Turnaround and Transformation-Leadership and Risk at Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art

Turnaround and Transformation-Leadership and Risk at Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art

The Boston Museum of Modern Art was held in 1936 by a group of Harvard undergraduates who wanted to create a better perception of contemporary art among the people. The museum was later renamed the Boston’s of Contemporary Art. It dominated the art industry in Boston because it was the only place in Boston where contemporary art was exhibited for more than 50 years. In the 1990s, the institute’s performance began declining. By then, it was housed in a converted stable and police station with limited space to showcase various art because most of the space was covered by staircases. However, Medvedow’s leadership improved the institute’s performance by increasing the attendance record from 25,000 to 450,000 people.

Identification, Analysis, and Evaluation of the Main Issues/Problems

One of the main issues at the Institute of Contemporary Art was poor management. The museum was not looking for unique contemporary art that could attract clients, thus limiting the number of attendees visiting the museum. The reduced number of attendees also reduced the museum’s revenues, thus making it hard to manage expenses. Therefore, management moved the museum to a converted stable and police station. The location contributed to the museum’s continued poor performance because there was less space to exhibit different contemporary arts since most of the space was covered by stairs (Reavis, 2010). The management team did not take any measures to improve attendance and introduce new art that could attract attendees until the museum was in distress due to financial constraints. Poor management also made it hard for the museum to convince people to embrace contemporary art due to limited community involvement and creating awareness of the value of modern art. The museum lacked a permanent collection that would have been a vital status symbol in the museum sector. Therefore, creating an identity, attracting repeat customers, and creating a donor base was hard.

The second issue was the lack of funds to make improvements. According to Reavis (2010), the Institute of Contemporary Art did not have money and was not accustomed to raising money, thus making it hard to meet operational costs. Most donations had already been used to fund the museum’s operations when Medvedow took over the leadership role. For instance, $328,000 donated by overseers and trustees had been used to purchase the converted stable and police station on Boylston Street (Reavis, 2010). The institute had to rely on art supporters and donors to raise funds to fund the development project proposed by Medvedow, which included relocating the museum to a more specific location so that it could exhibit more art. By the time the museum broke ground for the Parcel J construction project, half of the $62 million raised for the project had already been committed. The museum also relied on corporate donors and the ICA’s board of trustees to get funds, thus increasing the challenge of sustaining the project.

The third issue was a risky and unconventional strategy. The museum needed to get many approvals to implement the Parcel J project. The approvals would cost a lot of legal fees between when the institute was granted the land and when it would begin operating. Some of the partners who were an asset to the project, such as the Pritzker family, withdrew their support, thus slowing down the company’s progress. Another setback caused by the risky and unconventional strategy was the legal issues faced by one of the leading builders in the project. According to Reavis (2010), five months before the ICA’s new building was scheduled to open, one of the top builders in Boston failed to meet the expected schedule and was facing legal issues due to a recent accident on one of its construction sites that had claimed three lives. Therefore, the ICA had to hire another form to complete the project. The change led to delays in the opening.

Recommendations for Effective Solutions

One of the recommendations I would make to address poor management is setting goals for the museum and timelines within which the goals must be met. According to Mirvis et al. (2010), the leading cause of poor management is a lack of vision. Therefore, setting goals and objectives can help create a vision, thus influencing management’s behavior because they have to work toward realizing it. Poor management can also be addressed through performance evaluations that focus on evaluating the performance of individuals in management positions. The most effective performance evaluation strategies that could work for ICA include management by objective and behaviorally anchored rating scales. Based on the information in the case study, it is evident that poor management arises from the behavior of ICA’s management team. Therefore, it is important to focus on performance evaluation strategies, behavior management, and improvement. According to Konak et al. (2016), behaviorally anchored rating scales compare performance with specific behaviors connected to numerical ratings. For example, the managers’ performance at ICA may be compared with behaviors such as the propensity to look for opportunities to increase the art collection and the engagement with donors to fund operational costs. Management by objectives includes identifying, planning, organizing, and communicating the objectives that define performance expectations. ICA can match the institute’s goals with employee objectives, such as Medvedow’s objective to increase the institute’s attendees and overall performance.

I recommend partnering with artists and art collectors to address the lack of funds. As mentioned in the case study, ICA relies on donations to fund its operations. Therefore, there is a need to create a good relationship with artists and collectors because they understand art and its significance in society and are more willing to support projects that improve how art is perceived and embraced. ICA should focus on increasing engagement with the artists and art collectors to create a good relationship that will yield financial support. One of the things that ICA should do to increase engagement with the partners is to foster consistent communication. According to Meck (2019), communication plays a vital role in developing trust. ICA needs to build confidence to get funding, especially for large projects such as the Parcel J construction project, which requires a lot of money and time. The second thing that ICA should do is get the partner’s buy-in by demonstrating the value of the proposed projects and initiatives. The buy-in will increase their willingness to donate to the project, thus increasing the pool of funds the institute requires to expand and meet operational costs.

Addressing the issue of risky and unconventional strategy requires the collaboration of stakeholders and proper project management. Good project management can address some problems linked to the strategy, such as the withdrawal of partners and uncertainty about the reliability of the leading builders. According to Erne (2022), project management includes applying techniques, tools, skills, and knowledge to achieve specific project objectives. The ICA can engage a project manager in developing a budget for the project, thus ensuring that the right amount of funds are sourced. This could enable the ICA to pay for any approvals needed before initiating the project to avoid delays once the project begins. A project manager could also help ICA assess the reliability of the project team, including the builders, by conducting a background check, thus preventing delays caused by a team member’s unreliability. For example, a background check could have enabled ICA to know that the leading builders had a pending legal issue that could have affected their availability, thus selecting a more reliable builder. A project manager could also help the company maintain a good relationship with the project partners, thus preventing the withdrawal from the project.

Conclusion

The ICA case study indicates the impact of poor leadership on an organization. The ICA’s performance was affected by internal issues arising from the decisions made by the institute’s management team. One of the main issues was poor management, characterized by a lack of commitment to improving the museum’s location. The second issue was the lack of funds due to limited efforts to seek funding from donors and the overreliance on donations rather than focusing on strategies that could increase the institute’s revenue, such as increasing the number of attendees. The third issue was implementing a risky and unconventional approach, which increased the risks in the project, leading to delays. Although Medvedow’s leadership played a vital role in restoring the ICA’s face, some recommendations can effectively resolve the identified issues. The main solutions include hiring a project manager, using performance evaluations to monitor the behavior of managers, and partnering with artists and art collectors.

References

Erne, R. (2022). What is the meaning and use of project management? Lean Project Management – How to Apply Lean Thinking to Project Management, 7–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35572-2_2

Konak, A., Magluilo, S., & Kulturel-Konak, S. (2016). Behaviorally anchored rating scales for Teamwork Peer Assessment. 2016 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC). https://doi.org/10.1109/isecon.2016.7457525

Meck, A.-M. (2019). Communication and Trust: A Linguistic Analysis. Media Trust in a Digital World, 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30774-5_6

Mirvis, P., Googins, B., & Kinnicutt, S. (2010). Vision, mission, values. Organizational Dynamics, 39(4), 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.07.006

Reavis, C. (2010). Turnaround and Transformation: Leadership and Risk at Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art. MIT Sloan Teaching Innovation Resources.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

This week, we will analyze a case study by Cate Reavis titled Turnaround and Transformation: Leadership and Risk at Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art.

Turnaround and Transformation-Leadership and Risk at Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art

SUMMARY
In 1998, Jill Medvedow was hired as the director of Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art. Her mandate was to reinvent a museum with no permanent collection that drew 25,000 visitors a year, had few members, and had almost no money. This case demonstrates how Medvedowre built (literally and figuratively) a powerless organization by being disciplined, getting people to believe in an idea, and taking many risks.

Learning Objective
To demonstrate how an organization, with the right leadership, can effect change with little or no power.

Instructions:
– Follow the guidelines for writing a case study analysis provided in the Course Resource module. These guidelines were adopted from the Ashford University Writing Center
– Case analysis report must be written according to APA standards.