The Romanticization of Charismatic Leadership in the Arts

This inter-disciplinary article focuses on the role, significance, and impact of charisma in cultural leadership. It brings together fresh empirical data with a critical review of the literature to investigate the role of charisma in the operation, reputation, and strategic success of arts organizations. For the first time, this article synthesizes a diverse range of literature from sociology, psychology, political science, management, and leadership studies and applies it critically to the context of the arts. This comprehensive review is compared against interviews with key stakeholders in the arts, which challenge the neo-charismatic literature on leadership and support a return to aspects of the original formulation of charisma, as envisaged by Max Weber. The article finds that charismatic leaders are seen as extraordinary individuals and are excessively romanticized by arts managers, policymakers, and audiences. It questions this normative bias and concludes that charismatic leaders should be treated with a degree of skepticism, even caution, to temper any negative impacts on "followers" and organizations

Were New Labour’s cultural policies neo-liberal?

This article assesses the cultural policies of ‘New Labour’, the UK Labour government of 1997–2010. It takes neo-liberalism as its starting point, asking to what extent Labour’s cultural policies can be validly and usefully characterised as neo-liberal. It explores this issue across three dimensions: corporate sponsorship and cuts in public subsidy; the running of public sector cultural institutions as though they were private businesses; and a shift in prevailing rationales for cultural policy, away from cultural justifications, and towards economic and social goals. Neo-liberalism is shown to be a significant but rather crude tool for evaluating and explaining New Labour’s cultural policies. At worse, it falsely implies that New Labour did not differ from Conservative approaches to cultural policy, downplays the effect of sociocultural factors on policy-making, and fails to differentiate varying periods and directions of policy. It does, however, usefully draw attention to the public policy environment in which Labour operated, in particular the damaging effects of focusing, to an excessive degree, on economic conceptions of the good in a way that does not recognise the limitations of markets as a way of organising production, circulation and consumption