Leadership and theatre

In institutional theatres there are several kinds of leadership structures simultaneously present. Technical authority is in the possession of tech-nical managers. Artistic manager of the theatre, as a CEO, is in charge of the whole theatre organization, and thus, can have an indirect influence on the process. Labor unions are quite influential inside theatres. Also the informal hierarchies like professional superiority and artistic rank-ings, as well as the system of personal favoritism can have an influence on the leadership dynamics. The division between free-lancers and actors who are permanently hired by the theatre can also cause power struggles, not to mention the gender issues or celebrity actors, whose presence and power in the process can be questioned by others.

Artists are often portrayed as very charismatic personalities. It is a construction through which actors and some directors, in theatre and especially in film, are presented. Typing together the words ‘cult’ and

‘di-rector’ gets 2 800 000 hits on Google. Through this ‘diva-cult-star’ – rhet-oric, hierarchies are being built. Sometimes these constructions make their way also into the rehearsal situations. A well-known actor may be hired for a play to pull in the crowds. Just like inside other expert profes-sions or art forms there are different schools and groups within theatre professionals. They are united through the method of work, world view or age, creating still another power structure.

The leadership in a rehearsal process is formed and developed when the work group, including performers, director, technicians and design-ers, is in action. Theatres create self-organizing teams (see Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995) that include directors, actors, designers and production staff. These short-term production teams have been called ‘temporary systems’ (Goodman & Goodman 1976). The teams and the small groups are focused on creating effective organizing forms. They have the ad-vantages of mobility, flexibility and independence (Long, 1999a). The re-sponsibility for an ensemble is given to the director. She or he has the full artistic freedom, as well as the responsibility for the ensemble (Weston 1996, Korhonen, 1993, 1998). The director has multiple roles in her or his work. She or he has a text that is about to be performed on the stage.

The director determines the work method. She of he creates and controls the timetables, sometimes also the finances. Extreme sensuous skills are needed to create the collective atmosphere and to approach individual actors or specific situations. Communication skills are needed to convey, to interpret and to make the meanings collective. Sometimes the role of a director is questioned: if they perceive the director having been mentally or physically absent, the actors say they have prepared the play without him or her (Tola, 1995).

Leadership in artistic work may be considered a paradox in itself. The myth of art being independent, free of structures and conventions, is widely spread. Considered from this perspective, the intrinsic and indi-vidual need of an artist to make art and the task of the leader to organize seem to clash. In the case of a director and an actor or a group of actors the case is even more complex. Even though on the organizational level

profit pressures are not present, the individual ways to think about art and to make art can be very different, especially, as by convention, the di-rector comes from outside the organization to direct one play and moves on after opening night to another theatre to direct another play.

As a story telling organization a theatre has an innate natural ten-dency towards feelings and emotions, as opposed to bureaucratic ideal, where the privileging of reason and mandate of emotional control are built in (Meyerson, 2000). The stories need to be emotionally appealing and interesting in order to turn into a satisfying experience for the audi-ence. Actors need to be able to display emotions on the stage. With the director, they search for and analyze the emotional content and the mes-sage. Emotions are present in relations between people, both as tools and as an outspoken source of inspiration, not just as internal, individual and mute phenomena as Gyllenpalm (1995) has noticed. According to him theatre work requires emotional display and engagement.

Sandelands and Boudens (2000) state that feeling is a dominant ele-ment in the life of a group.

“…when people talk about work, they talk primarily about other peo-ple. They talk about relationships, about the intrigues, conflicts, gos-sips and innuendoes of group life…A great deal of feeling goes into the relationship between workers and management, a relationship often passionately antagonistic and full of intrigue.” (Sandelands &

Boudens, 2000, 50)

I am interested in the core of theatre: the group of actors and a director preparing a play. This constitutes a fundamental interdependence of ac-tors and the director in theatre work. Sometimes, however, astonishingly seldom, actors prepare plays, mostly monologues or small scale plays, without a director. The regular procedure includes the presence of a di-rector.

Ensemble is understood to be an ideal form of making theatre.

“…Only closeness makes you sure that also the others are mentally present. The ensemble was to be so small that you could sense the feelings and moods of the colleagues every day.” (Korhonen, 1993, 350)

The word ‘ensemble’ has the idealistic sound of a tight cohesive and crea-tive group, welded together. The word leads us to the French language where ‘ensemble’ means ‘together’. In Finnish the word has connotations with a voluntary group where people are committed to work with each other. Houni (2000) writes about the ensemble as a reference group for the individual performance: there is a sense of community that allows a creative context for creative activity to be born.

In institutional theatres today, ensembles are not stable. Actors belong to several work groups simultaneously. The bond in a group, or in an en-semble, is interaction (Houni, 2000). Interaction is born from closeness.

Closeness imbues relationships (Eskola, 1990). In close relationships sim-ilarities, especially similar and analogous interests create a sense of posi-tive community (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1997). Empathy and solidarity are attributes attached to an emotionally fulfilling ensemble.

“Some people are nice to play with, because our sense of humor is similar…we have a common mission, we are saving the work we all are part of.” (Klemola in Ojala (ed.), 1995, 212)

“…An actor may think it is easier to work without opening up to others, but it is a lot easier to work in a giving way…this applies to my relationship to a group. I attach to it and I want to be accepted, unconditionally: how the others see me: do I belong to them even if I would do something wrong. It is important.” (Vuolle in Ojala (ed.), 1995, 188)

The actors see the group as a great chance of sharing the experiences, but simultaneously the group is a threat. It seems that an ensemble is a dynamic process rather than a stable state.