Position. Positioned? Positioning… working environment standards in the dance world

An essay discussing the working environment standards of the arts/dance world and suggested strategies for continued evolvement. 

Anyone who knows me, or my writing, will no doubt let out an audible groan when they read the next sentence… but here goes: I'd like to talk about ballet in relation to the (broad) development of the art form, and primarily from the reality of being a dancer in the sector. I've been talking about this subject for a while. Why? I was a dancer myself and saw some ‘interesting' managing and working environments during my professional career.

Many of my friends were, and still are, dancers, and what they've been subjected to in the past and present is inexcusable. But somehow ‘it' seems to be ongoingly excused. Or perhaps ‘individuals and institutions not being held accountable for their behaviour' is the correct way to describe the professional paradigm we still see unfolding.

I know I'm not alone – in fact, anything I've done has been based on frustration and bewilderment, caused by what I've seen and been made aware of – and my ongoing concerns have been reawakened by the symposium Positioning Ballet III which took place in Amsterdam at the end of February 2023. A conference bringing together Artistic Directors from around the world to discuss the ‘positioning' of the art form in the present day. As attendance is by invitation only, and that limited sharing of the programming and content is made public, it's all a bit on the down low, but more on that later. Let's contextualise the bigger discussion first. 

---

It's a complex time for all. Until recently I taught ballet in the Higher Education sector in the UK. I've been teaching for 15 years, and in Higher Education specifically for the last five, and I needed to get out. Something is going wrong. There's an imbalance, and it's causing unhappiness for many involved. The student body wants more agency within their educational tenure, and rightly so. And I'd argue the academic (mid-level) staff are coming from the same place, as improving the student experience is absolutely on their agenda. But realistically they can't keep up with the scope or level of demand, with possible reasons being budgeting and poor management from the top level down. 

In education, as in personal and professional life, if an individual doesn't feel as though they're being heard, considered, and ultimately appeased, things are going to get messy. 

I'd proffer that ballet and dance company environments should be less problematic than educational settings. Why? Because by the time of employment, hopefully individuals have experienced a number of situations that enable them to develop their thinking to the point of (possible) dialogue, as opposed to simple resistance. I think it's called retrospection…

But actually isn't that a pertinent point? Is it the actual case? 

There's no doubt that dance education has improved since I trained (1990-97), but I feel there's an ‘in theory/practice' discussion to be had.

Dance students who graduated in the last 10 or so years are, in some ways, a different kettle of fish. They often have a voice, self-worth and more perspective when they enter the professional workforce. But in reality there are still barriers that are hard to navigate:

Feedback

Correction is an inevitable component of dance training, and even though the delivery methods have developed from the ‘aggressive, stick-wielding Maestro', is it possible for students and dancers to survive autonomously from feedback? I'd say no. For the obvious technical, and less initially apparent, layered, psychological reasons. Therefore there'll always be a connection and reliance to those at the front of the studio and this co-dependent relationship can be difficult to keep balanced and healthy – for both parties. 

Existing frameworks

Company newbies can arrive with all the best intentions and have them battered out in numerous ways:

Older dancers – previous generations who were educated with a certain mind-set, and subsequently treat their peers the same way as they don't know an alternative. 

Pyramid scheme – the weight and notoriety of those above that curtails the application of new thinking in practice. 

Bad management – the above two points rolled into one, with more power and position to enable the execution of dubious behaviour, and the lack of it being questioned. 

Fallout – what potentially happens to the professional trajectory of those brave enough to voice their employment dissatisfaction. 

Fallout's fallout – likeminded peers see what happens to their courageous colleagues and therefore choose to keep their mouths shut. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

---

In the contemporary era people know how to work the system. We're all aware of the boxes that need ticking, and the correct, ticked boxes are a powerful form of self-branding. I'm not saying all navigate ethics in this way, but it's inevitable that some do. Such individuals categorically do not believe in the ethoses they're signing up to and have no (genuine) intention of altering their professional conduct or working environment to implement the proposed strategies in practice. This is the kind of behaviour that forces people to deliver questionable professional practice on either side of an ethical concept. We witness the denier running scared and the (possible) victim on permanent high alert. Unhealthy doesn't even begin to cover it. 

Thankfully some people have acknowledged there are issues, and are proactively developing strategies to combat them:

Melissa Nisbett, Ben Walmsley and Emma McDowell conducted research (https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/bullying-bosses-broken-boards-and-crisis-accountability) on abusive leadership in the arts and confirmed that their “findings will set alarm bells ringing across the sector”, but will the bells be loud enough to action actual, tangible change? And if so, how will this imperative next step be undertaken? We've been here before, and McDowell confirmed that “Dance is not heavily represented [in the research], so it would be good to capture it in the next stages”. 

Of course dance isn't void of research. One Dance UK, as the “sector support organisation”, has been at the forefront of the discussion for 40-plus years presenting “one clear voice to… advocate dance in the UK”. But as they're not a governing body, their important work tends to end in ‘suggestion' only. And though, of course, invaluable, individuals and institutions are basically at their own discretion regarding implementation, with no further, official dialogue concerning adherence. Unless things turn legal…

I reached out to One Dance UK to hear their thinking on the subject, and after I stopped chasing the initial email thread the communication fizzled out. They also seemed somewhat guarded at first – perhaps that's my comeuppance for previous, tough talking articles. The result being that they aren't directly featured in this piece, which is a shame considering one of their missions is to “support all those working in the sector to achieve excellence in dance performance, education and management“, and I'm sure they have lots to say and share on the subject of working environment standards. Another time perhaps.

In reality we need to look further back to understand where and when behaviour becomes habit, which more often than not evolves into inherent, systemic frameworks. As already discussed on Gramilano, Karen Berry (the Senior Teacher Training Manager at The Royal Ballet School) is the industry insider asking the pertinent questions about dance education at all levels. The Royal Ballet School has numerous current options for teacher training:

• The Affiliate Training and Assessment Programme
• Diploma of Dance Teaching
• Inspire seminars
• Enlighten webinars

Berry doesn't stand still as a pedagogue or thinker and realised that she also needed to look at the professional sector in order to discuss wellness as a whole. Hence the inception of the Professional Dance Coaching Programme (PDCP), which Berry describes so:

“The course is specifically designed for artistic staff – permanent or visiting artists – who work with professional or trainee dancers in any coaching capacity. Staff such as rehearsal directors, directors, company class teachers, choreographers, and repetiteurs, as well as dancers who bridge into coaching, will gain valuable insight into modern pedagogical practices. Regardless of experience, the course will upskill participants with effective communication strategies to foster, develop and sustain a positive studio culture.”

Let's hold onto “positive studio culture”.

This (eventually!) leads me back to Positioning Ballet III hosted by Dutch National Ballet. It's the third Positioning Ballet conference – the first was held in 2017, followed by a second meeting in 2019. To be clear, I categorically support the base ethos of the initiative, but also believe anything truly worthwhile needs to engage in demanding, impartial (external) discourse… which I assume is the overarching point of the symposium in question. 

As is often the case, something tends to be preceded by an original version, and Positioning Ballet is no different. Assis Carreiro started the concept with Dance East back in 2003, known as Rural Retreats for “artistic leaders and aspiring leaders in dance”. This initial outfit is still up and running in some form, last meeting in 2019, and wasn't an easy sell in the early days as confirmed by Carreiro: “For the first retreat I had to go searching to find a woman to attend as there was no one. Today women aren't an issue, but we have other challenges. Changes don't happen overnight.”

The invited attendees for Positioning Ballet gathered in the Netherlands from 24-26 February for a meeting of minds. But what kind of minds? Those belonging to artistic directors (almost exclusively, as explained below). This makes theoretical sense as they run the institutions in question, however it makes less practical sense when considering content, and possible related thinking from an ‘ivory tower' perspective.

I'm not suggesting all involved are out of touch per se, and I'm confident that some are in fact the leaders of the necessary developments. I'm also aware that some external contributors, mediators, and curators (all one demographic), were present to speculate broader thinking in the moment. But that environment, with those invited attendees, does lack a vital component in real terms: some form of representation of the people they manage – dancers.

And yes, many (all in some form?) of those present were dancers themselves, however something strange can happen when an individual transfers to the front of the studio and gets the biggest office in the building, especially if no formal training or minimal experience is the name of the game. Additionally, not all personality types make for good leaders, no matter how famous or regarded they were as performers.

I categorically understand the importance of giving directors and executive management safe environments, in which they can pose and answer the impossible questions that need addressing, and I'd argue dancers need exactly the same. But how sure can we be sure that participants, on all sides, are genuinely invested in the difficult dialogues, and aren't just doing what's (publicly) expected in a box-ticking and self-branding (superficial) exercise. 

One option could be external research. Pre and post-symposium meetings:

Pre –

• Surveys (anonymous where appropriate) sent to artistic directors and their teams asking focused questions about working environments, good and safe practices, delivery methods and in-house analysis of all data.
• Surveys (anonymous where appropriate) sent to the employee body about management, how they function, and whether good and safe practices are being actioned in the working environment.

Post – 

Surveys (anonymous where appropriate) sent to all concerned parties after a designated time period to ascertain:

• What's been implemented 
• How it's been delivered and received
• What still needs addressing 
• How it will be administered 

I'd further propose that the above post-research develops and becomes a regular occurrence. Yearly, for companies (hopefully all!) who recognise the holistic value, with an ideal structure including:

• Companies share data and statistics (to facilitator and publicly) relating to delivered strategies 
• External moderators visit to observe and discuss the work in practice
• Observational and statistical reports are completed and disseminated
• Working environment standards level accredited/awarded (explained below) 
• Further training offered and undertaken in problematic areas 
• Repeat cycle every 12 months

Whoever happens to be the overarching facilitator (ideally independent for neutrality and doing all aspects of the work for parity) should introduce an incentivising element. A public, sliding scale-style accreditation system that validates desired working environment standards in the arts, and institutions that are leading the way, and doing conscientious work, will receive a visible form of recognition. 

Some may be asking is this all necessary? And if that's an individual's initial response I'd ask them to engage with the research included earlier in this article, and then read numerous news stories from the past four or five years, as there's a plethora of (ongoing) examples as to why working practices within the arts still need massive improvement.

---

Back to Amsterdam and Positioning Ballet, and trying to understand what actually happened on a deeper level. An image of a session led by Christina Barandun (systemic consulting, training, coaching for theatre, opera, dance and orchestra: Christina Barandun) was posted online, of a whiteboard with a drawing of a dancer with the title “times of transition”. The topics listed were:

• Making values tangible 
• Directive vs Collaborative
• Dynamic safe spaces
• Systemic organisational development
• Recurring topics in leadership coachings

I reached out to Barandun in order to understand her rationale for the selection of the above points when thinking and working in the dance sector. She generously replied with these elongated musings:

Making values tangible: 

Conflicts arise because we don't explain ourselves clearly. Written codes of conduct need to be specified on a very practical level; between the people who work together, often more than once, and again when new people arrive.

Directive vs Collaborative: 

Societal change is happening; directive-authoritarian leadership styles are being replaced by collaborative, self-organisational (SO) approaches. However, SO needs a lot more structure and communication in order to work – including conflict resolution and decision-making tools. Alternatively in hierarchical contexts you don't need to discuss the how, but just the what, and both options have their pros and cons. In my opinion the truth lies in a combination of the two, or ideally a culture that can switch between modes depending on context.  

Systemic organisational development:

The issue when contemplating ‘change' in Western cultures is that we tend to plan the outcomes, and latch onto the developmental findings throughout the journey: product versus process. In a volatile, unpredictable world with new developments (daily), we must admit that outcomes and goals keep evolving. Therefore what we need are defined processes, feedback loops (to alter procedures when needed), and clear communication and team spirit to be adaptable and flexible without losing the initial purpose and drive.

Dynamic safe spaces:

I've created a model that allows for artistic, organisational, emotional and interpersonal spaces to help create a supportive network that acknowledges the people, organisation and artistic potential as a whole. The spaces are:

1. Safe for conducive thinking
2. Innovation laboratory 
3. Integrating change
4. Grieving and letting go  

Recurring topics in leadership coachings:

My Aikido-based philosophy of leadership aims to find ways to support one's own wellbeing, and that of others without overstepping boundaries. This mindset offers a liberty to act without being driven into a reactive mode due to circumstances. From here, leaders can work on many recurring topics:

• Receiving (critical) feedback gracefully 
• Finding ways to use the diverse intelligence of a group
• Using conflict constructively
• Initiating change in small steps, so as to avoid chaos
• Working with emotions proactively

All of Barandun's theory listed here will feature in her next book released in German this April (2023, and hopefully in English by Autumn): Dynamic safe spaces: successful communication in artistic ensembles and cultural organisations. Her current book (2018, available in English) is titled: First aid of the artist's soul. Stress management, communication and conflict resolution in the cultural sector.

---

For further Positioning Ballet III insight I contacted the Press Department of Dutch National Ballet, the symposium organisers. I posed what I felt were a few pressing questions and awaited their reply. After much back and forth (well chasing really) with a press representative, I was offered a phone call with Ted Brandsen, the Artistic Director of DNB as an email reply to the questions wasn't an option.

In the end neither were necessary (at this point, so currently postponed) as DNB released a public update on the symposium on 7 March, as well as a high-end, produced video offering insights. Emphasis on insights as opposed to extensive information, but appreciated nonetheless.

My initial four questions follow with answers arrived at through research and informal conversations:

• Will any of the content/research/findings be published? 

See the link above. I reiterate “insights as opposed to extensive information”. 

• How many BAME representatives did you have in attendance? 

Research suggests one, but happy to be corrected. 

• Were discussions had about the whiteness of ballet's current position? 

Indeed. Accessed through a ‘think tank'-style format “comprising international ballet students – of Assemblée Internationale, a collaboration between ballet academies”. 

• Did you have other attendees present apart from Directors in order to deepen general and individual perspective? 

‘-ish'… acknowledging the “external contributors, mediators and curators (all one demographic)”, and the students mentioned above – the importance of which can't be underestimated. Accessing the perspective of dancers in training, who haven't yet begun their professional experience (potentially) allows for honest, distanced clarity. 

---

Attendance is a key component for these types of initiatives to have an impact. In being present an individual confirms their, and their institution's, belief in the proceedings. Furthermore, they'll be able to engage with, actively contribute to, and fundamentally help shape the dialogue (direction). Scheduling isn't easy for anyone, but an event happening every two to four years should hopefully be manageable, and if a director feels they can't leave their company for four days or so, or the event isn't worth their while, then there are two massive reasons to be in the room already! Subsequently it's interesting to consider that some directors managed a 10,335-mile journey to be present, while others couldn't complete 246…

In closing: Barandun is proof that we have hope; and Melissa Nisbett, Ben Walmsley and Emma McDowell are evidence that we still need major change.

…and I'm an annoying disruptor who will keep chomping at the bit.

But talking alone isn't enough. We've already been doing that for a while… in life and this essay! And yes, developments have been made, but more need to follow, ASAP. This piece calls for a manifesto of proaction. Dance companies and the Arts in general need to address their working environment standards and in-house alone isn't going to cut it. No offence to Human Resources departments, but they're always going to protect the employer over the employee, and the dance studio and stage aren't your average workplaces.

The sector needs a governing body, or a similar in style consultancy, that will deliver a manifesto which oversees the application of:

• Active structural implementation
• Tangible directives and results
• Accountability for bad practice
• Evident training and development when areas have been recognised as lacking 
• Ongoing, regular inspections to analyse current standards 
• Public sharing of statistics 
• Public (sliding scale-style) accreditation system that validates desired working environment standards in the Arts

Basically, an Ofsted^* for the professional Arts sector. 

Over to you (again) Arts Council England, One Dance UK, Positioning Ballet, global dancers demanding more, et al.

---

Note: this essay isn't aiming to be an end result. It's a work in progress; and a necessary one. I encourage debate, and look forward to people engaging with the rhetoric, be that to support, (factually) question, or whatever other reaction it causes for the reader.

* Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills in the UK, inspecting services providing education and skills for learners of all ages and inspecting and regulating services that care for children and young people.