It’s no secret that the past few years have seen many Australian artists and arts companies facing deeply challenging times. With diminished markets and evaporating funding, among other challenges, leadership is a critical issue. But is this a time for senior arts leaders to dig in, or a valuable moment for refresh and generational change?
Recently, we’ve seen departure announcements from several long-serving artistic directors. Sydney Dance Company’s Rafael Bonachela will leave his role in 2028 after 19 years, and Dancenorth’s co-Artistic Directors Kyle Page and Amber Haines will depart next year after 11 years of co-leadership, as just two examples.
On the other hand, there have also been some brief stints at the top for various arts CEOs in recent years, as shown in Opera Australia’s high executive level turnover. Controversial circumstances also led to the departure of Melbourne Symphony Orchestra’s then Managing Director Sophie Galaise in 2024.
To shed light some more light on current arts leadership patterns the sector, ArtsHub consulted a range of Australian artists and arts workers and asked them how long arts leaders should stay in a their roles. Their responses show some areas of consensus – along with a few divergent and surprising ideas on best practice leadership.
Arts leaders’ tenure – quick links
Too short and there’s no chance to make an impact
For many of the arts workers ArtsHub spoke to, the first agenda item concerns the bespoke contract offers made to state arts festival directors who, unlike other artistic directors, are typically signed for a single term with a maximum of four years.
While exceptions have occurred – such as the Rachel Healy and Neil Armfield partnership that led Adelaide Festival from 2017 to 2023 – for many people, a four-year term is potentially too short for festival leaders to achieve measurable results and, if needed, realise transformational change.
As one interviewee puts it: ‘The four-year tenure arrangement has significant costs for a festival because those artistic directors are generally just hitting their straps when they get to their last festival, and then the process has to restart.’
Another suggested: ‘Perhaps a tenure timeframe of between five to eight years might be better for directors – of both state festivals and of performing arts companies – to fully realise their vision.
‘This [slightly longer] arrangement would not only give the new leaders more of a chance to develop their programming, but it would also give artists, some of whom might not have been favoured by the previous artistic director, more of a chance, too.’
Too long and an organisation can stagnate
On the other hand, there are also sector concerns about overly-long leadership stays causing systemic road-blocks and negative ripple effects in the sector.
As one artist told ArtsHub: ‘Artistic director and executive director jobs are so few and far between in Australia that it is no wonder that when someone is appointed to one, they hold on to them for more than 10 years.
‘The result of this means there are whole generations of artists unable to take “next step” career development opportunities.’
This artist went on to ask, ‘Would a career in the arts be more enticing if these leadership positions had a timeframe? Yes, I think it would.’
For them, reliable turnover ‘could also see more artists sticking it out in the career they are passionate about with the hope and prospect that maybe one day, they might hold one of these more sustainable artistic leadership roles.’
But what might that ideal expiry date be for arts leaders to ensure this healthy turnover and fair chance for the next generation of directors?
Many suggested from five to 10 years as an appropriate tenure for arts leaders. Yet Theatre Network Australia’s latest survey of small-to-medium performing arts organisations shows the average tenure of artistic directors in this sector is 10.9 years – suggesting that, aside from the state arts festival model, directors are commonly staying in their roles for longer periods than many feel is due.
Is a focus on timeframes missing the point?
Some of the arts workers ArtsHub canvassed also expressed a belief that the dangers here lie not in the duration of an arts leader’s tenure, but their perceived commitment to their job and their audiences.
As one interviewee told ArtsHub, the more pertinent questions are less about time and more about maintaining relevance.
‘As a senior artistic leader, [you have to ask yourself if] are you maintaining enough relevance to your audiences, artists and stakeholders to justify you – above others – holding that position?’ they said.
‘If the answer is still an enthusiastic “yes” from all those interested parties, then play on. But the problem is that we don’t always seek this feedback honestly, and the mechanisms that force this reflection – for example, those in fixed-term contracts that require a genuine process to renew or extend – are a useful way to keep us accountable to our stakeholders and the institutions we serve.’
ArtsHub: Susan Provan on three decades at the head of MICF
In a similar vein, another interviewee said that, especially for artistic director positions, the real measure is performance: ‘Is the individual doing great work? Are they delivering for the company as well as the artists and community?’
They continued: ‘Some artistic directors build [a] truly excellent practice with greater depth and resonance as a result of the [longer] tenure. It’s evidence that sometimes stronger creative relationships allow for deeper exploration, and the ability to build year-on-year on previous work.’
Then again, this approach prompts larger, more difficult questions about who is responsible for assessing the artistic directors’ creativity and worth for the purpose of extending their stay at the top?
Is it their peers, audiences, critics or funding bodies who make that judgement call?
As one interviewee remarked, the question of how long an arts leader should stay in their role ‘entirely depends on their output and working relationships’.
Avoiding gatekeeping and patterns of exclusion
While many acknowledged there are exceptional cases where artistic leadership change is clearly out of the question – there could only ever be one artistic director of Merce Cunningham Company, for example – in most cases, a healthy turnover at the top is required.
As one artist put it, ‘the issue is not simply how long someone stays, but what accumulates while they do’.
They added: ‘Leadership consolidates more than experience – it consolidates taste, influence and access, which, over time, can harden into informal gatekeeping and patterns of exclusion.’
This artist also pointed out the often unacknowledged fact that a company’s broader organisational culture and conditions can play a major role in sustaining this kind of entrenched thinking, adding weight to cycles and practices of informal gatekeeping.
As they told ArtsHub: ‘The conditions surrounding these leadership roles – such as the company’s board alignment, its funding pressures, reputational risk exposure and entrenched organisational culture – can mean that changes in leadership can simply reproduce the same dynamics and issues, just under a different name.’
The unforeseen effects of the fixed-term contract law
It’s also worth noting that recent Australian employment legislation that took effect in December 2023 has prompted some arts boards to change their contract offers to new staff in certain roles, including leadership roles.
This new fixed-term employee contract legislation is part of the Federal Government’s broader push to protect workers from what it sees as inappropriate use of short-term employment opportunities, and to try to foster more job security and permanence in the workforce.
The legislation dictates that fixed-term contracts cannot be longer than two years, including any extension and renewals. This means that any company wishing to engage an artistic director for a fixed-term of more than two years cannot do so in a straightforward way.
If that artistic director’s fixed-term contract was set for a period of longer than two years, they could potentially claim a right to be made a permanent employee with the company.
Clearly, these kinds of arts leadership positions were not front of mind for the Federal Government when devising this legislation, but it is having unforeseen implications for some arts employees.
Importantly for arts boards and employers, there are exceptions that are allowed under this legislation, and variations of fixed-term employment contracts are permissible in some contexts. Arts employers must still act carefully when considering these recently introduced rules, even when their intent is for a new director to have longer-term relevance to their company or organisation.
ArtsHub: Meanjin: QUT appoints ‘establishing editor’ for literary journal
As many interviewees acknowledged, in certain contexts – particularly in regional arts and community-embedded practices – leadership longevity is often critical to an organisation’s long-term success.
As one artist noted, ‘especially in regional and some community contexts, trust is built slowly and therefore it must be sustained over time’.
‘But power also needs interruption,’ they added. ‘So, good leadership design must hold both.’
On this note, many were clear that these arts leadership positions should not be seen as retirement plans, nor dream-roles finally achieved by an individual, never to be let go of.
‘It is a rare opportunity and privilege to spend a handful of years contributing to a tapestry that other artists have woven before you,’ one artist told ArtsHub.
‘It’s this turnover and temporary stewardship that I believe lends longevity to these companies. Because ultimately, they are much bigger than just one artist.’
