What’s Expected of Leaders of Smaller Arts Organizations

In his January 30 “Reprise” column on Substack, veteran orchestra and arts executive Emil Kang writes, “If you lead an organization where you are simultaneously responsible for vision, fundraising, operations, community relationships, and institutional credibility, this essay is about you. If your organization’s stability depends less on reserves or endowments and more on your presence, your relationships, and your capacity to absorb risk, this essay is also about you. If you run a small arts organization, you are likely doing more than your job description suggests. You are not simply an executive director or managing director. You are often the chief fundraiser, head of programming, community liaison, institutional historian, human resources department, and moral center of the organization. You are expected to perform legitimacy outwardly while absorbing instability inwardly, and to do so with optimism. This is rarely acknowledged plainly. Instead, it is treated as a personal capacity issue, a leadership challenge, or a test of resilience. But what small organization leaders are asked to bear is not simply a heavy workload. It is a set of contradictory assumptions embedded in structures that were never designed for organizations operating at this scale or under these conditions…. The expectations placed on small organization leaders often mirror those placed on leaders of large, well-capitalized institutions…. Yet the conditions are radically different.”