Where next for diverse leadership in theatre?

It’s a view echoed by Pooja Ghai, artistic director of Tamasha Theatre: “There are few of us now who have been in the race for a long time [at the lower funding band or lower end of the mid-band], and a lift [in support] would give us the bridge and handle into doing shows of scale – it would give us agency to produce and agency to commission.”

While the unequal funding picture is affecting diverse organisations’ ability to grow or stage bigger-scale work, there are challenges facing diverse leaders in all types of organisations, which feel more acute today than ever before.

The past five years have seen a new wave of diverse arts and cultural leadership across the UK. A global focus on social equity sparked conversations in the theatre sector about who was making the decisions at the top of organisations. From appointments including Corey Campbell and Laura Elliott at the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry,  Gbolahan Obisesan at London’s Brixton House, Natalie Ibu at Northern Stage, Suba Das at Liverpool Everyman and Playhouse and Roy Alexander Weise and Bryony Shanahan at Manchester’s Royal Exchange to organisations such as Artistic Directors of the Future, theatre began welcoming the insights and skills of leaders who represented an enticing combination of lived experience and innovative, creative excellence. It allowed the sector to feel as if we had collectively, actively invested in inclusive progress, even as we navigated the bumpy road ahead.

‘A lift in support would give us the bridge and handle into doing shows of scale – it would give us agency to produce and agency to commission’ – Pooja Ghai, artistic director of Tamasha Theatre

Fast forward to today, and we have already seen the exits of several of those theatre leaders – in some cases after a matter of months. Many left (Obisesan, Das, Weise and Shanahan have all stepped down), while some of the organisations shut up shop (ADF closed last year).

“[There were] a number of appointments of diverse leaders to lead significant organisations, at a time when the wheels were coming off the business model,” says Dave Moutrey, outgoing chief executive of HOME in Manchester. “So, consequently, we’ve seen people having to pick up a set of challenges that were not their making and, in some cases, that they had no experience of having to deal with. I think [those challenges have] rolled back some of the gains that had been made and I don’t see the support systems there that enable them to navigate those challenges.” 

Moutrey recalls a time when the sector offered strategic support at points of extreme challenge. Decades ago, leaders facing exceptional business challenges were supported by Arts Council England’s Stabilisation and Recovery Programme, developed in the mid-1990s, which gave significant cash injections and a cabal of leadership expertise to  support both leaders and organisations to survive. Today, there’s no equivalent infrastructural support available.

It’s important to remember that no leader had prior experience of a pandemic, cultural recovery funding, hybrid working or the huge shifts in audience booking and behaviours. Why then, as the entire sector faced the same existential challenge, was it at diverse-led organisations that we have seen these rapid departures?

The impact of bias on perceptions of leadership and capability has been well-researched and documented – and this bias disproportionally affects marginalised leaders. Systemic underfunding, limited infrastructural support plus bias make for a heady mix for diverse leaders to swallow.

‘Boards are so scared of getting it wrong that they go into overdrive and it becomes toxic’ Anonymous leader of a diverse-led theatre organisation

Those I approached under condition of anonymity spoke frankly of the lack of governance support they experienced, citing a lack of trust in their skills expressed at all levels of their organisations. They talked about a lack of open, collaborative dialogue, referring to examples in which staff members sought operational guidance from board members rather than responding to diverse leaders’ requirements; others spoke of boards working with teams to manage processes without the involvement of leaders.

The short tenures of diverse leaders suggest that organisations have leaned into their perception bias, choosing to  peremptorily end contracts rather than offering strategic support to navigate new waters collaboratively. In some theatres, diverse leaders were removed from their roles while delivering a programme they’d inherited, before being able to lead on their own creative strategy; many cited the lack of time afforded to build sustained relationships with boards.

One leader confides: “It’s as though, before they’ve even spoken to me, they’d decided it’s going to be ‘problematic’. And then this big machine swings into place – the minuted meeting, the procedural review – where with others they’d just have a simple, frank conversation. They’re so scared of getting it wrong that they go into overdrive and it becomes toxic.”

‘Black, Brown and global-majority theatremakers need elders and mentors who have been allowed to keep making work as they get older so they can keep sharing that learning’ – Chinonyerem Odimba, artistic director and chief executive of tiata fahodzi

And that’s before we get to the weight of expectation on those leaders – many who spoke to me agreed there is constant and high presumption that they should be spokespeople for the widest range of social issues – something that is optional for their non-diverse counterparts. As Weise says: “You do feel that there are different levels of expectation placed on you [as a diverse leader]. You are very aware that you aren’t like other people who may have led the institution before, you’re aware that your colleagues may not have worked with people who have protected characteristics at the level of seniority you occupy.”

This expectation has recently been exemplified in the sector’s varying response to the Israel-Gaza conflict. While a cohort of leading artistic directors and chief executives made a collective decision not to comment on the conflict, Black, Asian and ethnically diverse leaders shouldered the load of expectation from audiences and staff to publicly nail their colours to the mast. Both the Bush and Tamasha responded to demands by supporting staff through carefully convened dialogues and made public statements, risking backlash.

‘You are very aware that your colleagues may not have worked with people who have protected characteristics at the level of seniority you occupy’ – Roy Alexander Weise, former joint artistic director of the Royal Exchange

The creative sector’s ability to pivot and refresh is one of its strengths, but it may also speak to its collective short-term memory. For diversity in leadership to move beyond a state of short-term gain to one of sustainability and longevity, it must, as Weise puts it, pay “attention to the teams that leaders have around them”, both within the organisations they run and across the wider sector.

A leader can only make change if they are supported in doing so. Chinonyerem Odimba, artistic director and chief executive of tiata fahodzi, recently reflected on Twitter/X: “One of the most potentially damaging narratives in the arts is that only the ‘young’ need support, mentorship or showcasing to survive.” She cautioned about this way of thinking “especially when talking about Black, Brown and other global-majority artists and creatives. Black, Brown and global majority artists and creatives need industry elders and mentors – who have been allowed to keep making work as they get older so they can keep sharing that learning. Stories and theatre don’t demand us to be a certain age. Dysfunctional structures do.”