CHAPTER 10

Strategic Thinking in Arts Entrepreneurship

Todd A. Stuart

Sometimes, one is not sure which way to go; they go for the experience. The journey is a divergent creative exploration. Then sometimes, the journey requires an understanding of where they are, where they are going, and the best way to get there. They need to understand the context and then converge on a course of action. Strategic thinking can bridge divergent and convergent journeys and for the arts entrepreneur these thinking skills are identified as both “essential” (Pollard and Wilson 2013, p. 3) and “crucial” (Thom 2016, p. 3). Strategic thinking can be utilized at the intersection of art and entrepreneurship to explore strategies for how the arts can solve both well-defined technical challenges and more importantly messy, adaptive challenges (Ertel and Soloman 2014). In order to apply strategic thinking to the arts entrepreneur’s practice, it is important to understand what arts entrepreneurship is, the context in which arts entrepreneurs operate, and the differences between strategy, strategic planning and strategic thinking. Then, the journey can begin.

Arts Entrepreneurship?

The field of arts entrepreneurship is still developing as an area of academic study and as an arts practice. Questions about the field are discussed and debated. The definition of what exactly arts entrepreneurship is has not yet been settled and their role in society is not agreed upon. Gary D. Beckman (Beckman, 2014, p. 10) states that “If there were ever two words brought together to form an emerging academic field wrought with little to no consensus on what each word means, ART + ENTREPRENEURSHIP would be a strong candidate.” So, while ten people might have ten different interpretations, a starting point is important in order to discuss how other concepts connect to arts entrepreneurship. Beckman goes on to offer a starting point for this initial interpretation, “while we can define ‘Arts Entrepreneurship’ using extant definitions, we must ask whether or not a precise definition is even possible in the future...” (Beckman 2014, p. 10). Maybe, a “precise definition” is not needed at this point. Thinking how a sculptor might approach a block of marble, first roughing out a figure and then later honing the work to give it more definition and detail. Other “wrought” fields have the same challenge, in the field of strategy Henry Mintzberg points out “explicit recognition of multiple definitions can help practitioners and researchers alike to maneuver through this difficult field.” So for now at least, a Design Thinking prototype made from “extant” definitions is a start. Table 10.1 lists these definitions to use for this prototype.

A synthesis of these three definitions yields the following:

“Using creativity and imagination, the Arts Entrepreneur creates works of beauty and emotional power that are about fostering an ingenious human spirit to improve humankind and change the world” (Oxford Dictionary Online; Timmons; Neck 2014).

This prototype provides a starting point to discuss how strategic thinking can be utilized in arts entrepreneurship.

Table 10.1 Extant definitions of Art and Entrepreneurship

Definition	Source
Art is “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”	Oxford Dictionary Online
“Entrepreneurship will create a better world. It’s not just about new company, capital and job formation, nor innovation, nor creativity, nor breakthroughs. It is also about fostering an ingenious human spirit and improving humankind.”	Jeffry A. Timmons
Entrepreneurship is “A way of thinking and acting that can change the world”	Heidi Neck

(Oxford Dictionary Online; Timmons; Neck 2014)

Context of the Arts Entrepreneur?

Arts entrepreneurs are creating works in an increasingly challenging world. The world today has been described as a “VUCA world” characterized as a world of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity,” (Bennett and Lemoine 2014, p. 311). A “VUCA world” is not necessarily new for artists. From the earliest cave painters to street artists today the world was and is volatile, uncertain, ambiguous and complex though growing more complex with many new challenges. Technology has democratized artistic production and the audiences are moving from passive consumption to active participation changing the artist/audience dynamic (Cameron 2010). Artist and arts organizations are working to become re-engaged with their communities. Communities where demographics are changing, funding models are evolving and people are questioning the values of the arts. In a world where the only constant is change, having a strategic position is critical yet some have questioned the validity of strategy. Kevin Roberts, the former CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi, said—“I am sick of strategy.” He also reportedly claimed that strategy is dead; a quick Google search will show that many others have made the same claim. Strategic plans, required by some grantors in the arts, are seen as antithetical to the field, and some arts professionals argue that corporate strategic planning focused on profits while their job was to focus on the art and not the profit (Kaiser, Engler, and Lucey 1995). To complicate the situation even further, strategy, strategic planning, and strategic thinking are sometimes used interchangeably even though they are different concepts. Understanding the differences between the concepts will help the arts entrepreneurs to best utilize strategic thinking in their practice.

Strategy, Strategic Planning and Strategic Thinking

The concept of strategy has roots in military usage in both Eastern and Western Cultures. In the East, military strategies were detailed in The Art of War by Sun Tzu “the most complete and reputable book on military strategy that has survived to date,” (Chen 1994, p. 42). In the West, Bracker (1980) pointed out that strategy was derived from the Greek word strategos which means “a general” and that strategy was not limited to the military; it was also discussed by artists of the time such as Homer and Euripides. In the 20th century, influential business thinkers like Peter Drucker and Michael Porter championed strategy and strategic planning. In How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy, Michael Porter supports an analytical approach to creating strategies and argued, “The essence of strategy formulation is coping with competition,” (Porter 1979, p. 102). Strategic planning was the analytical planning process used to develop strategies. Strategies were then broken into tactics that managers implemented with the purpose of gaining market share and beating the competition. Figure 10.1 illustrates the traditional Strategic Planning process.

Figure 10.1 Traditional strategic planning process

The problem with traditional strategic planning as Henry Mintzberg points out is that “the world is supposed to hold still while a plan is being developed and then stay on the predicted course while that plan is being implemented” (Mintzberg 1994, p. 112).

Accepting this line of thought creates a tension between the unpredictability of the future and the need for strategies. Breaking the traditional planning process into the components of developing strategies and implementing strategies allows for the thinking and the doing to be separated. This is illustrated in Figure 10.2.

Figure 10.2 Strategic thinking process

In this model the purpose of the planning is to put the strategies developed during the strategic thinking process into action (Heracleous 1998). Strategic thinking is then the creative process utilized in developing actionable strategies.

There are many perspectives to consider in understanding strategic thinking. Henry Mintzberg (1994) describes strategic thinking as a synthesis of intuition and creativity leading to a vision of the future though the vision is not fully formed. Zahra and Nambisan (2012, p. 220) points out “strategic thinking focuses on visualizing the future before it happens a process that entails building and considering different scenarios.” Table 10.2 illustrated these and other perspectives on strategic thinking.

This common thread of vision and creativity in the prototype of arts entrepreneurship discussed earlier in the chapter and is central to all the perspectives on strategic thinking.

Table 10.2 Perspectives on strategic thinking

Mintzberg	Zahra and Nambisan	Bonn	Leidtka	Abraham
Synthesis	Requirements	Elements	Attributes	Approaches
Imagination	Creativity	Creativity	Intelligently opportunistic	Finding new opportunities
Creativity	Foresight	Vision	Thinking in time	Being future-oriented
Vision	Insight	Systems thinking	A systems or holistic view	Being collaborative
			A focus on intent	Being successfully different
			Hypothesis-driven	Emulating entrepreneurs

(Mintzberg 1994; Bonn 2005; Zahra and Nambisan 2012; Leidtka 1998; Abraham 2005)

Strategic Thinking and the Arts Entrepreneur

Questions are important in art and arts entrepreneurship. The ability to ask good questions can be more important than the answers (Brown 2016). Questions start the creative process of discovery, discovery of good problems to solve. Not existing problems, but problems that have not before been poised (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi 1966). For the arts entrepreneur, these problems can be addressed through the entrepreneurial-strategic-managerial thinking process.

In What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial? Professor Saras D. Sarasvathy (2001) describes different modes of thinking and reasoning that differentiates the approach that managers take from the approach that entrepreneurs take. In managerial thinking, there is a goal that is pre-determined, and the job is to take existing resources, or “means,” and find the most efficient way to achieve the goal. In entrepreneurial thinking, the entrepreneur takes the same “means” but is not limited to the pre-determined goal. The entrepreneur takes the “means” and imagines new goals or “imagine ends” that do not currently exist. The entrepreneurial thinker diverges on the given set of means while the managerial thinker uses the means to converge on a pre-determined goal. The entrepreneur finds new problems to solve with existing “means.” Both methods of thinking are important for the entrepreneur as Sarasvathy (2001, p. 2) points out “the best entrepreneurs are capable of both and do use both modes very well.” Sarasvathy differentiates strategic thinkers as creators of new ways to get to the same predetermined goals that the managerial thinker is seeking (Sarasvathy 2001). This viewpoint illustrates the inherent creativity of the strategic thinking but does not link it to the entrepreneurial thinking process. By making this link, strategic thinking can serve as an integrated bridge between entrepreneurial and managerial thinking. A model of strategic thinking as a bridge is illustrated in Figure 10.3.

Figure 10.3 Strategic thinking bridge

In this model, strategic thinking is both a divergent and convergent activity. The strategic thinker uses ideas developed in the entrepreneurial thinking process and converts them into actionable strategies that can be operationalized in the managerial thinking process.

When developing strategies in this iterative process, arts entrepreneurs can utilize design, systems and integrative thinking to fully explore ideas developed in the entrepreneurial process. Design thinking can be thought of as a system of innovation with overlapping spaces of inspiration, ideation and implementation (Brown 2009). Strategic thinkers explore insights developed in this user-centered method to prototype and test strategies. During this process they need to adopt the “Art” of integrative thinking and “embrace complexity, tolerate uncertainty, and manage tension in searching for creative solutions to problems,” (Martin and Austen 1999, p. 2). Also, these problems need to be put in the broader systems thinking context to understand how the parts influence and connect to the whole (Ackoff, Ackoff and Emery 2005). These modes of thinking are utilized in the strategic thinking process and guided by the vision or the purpose of the arts entrepreneur’s exploration. Figure 10.4 demonstrates this relationship.

Figure 10.4 Strategic thinking bridge with modes of thinking

Ideas are the inputs to strategic thinking and strategies are the outputs. Another way to think about this is that strategic thinking is the intersection of the explorative nature of entrepreneurial thinking and the exploitive nature of managerial thinking. March (1991, p. 7) gives insight to these concepts: “Exploration includes things captured by terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation. Exploitation includes such things as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution.” With this model in mind, the following fictitious example illustrates how the arts entrepreneur can utilize strategic thinking. Mary is an arts entrepreneur in a medium sized city. She is already an entrepreneurial thinker who knows her means: who she is, what she knows, and who she knows. She also knows who she might be able to enlist in her journey and what resources she is willing to risk—her affordable loss (Sarasvathy 2001). Mary has a background in studio art and has a vision of making artist’s lives better by creating market opportunities (income) for them. In her community, she has noticed the prevalence of unknown artists that do not have an outlet to display and sell their work in the formal gallery environment. She also has noticed that most of her peers, just starting their careers, do not own much art. She wonders if there is an opportunity for connecting these two groups. Utilizing her design thinking skills, she starts to interview both the artists and her peers who she thinks might be interested in the artist’s work. She is looking for an insight that will help connect the artists and potential buyers. She also is using a systems thinking perspective to understand how art is currently acquired and sold in her city and how creating this connection might benefit the community as a whole. She has spoken with city officials about using an old, underutilized gym that the city owns as a possible community gallery. As an artist, Mary has dealt with ambiguity in her own work and career. It is difficult in today’s business driven culture to be an artist and there is a lot of uncertainly in her life. While she is not aware of it she has become very good, like many artists, at integrative thinking.

Mary knows that the best way to test her theory of a mutually beneficial community art gallery is to prototype it. On a Saturday in June, she sets up a tent in front of the old gym, and for three hours the ten artists that she recruited show their work. Through her marketing efforts, forty people show up and three small pieces of art are sold. She interviews the artists and community members about the current art system and the potential for a community gallery. Mary thinks the test was successful and she finds an interesting and surprising insight. Many of the community members are renters and expect to move within the next couple of years. They are apprehensive of buying some of the larger works of art due to the challenge of moving art and the possibility that the art will not fit in their next residence.

With this new knowledge, she develops a business model where community members rent the works with an option to buy. The artists will have some monthly income and the community members have the ability to either return the art or trade it for another work of art when they relocate. Mary also realizes the need for an art packing and delivery service and includes that in her model. Mary continues to iterate through the different modes of thinking as she synthesizes her strategies to make the community gallery a reality.

Through this strategic thinking process Mary has developed the following strategies for her arts entrepreneurial venture that she believe will help her achieve her vision:

Mary now can take the next step and operationalize her strategies. She has successfully demonstrated her ability to be a strategic thinker.

Moving Forward with Strategic Thinking

At the intersection of art and entrepreneurship, arts entrepreneurs envision a future that benefits humankind by creating innovative strategies to deploy art in the world to solve problems. The arts entrepreneur utilizes all modes of thinking discussed here in their practice and use strategic thinking specifically to bridge entrepreneurial and managerial thinking and to “... resolve ambiguity and make sense of a complex world,” (Bonn 2005, p. 338). This relatively new field of study and practice is still developing into a discipline. Maybe, the next step is to develop a method for arts entrepreneurship to explore. A method infused with both art and entrepreneurship.

As arts entrepreneurs develop a method to their practice, they will continue to ask many strategic questions. What is synthesis of art and entrepreneurship? What does it mean to be an arts entrepreneur? What are the next steps and how will we get there? Questions answered by exploring the experience as they make the journey. So, let the journey begin.

References

Abraham, S. 2005. “Stretching Strategic Thinking.” Strategy & Leadership 33, no. 5, pp. 5–12.

Ackoff, R.L., R.L. Ackoff, and F.E. Emery. 2005. On Purposeful Systems: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events. AldineTransaction.

Beckman, G.D. 2014. “What Arts Entrepreneurship Isn’t.” Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Research 1, no. 1, pp. 3–17.

Bennett, N., and J. Lemoine. 2014. “What VUCA Really Means for You.” Harvard Business Review, January-February 27.

Bonn, I. 2001. “Developing Strategic Thinking as a Core Competency.” Management Decision 39, no. 1, pp. 63–71.

Bonn, I. 2005. “Improving Strategic Thinking: A Multilevel Approach.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26, no. 5, pp. 336–54. Brown, T. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins.

Brown, T. 2016. “Leaders Can Turn Creativity into a Competitive Advantage” HBR.org, November 2, 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/11/leaders-can-turncreativity-into-a-competitive-advantage

Cameron, B. 2010. “Why the Live Arts Matter.” TedTalk video, 12:37. Posted September 2010. https://ted.com/talks/ben_cameron_tedxyyc

Carroll, L. 1917. Through the Looking Glass: And What Alice Found There. Rand, McNally.

Chen, M. 1994. “Sun Tzu’s Strategic Thinking and Contemporary Business.” Business Horizons 37, no. 2, pp. 42–48.

Ertel, C., and L.K. Solomon. 2014. Moments of Impact: How to Design Strategic Conversations that Accelerate Change. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Getzels, J.W., and M. Csikszentmihalyi. 1966. “Portrait of the Artist as an Explorer.” Transaction 3, no. 6, pp. 31–34.

Henderson, B.D. 1989. “The Origin of Strategy.” Harvard Business Review 67, no. 6, pp. 139–43.

Heracleous, L. 1998: “Strategic Thinking or Strategic Planning?” Long Range Planning 31, no. 3, pp. 481–87.

Kaiser, M.M., P.S. Engler, and P. Lucey. 1995. Strategic Planning in the Arts: A Practical Guide. Kaiser/Engler Group.

La Piana, D. 2008. The Nonprofit Strategy Revolution: Real-Time Strategic Planning in a Rapid-Response World. Fieldstone Alliance.

Liedtka, J.M. 1998. “Strategic Thinking: Can it be Taught?.” Long Range Planning 31, no. 1, pp. 120–29.

March, J.G. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2, no. 1, pp. 71–87.

Martin, R., and H. Austen. 1999. “The Art of Integrative Thinking.” Rotman Management, pp. 2–5.

Mintzberg, H. 1994. “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning.” Harvard Business Review 72, no. 1, pp. 107–14.

Mintzberg, H. 1997. “The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps for Strategy.” California Management Review 30, no. 1, pp. 11–24.

Nasi, J (Ed.). 1991. Arenas of Strategic Thinking, 29. Foundation for Economic Education, Helsinki, Finland.

Neck, H. 2014. “Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-Based Approach—Interview with Co-author.” YouTube video, 2:00. Posted December 12, 2014. https://youtube.com/watch?v=PpZKT8crLK0&t=6s

Neck, H., and P. Greene. 2011. “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers.” Journal of Small Business Management 49, no. 1, pp. 55–70.

Oxford Dictionary Online. 2014. “art,” accessed June 5, 2017. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art

Pollard, V., and E. Wilson. 2013. “The ‘Entrepreneurial Mindset’ in Creative and Performing Arts Higher Education in Australia.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 3, no. 1, pp. 3–22.

Porter, M.E. 1979. “Competitive Forces Shape Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, pp. 137–45.

Roberts, K. 2015. “DMA Keynote Kevin Roberts” YouTube video, 48.58:25. Posted October 23, 2015. https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZTYisjudhk

Sarasvathy, S.D. 2001. “What Makes Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial?” submitted to Harvard Business Review.

Thom, M. 2016. “Crucial Skills for the Entrepreneurial Success of Fine Artists.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 5, no. 1, pp. 3–24.

Timmons, J.A. July 2014. quoted in Price-Babson SEE Brochure. Babson College.

Zahra, S.A., and S. Nambisan. 2012. “Entrepreneurship and Strategic Thinking in Business Ecosystems.” Business Horizons 55, no. 3, pp. 219–29.