Cultural organisations are expected to change – for example, in terms of digitalisation, accessibility, public value and their internal structures. This reflects societal expectations, political consensus and, all too often, their own aspirations. At the same time, change in the theatre sector often fails not because of a lack of will, but because of structural constraints.
The study “Cultural Organisations in Transition: Study Findings on Current Challenges and Conditions for Success in Transformation Processes” (Prof. Dr Birgit Mandel, Dr Franziska Breuning, Manuela Casagrande; Universities of Basel and Hildesheim, 2025) identifies, amongst other things, a lack of continuity at management level as one of the key challenges for long-term change processes in theatres. When there is a change in artistic director, developments that have already begun either stall or have to start from scratch.
We are taking this partial finding from the study as an opportunity to draw on our consultancy experience to offer further reflections on successful transformation – three possible approaches are presented below.
Point 1: Transformation as a long-term mission for the organisations involved
An artistic director brings an artistic vision to the role. That is their remit and their strength. However, organisational change objectives – which secure the structural conditions for artistic work in the long term – cannot depend solely on this vision. This makes it necessary for the organisation’s governing bodies to formulate the mandate for change clearly and for the long term, and to enshrine it beyond individual terms of office. This mandate is established as a framework for development in collaboration with the institution, and responsibility for it is delegated to an internal member of staff, such as the financial director. Within this framework, the artistic director retains their creative freedom, whilst transformation becomes part of the institution’s self-image and is thus not dependent on the personal agenda of any individual in office.
Consideration 2: A binding partnership for transformation between the sponsor and the organisation
The study shows that only a third of cultural institutions carry out regular evaluations. Transformation processes are rarely systematically monitored, documented or handed over. When responsibility for change rests solely with the manager and few resources are available, discontinuity is structurally inherent.
One possible approach would be to share responsibility for the transformation, placing equal obligations on both the institution and the funding body. This requires a clear division of roles: who is responsible for preserving the institutional memory? Who ensures that change processes continue even when there is a change in leadership? And what active contribution and support does the funding body provide beyond simply setting targets? Commitment arises, on the one hand, through jointly agreed evaluation and monitoring mechanisms that make progress measurable and, on the other hand, through the allocation of resources required for the transformation. Taking this a step further, this division of responsibility could also be enshrined in funding criteria: transformation not as a post-hoc reporting requirement, but as a structural condition for institutional cooperation.
Point 3: Transformation as a specific task within a management team
Responsibility for transformation within an organisation requires clear accountability. When combined with a specific point of contact – for example, a member of the management team responsible for transformation – organisational change gains an independent voice and an advocate in both internal and external discourse. However, this does not mean that the other members of the management team can relinquish their own responsibility in transformation processes. Only when transformation is treated as a shared leadership task is it no longer merely managed as a secondary task, but is instead represented as an equal dimension of leadership. This approach combines clear individual accountability with a team-oriented leadership culture, thereby creating the conditions necessary for change processes to continue uninterrupted even when there are changes in other leadership positions.
Three considerations, one common logic
What links these three perspectives is that they view responsibility for transformation as a structural task, rather than as a personal trait of individual leaders. They all assume that organisational change requires an institutional framework that can withstand changes in leadership. And they share the conviction that funding bodies and institutions must bear this responsibility jointly.
actori supports cultural organisations and their sponsoring bodies in developing sustainable solutions through organisational processes, including answers to the question of how transformation and responsibility for transformation can be embedded in a lasting manner, independent of leadership changes. Please feel free to get in touch (team@actori.de)!
_
A contribution by Rhea Schwering, consultant