- You're listening to the Gathering a Podcast for artists and creatives from Arts Lancashire. I am Alex O'Toole. And this is episode five of series two. This season is all about remaking and remodeling the role and work of artists and creatives in a COVID world and the practicalities of creating and delivering at a distance. We talk about working within the new restrictions, where the opportunities are, how to rip up the rule book and why it's more important than ever to ensure that our artistic practice are places in spaces and opportunities to make and participate are consistently inclusive and representative. For this episode, we're joined by Jonathan Mayes from Clore Leaderships Governance Alliance and Matt Wilde director of Blaze Arts to explore how the pandemic and the many issues around social injustice has impacted on the work of trustees and the relationships between boards and the operational teams of cultural organizations. It's never been more important to have good governance. But now that the pressure is on the boards to provide real time responses to the challenges brought by COVID, how does that affect decision-making? As we dive into the nuanced issues facing trustees in this moment, we consider how board structure impacts on attitude to risk and influences strategy in programming. We look at how a more considered approach to board recruitment, can ensure more diversity and a better representation of the community it serves. We talk about how the alignment of individual motivations with organizational objectives creates space for all parties to grow. And we tackle the age old question, of whether board members should be paid and what it might mean if they were - I'm Jonathan Mayes. I am the head of strategic partnerships and impact at Clore Leadership - I'm Matt Wilde. I'm the founding director of Blaze Arts, which is a youth led charity based in Lancashire. I'm also a musician, a producer a music producer amongst other things. - So the nature of my work, so it gives me the privilege really of speaking with lots of different leadership teams in the cultural sector. And in my conversations, a subject that comes up often is governance and the relationship between boards of trustees and operational teams. But I would say that since COVID, that conversation consistently pushed its way to the front of the line, but it's always in hushed tones and it's always behind closed doors. And whilst that's completely understandable, there are so many common issues. And not just here in Lancaster, but for organizations across the country, from how individual organizations are dealing with the challenges presented by the pandemic but also in terms of how they're responding to the many sort of social injustice issues that are simultaneously being highlighted. So it seemed to me that it might be worthwhile looking at this subject with sort of a more global view and exploring how some of these issues are affecting general board level operations and relations. And then perhaps, through our conversation today we can put forward some examples and approaches the managing some of those tensions around board operations and relationships. And then perhaps looking at some of the ways of thinking about the more nuanced aspects of governing a cultural organization. So that's kind of the basis of the podcast and what our conversation might be today. - We've only got an hour. - Yeah, I've only got an hour. I know it's a huge topic, but, let's give it a go. I mean every single one of my questions for you really are taken out by themselves but, let's give it a go. So Jonathan, can you tell us a little bit more about your work with boards and how COVID has impacted on the work of boards in the cultural sector? - Sure. So, Clore Leadership ourselves have always done an element of work with boards and particularly with leaders to help them work with boards. But over the last few years, since 2017 we helped establish the Cultural Governance Alliance. So most of what we're doing with boards is funneled through that alliance as a broad church of organizations who have come together exactly to do that to help organizations talk about their boards work on their boards, create good governance. So a lot of the activity there is stuff which is trying to get board members as to talk to each other, not just in their own organization, but more widely. Good example at the moment is our governance and our conference. So that's on at the moment, every November. This year well, basically, we're doing it a bit differently. It's being delivered online across the month. In fact, when this podcast goes out, they'll still be one session left. So I'm gonna put my plug in now for the 26th of November partly because Matt is there. He's one of our provocation speakers and he's gonna upset the apple cart a little bit I hope. And I say that jokingly, but actually that's part of the point is you create these spaces in order to have open conversations, honest conversations which sometimes it's difficult to do when you're on a board of trustees, when you're both dealing with sensitive information but also information where you might feel nervous about what it is you can explore or talk about. So we do things like that in annual conference. We have a number of programs about diversifying boards about how chairs and CEOs operate together and spaces where board members can talk to each other safely. I think that's the key thing about, you asked a bit about how it's changed in the pandemic is all I think yah. And in that respect, I think what we're seeing is pressure on decision-making timelines. That's the fundamental issue around the pandemic. It's not clearly the issues are big ones but boards have always dealt with big issues existential, things around funding, around purpose mission. But what has happened over the last six months is very much been a shift for organizations in perhaps their trustees would normally sit around a board meeting and talk about strategy, which might be on the three-year, the five-year even the 10 year scale. Suddenly they're trustees meetings probably emergency meetings where the organization has had most, all, some of their revenue stripped away. And so the trustees find themselves in this unusual position of normally steering an oil tanker or at least the timing of steering, an oil tanker and then suddenly having to really pivot and shift and as executives and organizations, that's, that's not easy but it's easier to envisage because you're dealing with the day-to-day anyway. As trustees, that's harder because typically, or not and typically, you're given lots of time to make decisions and therefore you can feel like you can explore the implications. And right now trustees are often being asked to make decisions without really understanding what the implications are. I think that's the big change. - Yeah I mean, it has huge practical implications as well, doesn't it? Just in terms of how often people are meeting, how they're having those conversations, where they're having those conversations. And I guess it puts a lot of pressure on those operational teams to get that information to them in a way understandable and... - Yeah. That's really true. That is really true and it's... I'm a trustee myself, so, so that's on me. That side of the table saying, "Actually I need this information to make a decision. I'm just gonna make for a..." The chief executive and their team are probably got a million jobs to do, - Yeah. - Not least that one. - Yeah so that's another layer of tension really. Just to sort of bring it back, to sort of more, a really global view. What should a good ball look like and feel like if you're a board member because I think this is quite an intuitive thing, and you know when something feels right or not, and also, what should it look like and feel like if you're part of the operational delivery team 'cause I think the two things are different. - Yeah I mean, I'm gonna ask Matt to pitch where he feels necessary here. But I think the fundamental thing to say here is there is no one size fits all answer to that question. It very much varies and depends on what organization you're a trustee or a board member for. I think there are a few fundamentals that I think everyone around the board table should have a voice. I think that's a really critical element of that. Thus, I think we've all probably come across organizations where that doesn't necessarily happen. So I think for me the top priority would always be every single person having a voice and finding a way for them to have a voice, that doesn't necessarily always mean shouting loudest does it. And interestingly, actually in COVID times, there are more opportunities to do that. - Yes. - I've read quite a lot else out there that said, actually you can really actively meet somebody if you want to, but like Donald Trump in that wonderful debate where... Actually I bet the moderator wishes they'd just press the mute button sometimes. Delicately done. A well placed mute is a very useful thing. I think, alongside that everybody has a voice that's... There's something around the culture, the culture of always being able to ask the stupid question. And again, that's something that I've seen done well at boards and I've seen done badly at votes but sometimes the obvious question the stupid one is the one that actually leads to the best discussion, the best decision making. And sometimes people can be really scared of that particular newer trustee. And we'll talk about new and diverse trustees later and young trustees obviously with that. There's an element there to which how the dynamic and culture of that board operates can lead people to think well that person over there, the lawyer in the corner or the person who's from the investment bank they sound like they know what they're talking about. So why would I ask the question about why that figure doesn't add up in my head. But actually it probably doesn't add up. You've probably been asked to be a trustee because you have an ability to recognize and spot those things. And some of it's common sense and that should always be there. The board should always reflect the community which it serves. That's a complicated thing to actually unpick but it doesn't happen often and it should. It should have the skills required to interrogate those decisions, analyze the challenge and to support the executive team. And on that side I think, why a board, what's the board for? I think there is a purpose in the board adding an element of pressure to the executive, good pressure where if it wasn't there and I... I think you look at organizations that don't have boards of trustees... I was talking to Alan Lane at Slung Low about this the other day. There are... Lots of us know about them. They're doing great work. They don't have a board. And that gives them an ability to turn around quickly but it also takes away both the safety net and a voice which helps you to reflect and pushes you to reflect. Now they achieve that in other ways they have an advisory group and so on, but a board's role can and should be to push just to that level where it says, have you as an executive thought hard enough, have you made assumptions? So that's an important part... - Yeah, definitely, 'cause it can be quite lonely when you're making these tough decisions, as the leadership team or the person at the top. - Yeah. - It's good to have that sounding board. - And I think the other thing I was trying to think about this a little bit more from a kind of moral standpoint and what should boards be and do. And I feel like they ought to have a purpose. I think a lot of where a board may struggle is when they don't really necessarily understand what they're there for. It is a bit of that pressure thing, but it's also about sort of understanding what the organization is, who the organization we're representing and what that mission is and how they therefore as trustees link to that, if I'm brought into a board as a, somebody that has finance expertise or legal or specific expertise to that sector. What is it about my sitting there that helps that organization's purpose? I think that's a really important question, both for trustees to ask themselves but for boards in general, and that sort of flips it around then to answer your question about what the executive needs from the board is that the executive need the board, not just to be the guy with the whip that says no, to be the ones that say keep on, bringing the executive back to here's your mission, here's your purpose. Is that decision making actually driving you towards that purpose? And if it's not, then we're here to help and support you and to try and do so. And if it is great, we'll champion it and we will celebrate it and shout about it. But I think fundamentally that's kind of the moral driver for a board or ought to be. - Yeah, I totally agree with that. It needs that rigor doesn't it to make sure that we as operational teams are delivering against that purpose 'cause it's quite easy sometimes to have what people describe as mission drift because there are so many bright lights, particularly in the cultural sector, that things look interesting and meet someone really interesting and got this really cool idea. And it's quite hard to almost maintain that curation of your own program in any way. I know I'm sitting here thinking well how does the boards I'm on piled those things and I'll definitely be thinking about that going forward. So Matt, the membership and the work of Blaze's board of trustees is what it's pioneering isn't it, in terms of putting young people at the heart of the makeup of its board. Can you talk a little bit about how your board is structured and the motivations behind it 'cause it's really quite interesting how you've done what you've done. - Yeah sure. So I've just... I'd take a second just to reflect on how we became a charity, if that's okay. So Blaze started as a project in 2012. The reason I hesitated is probably because it happened slightly earlier than that, but let's say 2012 as part of a London 2012 Olympic games or the Cultural Olympiad. And the idea for Blaze the project actually had a slightly different title about then but Blaze the project was that young people from across the Northwest would get together regularly to learn and become producers of a festival that celebrated art, culture and sports. And it would be part of the Northwest closing event for London, 2012 Olympic games. And I think that really set the precedent for the work we're doing today which is the reason I thought I'd just take this opportunity to reflect back on it. So Blaze as a project was run by young people from conception to completion, a festival that had quite a decent budget around the time of the Olympics was managed by young people from the Northwest and on the hand up I was actually involved in that process as a producer, as a participant. I'd never experienced anything like it before in my life, I was interested in producing events. And when I heard about the opportunity I couldn't believe it firstly was real. And secondly, I just had to get involved. So as we know, big cultural and or sports and events do come to an end and as the Olympics came to an end, we were really thinking about what we could do next. - Who's we? - Myself and 20 other young producers who were involved in a process that Sora is collaborating every week for about a year. So once a week for about a year getting together to collaborate and producing this festival. So we worked with local councils and other stakeholders to define what our next steps could be. And to cut a long story short we transitioned from being what I like to remember... This is just my interpretation. This might not be how others remember it but from a large cultural project with a sizeable budget to be coming at a really small DIY young person led project overnight it felt... although in reality, it probably wasn't... So fast forward to 2017, we began to become slightly more sustainable as a project, collaborating with partners like Curious Minds who are based in Preston but work across the Northwest Lancaster County council Preston city council as well there's like loads of other arts and cultural partners. We decided now is the time to constitute in our own right. And the vehicle we chose was to become a charity. So we did that and during that process because Blaze has been led by young people from its inception, it gave us the opportunity to really interrogate what we mean by that. What do we really mean when we say young people lead Blaze? And the way we define it, and this might forever change but at least in that moment was, that young people are involved and can involve themselves are two distinctly different things. Can involve themselves at all levels of the decision-making process of Blaze. And for us, that meant our board of trustees. So when we constituted Blaze, we build that into our constitution and the way we defined it and continue to do so, is that a minimum of 51% of our trustees will be aged 30 and under thus I guess constitutionally making Blaze young person led at the highest level so to speak. - What's the youngest age that you can be come trustee? - So I think the true answer is age 16. Although I think lots of other people think it's 18 but when we were researching it, we found that it was 16. This is just my memory so Jonathan or Alex, I'm sure you might know otherwise, but between the ages of 16 and 18 as the trustee you can't legally vote for the items and you can't vote for the decisions. So it's not quite the role of a trustee at that point. So I'd encourage anyone who's 18 and over to consider joining the board. - Honest, I don't know the answer to that question. I think it's a good question as to what the youngest age is. - Yeah. - I... so they could potentially be on the board as like an observer and then after 18 they can actually participate fully. - That's exactly, yeah, what I was trying to say, you put it brilliantly so yeah, 16 to 18 observe 18 plus become a trustee and you have the same rights as everybody else who's in the room. - And we need a different word other than observer, right? 'Cause observer's not necessarily the right word there. - Yeah because they will... - Exactly. - They just can't vote necessarily. Yeah that's so interesting and I can't think of any other organization that I've come across that has that in their constitution, which is phenomenal. So what has the impact of those younger trustees been on the organization and also on you and your colleagues as the delivery team? - I think the impact has been really profound in many ways. And the reason being is that those who are on the board of Blaze, the younger trustees who age 30 or under really have never known a world without on-demand access to all information at our fingertips. So growing up in a world with Google, growing up in a world with the internet basically has meant at least in my observations and conversations that young people see the world somewhat differently. Young people can and often lead by example online by starting things for themselves, from businesses to clothing lines to organizations, to content creation, YouTube channels and can monetize their ideas and their passions in a way that maybe it wasn't happening in the same kind of way. I don't know, 30 years ago. - That's totally true it just, it couldn't happen 30 years ago. So the world is better from... - So and I think growing up in a world like that, that's natural to them has meant that they show up at our board meetings in a way that is socially responsible. Jonathan, you talked about the ethics behind trustees and moral obligation. And I think the younger trustees have really held me accountable to our direction, our mission as an organization, and they've provided consistent and regular positive challenge around how we do what we do and why we're doing it and who we do it with. So for example in light of George Floyd's death and the light that was shone on Black Lives Matter and continues to be the board meeting following that the younger trustees really challenged and were really positive around supporting our team and myself to develop positive action as an organization. So that was their opportunity and continues to be a collaborative opportunity to influence what it is that we do going forward. So we have regular positive action working groups is currently our only sub working group. And our boards tend to develop lots of little working groups but that's one that is so important. And I think will set the precedent for Blaze's work to come. We only constituted two years ago as an organization. So we despite the fact that we had the story of the Olympics I still consider Blaze Arts CIO to be in its infancy. And I think that at this pivotal moment those conversations I think are really what gets me out of bed in the morning and other things that were challenging and we are having conversations around. And I think it's brilliant because it provides a space for all of us to be open and honest and share, and even if we have face around, I don't know, like the terminology that the sector uses to describe people who are ethnically diverse. That's a space where we can talk about those things. And I hope we'll set the precedent plays. - I was meaning to ask you this the other day when we were talking before, but I'm interested to know about how the, what your perception is of your board's ability to compromise because you're right the young people come in into these situations not just the boards, but just more generally. I'm really impassioned by current social injustice issues. And that's brilliant. Clearly you see the marches on the street, you see them mostly being younger people. And it's great to have that in the board and in the boardroom. But of course, one of the elements of what a board of trustees has to do at some point is compromised. They have to compromise with knowing that you quite an ambition and a mission over here, but a budget which can only achieve so much. And I'm really intrigued as to what your perception of that, particularly with your younger your trustees who are under 30 years, whether they struggle in that area or whether there's a divide in terms of, on your board, the appetite for compromise. - Hmm, I think there's a lot of work that we need to do. And where we are today is probably gonna be we're gonna be somewhere very different in the future. But today, and in our infancy and having experimented and run board meetings for two years, I would say that the decisions and conversations we have are in the context of the reality of where we are. So the budget that Blaze has the number, the bottom line on our management accounts, our program and project budgets. So we work within and make decisions and have conversations within that territory, so for example, a conversation we're having readily at the moment is what percentage of all of our project budgets, can we ring fence or dedicate to supporting black businesses? That's just one conversation of many, but that's within the context of something that we can have influence over. So I think compromise happens, but because Blaze is still in its infancy we're still forming, we have a strong vision and mission. And not to say that we drift from it, or although we probably have at times - That's the nature of a good business isn't it, it's responding to the environment. And we were saying you the other day might... Organizations, they're like a living thing and they're changing and growing all the time. But I think that's absolutely phenomenal in terms of, you've got governance, which is some of these issues that we're talking about now, the Black Lives Matter issues around accessibility and disabled led approaches and things like that. They are all part of good governance yet, the way that you are tackling it is orders actually influencing the program which is if, as Jonathan said before it should be representative of communities that they, that is exactly what should be happening. And so you're demonstrating that in a really beautiful way, I think. - Thank you, so our story is our own it's unique to us and we can compromise and require a shape shift a little bit and we can be quite flexible. We're nimble, we're agile and by the experience as a trustee on two other boards and compromise on, on other boards that I've had involvement in would be a different matter. But again that's unique to that circumstance and that organization, if an organization has been here for 30 years and is dealing with budgets, I don't know, 10, 15, 20 times that a Blaze, or maybe even more, that has a certain institutionalized approach to it's working. I think that's harder to dismantle through compromise then Blaze in its infancy. - It's a very good point actually, I, in many ways, I think the owners of the boards where you've got a smaller budget to deal with in a newer organization is much bigger than that of an established organization. Let's go to the whole other end of the music biz and go to the role opera house, where they've got systems and channels and the way it operates, I've never sat on their board but I'm sure it feels like there's very limited opportunity for really radical shift and board influence on, as Alex you just described on programming and so on. And I think it's an amazing opportunity and I'm I would lodge supplies and that what you're doing there is just a sort of fabulous example of an organization fully understanding what it means to have a board have trustees, to have governance that represents where they come from, what they are, what their mission is. And it's, it's great we should be putting this on a pedestal, but just chatting about it as much as we can. - Definitely, I mean these are, huge issues that you are exploring through your board and through your program. And obviously the role and the responsibilities of board members are also quite well. They're quite onerous, aren't they, there's a lot of liability there. So how do young people on your board understand it and sort of meet those responsibilities and what kind of additional support have you had to put in place to help them understand and get to grips with those things. Because, they're quite often some of the financial and legal implications of being on a board they're quite way and young people might not have experience of those kinds of responsibilities before. - Yeah great question, so I'll answer this in two parts, firstly, what we've done to date and how we've approached it to date and then how that has informed how we might approach it going forward. So, firstly I would say our approach is for, I guess, all trustees, regardless of age I think it's always good to refresh and know what responsibilities and liabilities around the table. So when we recruited or launched a call out for trustees, we created a summary or easy to read read version of what those liabilities are. So that from the get-go anyone who might express interest hopefully will have an understanding at least in broad terms about what the liability of becoming a trustee is. So that was initially, and then when we first got together we had some board development sessions that continue to explore these themes. But I guess I'm quite interested in how we then apply that in action. So how we might work together to ensure the legal responsibility is governed in the best possible way or ensuring that everyone around the table has a basic understanding of reading our management accounts amongst other things. So how we apply those liabilities and make them our own and put them into practice. So another approach is I have regular one-to-one catch-ups with trustees, which is a really important part of this for me, at least. And I hope for others too. And I know that, you might think, wow, well you have nine or 10 trustees that can become quite time consuming. And I would say it's yes, perhaps, but it's deeply inspiring. And also ensures that outside of being in a board meeting together, we can have opportunities to be open and honest. So it's in those moments that even myself, I can talk openly about where I feel my strengths lie and my assets lie and where I would love to see additional support from the board's perspective. And then that also sets the precedent for good communication, really. And I think once a one or small group conversations is an and has been powerful in ensuring that we're all on the same page, whether that's about our legal responsibility or otherwise. So that has informed how we do things today. But I think going forward, I would like to build on the work that we've done and develop a hopefully like a accessible frame work, so that anyone who joins our board or any other board hopefully we could possibly share this wider can have a good grasp of what it means to be a trustee. And I would love to demystify what that means and make it accessible and hopefully fun or creative in some way to expand the reach of all of our organizations but particularly Blazers - So on the money and Matt and I have been talking about this. I mean, you're sort of talking about things which border on the idea of training right. And actually, I'm not sure if it is assumed, but I think a lot of people may be assumed that you joined a board and therefore you're already trained in what you're doing and therefore bring it. But actually there's such a strong need to have trustees who are well-trained in being trustees because they have that it has its own implications. That i might talk a bit more later I think about risk and how I want approach this risk. But typically in that sort of area being trained. - That's really interesting. I think, you know what you were saying about those individual conversations, I think that is quite rare and but so needed and explains a lot about how, your success as a board that's developing and an organization that's developing. And I think as well this sense of action and consequence, some of the issues that your board have decided to pursue and explore. I wonder whether, if they'd had all this institutionalized thinking around them, whether they would've gone down that route because they're so aware of the consequences of actions it might prevent them from exploring those things but equally, sometimes not knowing everything or not thinking about down the line is a good thing too. I don't know what I'm trying to say there really but I just think what young people can bring is that sense of let's try, let's see let's have that conversation in a really open way rather than closing it down from the get go. - And as a key element to the way Matt described that, it's most of the good work of boards happened outside of the board meeting. So that when he talks about having conversations with the trustees, that's really critical, not just for the chief executive or the CEO, but also for the chair. And actually you get most of the really useful movement and action taken away from the board meeting the board meeting itself in reality, or it's just be a kind of a rubber stamping or perhaps a bit more than that but just a meeting where kind of everybody knows where it's heading already and you use it to fulfill the obligation but it's the other conversations that really moves things. - Yeah, I completely get that and it makes so much sense. So I'm gonna sort of ask a bit of a divisive question now and I know I've individually had this conversation with both of you, but given the level of responsibilities that trustees have and particularly in the current climate, when there's so much uncertainty and there's an increasing need for cultural organizations to become more sustainable and this word viable is used a lot. Do you think boards are particularly boards with young people who are in probably the most vulnerable carriage position in terms of jobs, do you think that boards should be voluntary? - Again it's circumstantial and it depends on the organization. But I, and this needs more work and thinking from Blazers perspective, that's just like a note to self. Yeah, I don't think so, I think it will be really interesting to say this is from Blazer's perspective. So wearing that hat, firstly, I think it would be really interesting to explore a conversation about what it could look like and what the impact might be if we develop or ensure that a certain percentage or a certain number of the roles of our, on our board are recompensed and paid positions. I'd be really interested in what the impact could be both in terms of those who joined the board but then those who are in paid positions what their roles could be beyond been a board meetings. And I would look to see a transition or a move towards, I think it could already be happening although it's just anecdotally in conversations I've had with others. And I would love to see a transition to some paid or at least properly recompense roles on various boards as a trustee. Now having said that, that thinking for me is in its infancy, I don't know of any good examples of that happening and I'm sure it does happen. A conversation that has also come up in our meetings is can the director or CEO also have a position on the board. I think that can happen and happens in structures outside of charities. So that's also a very interesting conversation too, but yeah I would love to see a transition towards paid opportunities and what the impact actually would that would have. - Yeah because, it's quite interesting because you think of a board, is there provide checks and balances, and outside of the commercial sector that's really needed in the community or charity sectors. However, if someone was paid, why does that affect the checks and balances that they're to give? And surely if someone wasn't paid those checks and balances weren't done in a certain way, does that make them less liable? It's so difficult, - It's really difficult. I think there's a statutory answer to this question, which is at the moment the Charities Commission doesn't allow for remuneration of board members. So if you're on a charity board, it's not actually currently allowed. So if we are gonna develop that conversation, there's actually quite an interestingly naughty conversation to be had with the Charities Commission, whether with other bodies NCVO, ACEVO, others who are involved in the area. I think the conversation really needs to be had. And I see both sides of the coin here. I suppose you want the argument against remuneration is all about this passionate decision-making there's no investment there. And I've seen this I've sat on or been my prior to Clore Leadership I worked in orchestras. And I, so I experienced quite a lot where either the musicians themselves are trustees, or whether it's musician representatives on boards and who are observed as effectively. And it's interesting seeing how influenced the decision-making can become when a trustee has a stake in the game. So I think there is a very important discussion and argument to go with that. However, the flip and I think the flip side of this is stronger and more important because it boils back to what I said about boards being honestly representative, if you want a diverse board if you want members of your community, who you serve to come and sit on that board, I think you have to be open to the idea that some of them will only be able to do that if you recommend them freelances, classic case in point, a lot of organizations work with freelances, lots of organizations would benefit from having freelancers on their board. Most freelancers not all most would struggle to with the time commitment put in a purely practical level, because it would be an either or between doing some other paid work or doing some unpaid work. I don't know how other ways that you could get around that other than saying to them, there'll be some recommends here. So it's a really important discussion. We're gonna start having actually one of the points of inviting Matt through our last session of governance now at the end of this month is to have that conversation in an open space so that we can really start going great. And the other one of the other provocations is from a youth board member of the round house where I think it's like a different approach. It's sort of a representation on a slip subsidiary board but then with full representation to the main round house board. And of course that's quite different from what Blaze are doing. And I really want to have that discussion openly and get lots of opinions on this Because 'cause until we start having the open discussion it's not going to change. - Yeah I mean, it's so interesting, 'Cause you mentioned the word dispassionate before and I understand that when it comes to checks and balances, but then on the flip side, part of the board's role is to support the organization developing and that requires some kind of openness to risk. And so if you've always taken that dispassionate approach how does that affect your approach to risk? And I guess a big question is how can boards develop a more open attitude to risk taking that there's a kind of, risk-taking needed to develop innovation and to push an organization forwards particularly now in this situation as I said before when we are all being expected to change everything about how we do things because we have to, and we need to think differently about the way that we do things. - Yeah, it's so true. Risk is at the core of what trustees are there to do to think about. It really is topical given COVID-19 particularly, but also Black Lives Matter. And also we show up in movements and all of these, really important social issues. We had a keynote from Nina Simon who is a museums sector leader in America from last week. And she talked, I thought really cogently and intelligently about board members being space makers, but rather than just thinking of themselves as people who decide on risk, it's actually the board seeing themselves as a bit able to create the environments in which the executive can take risks and knowingly so, and there's a lot to sort of explore with that. But I think fundamentally what it means is means of having a full appreciation and understanding of what risk means and that word in some ways it's really unhelpful because most people think of the word risk and think of it negatively. Of course, actually it can be a positive thing. And we all experienced this that if a toddler doesn't take risks and trying to walk, they never walk, we all do it. And nobody would suggest that it's the wrong risk to take to put that foot forward and maybe fall. And it seems a silly analogy but actually, maybe it's exactly the right one organizations need to have that same understanding and appreciation for what risk really means. It's gonna sound really dull and mechanical. But I think risk registers should be documents that actually are quite vibrant. Most people see a risk register and think, Oh, bloody hell. It's just boring and it's just there for the sake of being there. In actual fact, it's a map, it's a map that says here's the consoles of the land. Here's... you've got a destination you want to get to. Well, here are all the Hills and valleys that you have to go over in order to get there. If you have a really properly thought through well thought through considered risk register as trustees, you can understand what that journey looks like. You understand how to get to that destination and what pitfalls lie on the way, what bog you have to cross. And I think doing that means that as trustees, you can take an objective viewpoint of something that sometimes in meetings can become quite subjective. I think that's the key thing for me here. I said dispassionate earlier, but maybe I really what I meant was objectivity versus subjectivity. - Yeah. because if you take on board, what risk is, actually you can realize that most of your decision-making is done in an objective sense and you are simply saying okay, I understand that if we take on that bit of programming, we change our programming in that way. We may not be able to meet that from those requirements. But I understand that the risk is proportional to the fact that in fact that programming is needed because the world has changed to make it topical to COVID-19 and that actually our community needs it. And I think that for me is, is actually the really fun oddly bit the fun bit of where risk is, it's a bit, a bit like map reading. - Yeah I mean, I do actually wonder how many boards well, obviously we're in Lancashire so how many boards Lancashire have a risk register for connected to that strategy? I really, that's not something I've really come across but there could be boards out there that do have that. - I mean there's lots of guidance out there on risk registers and risk approaches as well. It's in a way it's complicated, but it's not hard. - Hmm - Anyway. - I mean, that's definitely something, I personally would like to explore that a bit more so well, I guess as part of that, as part of that conversation we know that boards have to expand the diversity of their makeup of their trustees and to be more representative of their community and the groups that they serve. And I guess this ties into that attitude to risk, but there are so many boards out there though recruiting from the same pool of trustees all the time or the same location. So you've got quite often, you've got people who are more than one board in the same place within the same sector. And it's just, it's the same experience-based that a number of organizations are drawing from, and that's a problem. And, but it does affect people's attitudes to risk or an organization's attitude to risk. So how would you say that both widen and deepen that pool of trustees, not just in terms of young people but in terms of people who are disabled, for example people who can't afford to not be there if they were paid, but also in terms of recruiting a board with the really, really relevant skills and experience needed to help that organization before. 'Cause that's another, that's another issue in boards that aren't actually really contributing. - We could fill an entire hour and a half protocols by itself to answer this question in a way, I'd turn the question around because a lot of organizations probably have tried to do this and found it difficult. And I think one of the things we've been exploring recently at Clore Leadership, partly 'cause of some of the people we're working with, some of the organizations is around how actually you need to change the culture of the board itself before it's ready to have the diverse representation that it needs. And that's both about the people but actually it's also about the way it works. I was at the arts council for a while. So I sort of sat and observed quite a lot of boards. And I quite often saw the board make what might be considered a bit tokenistic appointment particularly around and people from ethnic minorities. Lots of particularly the music sector, I think it's true elsewhere as well. Lots of boards with quite white trustees predominantly and recognizing that's not appropriate and great they've recognized the problem but then not necessarily thought too hard about how the solution works. And so you end up with potentially people arriving in good faith into a governance environment on so board and feeling isolated very quickly and feeling not necessarily able. Feeling like frankly, the person that's been brought in to be a little bit prickly and annoying rather than a proper, fully embodied member of that group. So I think there's an awful lot of work for organizations to do, to think about how the culture of that board works in the first instance. It's not good enough just to say, we want these types of people 'cause actually you have to turn around and say, how are we going to make it that these types of people, when they're part of our board have a full voice around this table. Some of that is about changing some of the frankly, if you've got a board of 10 people and they're all the same as you were describing Alex. Clearly in bringing in perhaps two or three new people well, and then some of that change is happening but there's a key difference there, quality difference between one person who may feel a bit tokenistic and say two or three people who might themselves change the ethos and have more confidence to do so because they're doing it as part of a cohort and actually talk about this as well 'cause he's done it, you've lived and breathed it. But I think one of the other things is thinking about really carefully, how you're asking. And he said earlier, they mapped out really clearly what the responsibilities of trustees are when they're recruiting for Blaze. And there are lots of really bad adverts out there for trustees that don't really say anything at all. What is it you're asking of trustees? How many meetings are there? What's your ethos as an organization? What do you expect of trustees across a three year term? What input are they going to be asked to give? How are you going to be open to that input? And all of those questions that need to be full frontal when you go out there publicly and say, we're looking for new people. - Do you want to chip into that market at all? - Yeah, this is a topic of conversation that I've been involved in, even before the discussion around boards, Blaze does this and has done this intrinsically in our work, through participation as well. And I think similar principles I think around ensuring participation, our programs and projects reach those who are ethnically diverse or have other protected characteristics, things from the same principles for that also translate to boards. So just a couple of points. So I think the first thing when people ask me, how do you do that at Blaze? I think it's, it has to be a real commitment from people. So it sounds really simple but I've seen people's commitment on this topic, be very different. And I think firstly we need to be cognizant of like our unconscious biases. So firstly, I think that we all have unconscious bias and no matter who we are we hold unconscious bias within ourselves. I think those who are most committed sometimes can recognize and maybe even articulate where and their own unconscious bias is. Don't use it as a disclaimer to like absolve people of their responsibility. I see that happen a lot and observed that. So it sounds really simple but commitment. So in order to be authentically inclusive I think real time and energy is needed and should be set. Like I was talking about those one-to-one conversations. That's just something that I set. And that's like when you put a build space in your diaries for those moments, I think that that really begins to show and demonstrate commitment at least to ourselves. So I think that sounds really simple, but like, to be really committed to be conscious of our biases because we all have them. So what are yours, do you use those biases as a disclaimer to absolve you of your responsibility? I know when I was younger I definitely might have done that. And it's only through conversations with other people that I've become I guess, more culturally intelligent. So I think another part is on a board, particularly we need to get curious about our cultural differences. So what societal frameworks exist worldwide that stop people from stepping into these roles even clicking on a advert that invites expressions of interest to become a trustee. What stops people, what frameworks or societal obstacles exist, stop people doing that. - Where is the advert right? Where are you actually putting the advert? - Where such a basic thing, isn't it, but really important. - Just bigger than what Matt says cause it's entirely right. And if you get that right at board level then you will get it right to the organization level. You cannot but get it right, level of organizational level. So if you, it's the beginning of everything in terms of the organization's ability to really truly become part of their community to represent, to embody what they want to deliver. - Yeah exactly, and it's not about creating an echo chamber. It's about creating a space for this debate. And as you said, becoming a space maker on the sort of flip side of all of that, we need this injection a diverse board for all of our cultural innovations. But equally we also need some stability and there's often quite a lot of movement in boards or on boards. Someone will come in for 12 months, even sometimes even shorter because they're serving a bit of time on a board. They can put it on their CV, great but that is quite disruptive as well. So what if the optimum amount of time and how do you minimize negative chat and let's call it on boards but make sure it doesn't become stale at the same time. - Yeah, Look, I would question any scenario in which a fully fledged board member is only joining for 12 months. I don't think that's helpful to anybody, either the trustee or to the board. I think there are cases where you might create a subcommittee where you bring co-op somebody in that kind of environment, particularly on fundraising and others. And I think if you go back to your memorandum and articles as an organization anybody listening to this podcast, I would ask you to go and check what you're mem and arts say, most will say somewhere around three years, possibly four, probably for two times. And that's a tried and tested. And I think for good reason, I think that sort of length of time, if people think about joining a board a bit akin to how they take on a new job. Most people going into a new job, will consider that first six to 12 months as learning. You're going in and you're learning the space. So the idea that you can do something for 12 months on a board and be any sort of useful contribution, I think is foolish because you need to spend that time getting used to the culture, influencing the culture as well, but learning. And then you perhaps got a year or two in that first term if it's three years, it's a really make an impact. So ask yourself the question what am I doing here as a board member? How am I supporting this organization, helping it change helping it grow, helping it survive in the current context. So I think there's a lot to be said for that sort of timeline that around three years. It's not set in stone and it shouldn't be. It may be, I mean, Matt, I think it's quite interesting in your context of, when you and I talked last, we talked about the idea that if you've got a 51% minimum of your board being under 30, the implication of turnover and churn there if, if you're recruiting people who are relatively close to that cut-off and how you think about succession planning there, it's tricky. And we talked, I think, correct me if I'm paraphrasing wrongly, but we effectively talked about you bring in people when they're relatively young still I'm doing a stint with you probably going off somewhere else when they get to 30 and going 10, 20 years, somewhere else developing, doing their own career being on trustees elsewhere and then maybe coming back. - Yeah, that's really interesting. I mean, Matt and I have also had a conversation like what is the cycle? What is the optimum cycle for board members? Is three years enough, should it be more like five and or is it like an arc of influence I guess and responsibility on that board that as you develop your understanding over the first couple of years and then year three you really helping properly drive that organization. And then you sort of handing over and succession planning, as you're saying - Message that I forgot to say in all of this actually. And that's about induction and how you when you have a new board member actually what it is you're doing to help them join that board. And that's critical. - Yeah, Onboarding. - Yeah onboarding. - That's a whole other topic and I mean, this is so huge, this topic you could be here for hours, but I've only got a little bit of time left. So one question and one concern that I get all the time from people is, how do I get more people on my board to take responsibility for stuff it's all with the same couple of people doing it. And the rest are just there to say yes or no. How do you instill a more balanced collective responsibility for the work of the board? And, do you have any sort of tips, advice or examples of how this can be done more effectively? Because honestly, that is the biggest thing that I hear from colleague. - It's those one to one conversations particularly from the chair, I would say I think a chair's job is not just to sit there in a meeting and direct the conversation. It's actually to ensure that you're getting that participation and a chair can and should make those individual contacts and ask openly what is motivating that trustee to be there? Why are they on that board? And as soon as the chair understands that motivation, they'll either be able to say, okay, can we direct it somewhere so that you can see your motivation playing itself out as action. And therefore, we're all human and therefore we all need those motivations and drivers to enact work, alright? Or, if the chair has those conversations and frankly the person has no right being there, to be honest with you having the difficult conversations, okay. Maybe this isn't the right thing for you because if you've got deadwood on boards most wood isn't dead. Most wood is just dormant. But if you do want to have honesty that would what are you thinking? And I know it's historically been a case that often has been to do with money to do with how finances work. But you know, we're in 2020 we're a long way beyond those worlds. So I think a lot of it boils down to the chapter. Matt will have done this a lot with chief executive as well. - Yeah, I would say exactly that. I think some of the things that we've already discussed around commitment, we talked about commitment in the context of diversity and inclusion, but the same applies here. I would say setting and being conscious about setting time to meet with ultra cities, I think is a really powerful and for me, even very inspirational time yeah. Having the courage to oppose like dominant culture. So I think that for me, at least that's a really exciting part of being a trustee is having conversations that do oppose what this current dominant culture is whether that's internally within our organizations or externally in society and what role we can play. And finally, just also having the courage to get it wrong reflect, hold space, to continue conversations but then bounce back with new learning and potentially grow as well, so, - Well, that leads really nicely into, so my last question which is, given everything we've talked about and all these additional challenges that boards are having to face at the moment in particular would you say that that was one of the biggest incentives for somebody to sit on a board of a cultural organization? - I'm not sure whether I can answer that for everybody back. And so from my experience. I mean, I'm a trustee at two organizations and my incentives for both of those trustee positions were very different. It might have been compounded by the same things, but I think they were very different. One was a deep affinity to the organization's mission. Haven't been involved in it as a child, and having had so much learning experiential learning as a participant and then becoming a trustee. I think that's an organization that I jumped on the possibility of becoming a trustee of because of kind of deep, personal reasons associated with the mission of the organization, ultimately and then another one was definitely around opposing dominant culture that different organizations of different size one has a venue, one doesn't. And I think the other organization I was definitely motivated by the opportunity to oppose dominant culture and also experience new things. So experience, big legal contracts that are buying a binding for like up to 20 years huge contracts and commissions and venue management. And that's just a world that I had never explored. And I was very excited to be involved in helping, helping even in a small way to shake that up. So they were, they were my motives but very different reasons. One's definitely has an affinity to the mission and the vision of the organization because of personal reasons but and then another is yeah. Experiencing new things, but also shift in the dominant culture. - Yes but both are making an impact though, a positive impact. - Mmh, is that well reflected.. - Yeah I totally agree with Matt on this. I think before anything else, there's this sense of, am I driven by what the organization wants to do? And if you're not, there's no, don't go near it. You have to have that drive. I think then other than what might have already said there's something about giving. And I think there's something about the human human need to give that can be reflected really interestingly through becoming a trustee. Most of what we do in professionals is working on other motivated about where we want to go focused on yourself, your career, your... Sort of how you want to develop it in art forms and so on. And actually there's something exceptionally rewarding about that giving elements of being a trustee. And it should, I don't think we should downplay it. And it, of course it sort of ties into that conversation. We had earlier about remuneration as well. And I'm not saying that giving is necessarily free giving but certainly one in which in which you're taking me the active choice to step outside of your own personal needs and to give in a different context. And I think that is like I say, very, very rewarding. - Yeah, so just to give, because you can-- - And look, it's never been more important for organizations to have great trustees to have good governance. Never more important. It's critical right now. - Well, thank you so much. It's such an interesting topic and I'm so glad that we've had this opportunity to maybe just explore that a little bit. I just feel like there's so many more conversations we could have we need to have. And I know that there are people out there that will be really thankful for some of the conversations that we've had today that might help them with the situation that they're dealing with, or just shift their thinking a little bit around some of the issues that they've got. - Thank you so much honestly, for bringing us together and, yeah and Jonathan, as well, to be able to share this space with the two of us, has been really, yeah really insightful. I always leave conversations like this with some really good notes and, sort of bits of thinking. Yeah, I really appreciate it. - Thanks for listening to the Gathering. If you liked this episode, let us know in the reviews and don't forget to share it with your friends. The show notes links to all the organizations and initiatives mentioned in this episode and much more head over to www.artslancashire.org.uk/thegathering. - You can also follow us Lancashire on Twitter @ArtsLancashire to hear when each new episode goes live.