Ownership: Who’s Really in Charge?
March 1st 2025 - 7 Minute Read
Through conversations, reading, and life experience, I’ve found myself pulled toward a central question in artistic leadership: Who actually calls the shots?
Leadership in the arts is a constant push-and-pull—between artists, organisations, theaters, audiences, grant holders, and everyone caught in the crossfire. But who decides if a project is on track? If the process needs a shake-up? If the final product isn’t hitting the mark? And when things go well, who benefits the most? Are people profiting from projects they had no real hand in shaping?
It’s a tangled web, full of debate. But one thing that stands out is the role of communication—across all these players. In my experience, communication often gets lost, whether due to different styles, skill gaps, or just sheer workload. And that breakdown has real consequences…
The Knowledge Gap in Artistic Leadership
Most artists stepping into the industry aren’t equipped with governance and leadership skills. They’re trained in their craft, but rarely in the mechanics of running a project, navigating institutions, or advocating for themselves without feeling exposed.
Why? Maybe because artistic institutions downplay the need for business & governance knowledge. Maybe because commissioning bodies sidestep the conversation altogether. Maybe it simply isn’ recognised as a key skill, despite the cultural landscape demanding it from small to large scale projects. Either way, there’s a glaring gap in how governance is shared and understood in artistic work.
Freelance artists are now expected to wear a ridiculous number of hats—producer, HR, marketer, fundraiser, director, community worker, set designer—the list goes on. Early on, they juggle everything. Later, even with funding and a team, they’re still responsible for steering the ship. Yet, most of their training focuses on perfecting their craft, not leading teams, managing people, or handling creative-business dynamics.
And the industry isn’t making it easier. Artists are increasingly expected to operate like mini cultural organisations, forced to pick up management skills on the fly. They develop their own governance styles without even realising it—learning by doing, often through trial and error.
This can lead to brilliant, organic governance—especially if the artist naturally thrives in a leadership role. But it can also create a dangerous blind spot, resulting in poor job opportunities, misguided projects, wasted funds, and, in the worst cases, exploitation, mismanagement, and morale-crushing outcomes. The real problem? Some artists don’t even realise leadership is the issue, and often, neither do the organisations or partners who could step in to help.
The Clash Between Artists and Organizations
More often than not, artists and cultural organizations collaborate to commission new work, expand community outreach, or create engaging programming. These partnerships bring together freelance creativity and institutional backing with the shared goal of making something great happen. But beneath the surface, there’s often an unspoken tension: Who’s actually in charge—the artist or the institution?
This question isn’t always addressed, yet it’s the clash in governance and leadership styles that often fuels the friction.
For freelancers, stepping into an established organization’s structure can be disorienting. Suddenly, they’re navigating corporate cultural norms they’ve never encountered, while their artistry is placed under a new level of scrutiny. Meanwhile, organizations—already stretched thin—often lack the capacity to fully support artists in managing their teams and projects. They’re also juggling their own pressures from funders and stakeholders. The result? Blurred leadership roles, unclear expectations, and a frustrating disconnect between creative vision and operational reality.
Of course, despite these tensions, great work is still created. But how many artists and organizations have felt that lingering frustration—a project that didn’t quite hit the mark, a collaboration that ended on a sour note, or a working relationship that, while functional, is unlikely to continue?
And here’s the kicker: leadership styles are rarely discussed upfront. Even when ambitious artistic visions are being mapped out, governance is often an afterthought. But misalignment in leadership can derail even the most well-intentioned partnerships. Without clear communication, creative collaborations risk burning out before they ever reach their full potential.
Where Do We Go From Here?
So, what’s the fix?
Should governance and leadership training be built into artistic education, so artists aren’t left vulnerable when seeking funding or collaborating with cultural organisations?
Can cultural organisations be more transparent about their leadership models, allowing artists to share the governance load instead of just delivering a product?
Would the relationship between freelancers and organisations improve if management and governance were valued as much as creative output?
Do artists need more business and project management support to sustain their careers and take creative risks? And if so, whose responsibility is that—individual artists or the bodies that fund and commission their work?
There’s no easy answer, but one thing’s clear: artistic success isn’t just about talent. It’s about understanding the structures that shape the work, and making sure artists have the tools to navigate them. Otherwise, we’re setting the system up to fail before its even begun.