, like deciding what to produce or bringing on a new employee, require full agreement from the group. Regardless, the process is the same: deep discussion and checking in with our values, organizational goals, and needs of the community. Hierarchy bad? We don’t think so.

Myth: busted.

Myth Six: Shared Leadership Constantly Evolves

There is one thing we can confirm about shared leadership. It is constantly evolving. Your values may shift, your organizational priorities may change, and your team will most definitely change. So for shared leadership to remain successful, your approach has to change as well. This is the moment we find ourselves in at The Movement.

Over the last five years, we’ve experienced exponential growth. Our programming has increased, our productions have become more ambitious, the individual careers of our leaders have taken off, and the need for the joy-filled liberatory spaces we create for artists and audiences is at an all-time high. Our model, in which the four of us make and execute all the artistic and administrative decisions, is no longer sustainable. We have to evolve. We have to examine how the heart of our model can permeate through new levels of the organization. What does it mean to have direct reports or new and/or different locales of decision-making and final approvals?

Full transparency, we are deep in the muck of that process, but we are learning by doing. Last spring, our dance card was full, and so was that of each of our leaders—from associate directing on Broadway to filming for video games to taking on leadership roles at other institutions. We needed help. So, we brought associate producer Alverneq Lindsay on for our spring season, and it was a journey to fully on-board her. Outside of independent contractors on a project-to-project basis, we’d never had a consistent staff member outside of the Producing Artistic Leadership Team. Though Alverneq knew us, our work, and our values, we still had to articulate how we do what we do. On top of that, we had to figure out a workflow for her, who she reported to, and which decisions she was and wasn’t a part of. We had to figure out how we, as the leaders of the organization, steer the ship but let someone else release the sails. Relinquishing a bit of power was the only way to increase our capacity to not only produce our programming but also oversee the organization and plan for the future.

We don’t know what permanent staff positions we need or what their responsibilities and locales of decision-making are. We do know, regardless of the positions we create, that robust discussion in decision-making, trust, and adherence to our values is essential. This, in truth, is what's at the core of values-based shared leadership. To be in a non-traditional hierarchy as a team creating art, you have to be open to change—not only within the systems you create, but also the way you work at large. The art of collaboration is also the art of adaptation: being wide-eyed enough to see when things aren’t working even when it’s easier to stick with the way things are, and creative enough to find solutions even when they don’t present themselves. Because like we (and the brilliant Octavia Butler) said, “the only lasting truth is change,” and we’re always open to learning something new.