Hello, everyone. I'm Adelaide Rief, Manager of Leadership Development Programs here at Creative Australia.  

I am joining you from the lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. I am in Pyrmont today, and the Gadigal name for this place is Pirrama. I acknowledge the Gadigal people and extend that acknowledgement to the people on the many lands around Australia who are joining us today. I pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging.  

This series is designed to showcase the projects of the artists and the communities that they work with. We are really grateful to Diversity Arts Australia for the really powerful and compelling conversations in this area so far.  

Our thanks to Görkem Acaroğlu, Lena Nahlous, and the rest of the team at Diversity Arts Australia.  

You can check out the other conversations on the Creative Australia website and register for the final session on 28 March. You will also be able to find a range of resources available on our website from 28 March, so please keep an eye out for those.  

Today is the first session for the series in 2024 and we are excited to delve into the topic of how boards can enable impact and support stakeholder engagement, with our two excellent speakers, Mindy Leow and Elaine Chia. You can keep up by following us on social media and subscribing to our newsletter.  

And now I will hand over to Lena, who will host the conversation. Thanks, Lena.  

Thanks so much, Adelaide, for the really warm introduction. I am really looking forward to today's conversation.  

Before we start, I would like to do a little bit of housekeeping, and also acknowledge the First Peoples of the lands on which I am today, the Wangal people of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to Elders past and present. Always was, always will be Aboriginal land. I would also like to pay respect to First Nations people all across the nation.  

I am a middle-aged white woman. I have dark brown hair with some grey. I am wearing a dark brown top and glasses. I am CEO of Diversity Arts Australia. We are partnered with Creative Australia, and I am excited to lead this conversation about stakeholder governance.  

I am sure that somebody will put a link in the chat to the other conversations. For those who are not aware, Diversity Arts Australia is Australia's voice for racial diversity and cultural equity, and we work in partnership and solidarity with many other communities and movements. Our work includes research, advocacy, training, producing events and resources, and supporting organisations and individuals via training.  

So, some housekeeping. We really wanted today's session to be informative for all of you. You can ask questions through the Q&A function. Because of the format of the webinar, the main way you can participate is by using the Q&A function to ask questions. If we have time at the end, we will address some of the questions, but that depends on the questions and where they go.  

The session is being recorded and will be shared to attendees via the event session page on our website from next week. We also have Auslan interpreters today, so thank you to Rebecca Ladd and Jodie Rogers, who are providing Auslan support. It is also being live captioned. You can turn on the live captions in the Zoom window by toggling the CC button at the bottom. You can pop it out in a separate window, or turn it on in the Zoom window. If for some reason you get kicked out, the link is in the email that you received when you registered.  

By participating in this webinar, you agree to the following values that guide the discussion. These are to be respectful and professional, to genuinely engage, listen deeply and bring an openness, be non-judgmental, and behave in ways that do the best to ensure the safety of others.  

While we acknowledge that a lot of these conversations can be quite uncomfortable, we do encourage you to lean into that discomfort. However, if at any time during the conversation you are finding the discussion difficult or stressful, you are welcome to take a break and come back.  

Today we are joined by two incredible leaders with an immense and diverse wealth of experience. I am so pleased to welcome Elaine Chia and Mindy Leow to this conversation. They will be diving into the art of engaging stakeholders and partners amidst much complexity. We will explore the delicate balance between your organisation and your organisation's objectives with stakeholders, especially within partnership conversations and negotiations. We will explore what role your organisation plays in supporting ethical engagement and impact, and we will explore negotiating complexity and maintaining ethical values while also meeting stakeholder needs.  

So, let's dive in firstly with Elaine Chia, who will talk for about 10 minutes. Elaine will talk, and then Mindy will talk, and then I will ask them some questions.  

Elaine has extensive experience and is currently the CEO of the Naomi Milgrom Foundation. Previous roles include Executive Director at the Adelaide Festival, CEO of Sydney Recital Hall, and at Creative Australia, where she delivered public-private partnership projects, was the Australian representative at three Venice Biennales, and worked on the Australian Pavilion.  

Over to you, Elaine.  

Thank you for the really warm introduction. I would like to start by acknowledging that I'm coming to you from Wurundjeri Country in Naarm, Melbourne.  

I am a very proud Asian Australian. I have, I would say, lighter hair. I just got it bleached because apparently a lighter colour helps cover grey, and I am wearing a black top and a black necklace.  

I would like to start by acknowledging that we work in a very dynamic and fast-changing sector. I've had the enormous privilege of being supported to be an arts leader, and I really feel very passionate about my role to be able to give back to the sector across many dimensions.  

I have been an arts worker and started by answering the phones and being an usher. I was given lots of opportunities to probably do work that I was not already qualified for, but somebody really believed in me. I was able to grow in that role. In more recent years, I have taken leadership roles as CEO and arts leader, and in executive management, but also on boards.  

I think the intersection for me, where executive leadership, artistic leadership, boards and governance come together, is a very, very challenging dynamic, but also an empowering position.  

I would like to start by posing a question which I ask myself and I ask a lot of others who may be on boards or in leadership roles: how do you balance creativity and also make sure that the organisation or your practice can live to fight another day?  

That is a role that is increasingly challenging within an environment where there is static funding, or decreasing funding, increasingly competitive funding, and a further lean into increased private funding. That comes with an agenda. All funding comes with an agenda. But I think that is where I am particularly interested to see how we as a sector and as individuals can navigate those challenges.  

Who is the master, ultimately, in this area? What is the impact we are trying to make in the arts?  

What we do in the arts is inherently risky. We don't see failure in the same way as other businesses. So how do we manage and balance that, and be open to the risks and to what others may deem as failure, but also be sustainable?  

For the last few years, on various panels that I have sat on, I have talked about the language of the arts and the move that I believe we as a sector need to make to change our language in many ways. We talk traditionally about subsidy, and subsidy really doesn't get us very far, particularly in a climate of economic challenges.  

So, how do we talk about impact? How do we talk about investment? And how do we talk about investing in a product which is not selling widgets? It is not selling services. It is selling experiences. These are not even ticket sales that I am talking about. It is how we sell experiences or commercialise, in a way, the art of improving our lives.  

I think we all agree and we all know that we are working in the arts because what would life be like without the arts? Without music, without film, without design, without everything that we touch that is creative. How do we value that and how do we bring that to the fore? But also, how do the arts interrogate? How do the arts take us to another point of view that we will not necessarily find on our own? How do we expose ourselves to be a better society as a result of those conversations and perhaps that tension that can occur?  

Within that setting, I think about how arts boards are constituted. As I said, I have the privilege of being a CEO. I also sit on arts boards, so I wear two hats at various times.  

Boards, for me, are obviously responsible for governance. They have to ensure that governance is sound. But what does that mean? Governance, for me, means that the organisation is supported through a board to be able to fly.  

The board should not, in my opinion, decide on artistic direction. It shouldn't decide on what projects are done or not done, other than whether they are viable or not. I really feel that the board's role is to assess the risk in a way that enables the risk to take flight, and not to shut things down because of risk. That could be controversial, but from my experience this is where the most dynamic and strongest arts boards come through.  

That is where boards have a critical role to support the leadership to have conversations with major stakeholders.  

I've seen, from when I started in very small to medium companies, there is a real concern that you have to grow. We are now in a climate, and we can talk about post-COVID or other situations, but we don't need to grow in terms of numbers. We don't need to grow in terms of the numbers or the amount of activity that we do. We have to revalue quality, and that is where I think governance, strong governance and strong boards come in to support the leadership to consider what that looks like. It is about impact, much more about impact than about growth.  

Impact is demonstrable when you can feel the change.  

I have been really fortunate to be part of a company that Lena mentioned, as the Chair of Contemporary Asian Australian Performance. When I joined the board in 2016, we were one grant round away from extinction, which I'm sure many of you can relate to. As a board, we had to think about how we could, as I go back to say, live to fight another day.  

We had to think about how we actually show our impact as a very, very small company with really one full-time person, to demonstrate that what we do is important, and what we do should be heard. That is, I think, my proudest achievement amongst many other proud achievements. To see an organisation have that sort of impact, and as a board member to be able to say, "We celebrate what we do. We celebrate our place in the sector because we celebrate every part of the sector, and we understand that those conversations can only happen because of others, and we can't do it alone."  

The board's role and the governance role in that is to make sure that what the company does is able to be amplified in the right places.  

I'm sure we're going to have lots of other points to discuss, but I would like to close off with those thoughts of thinking about how the board can have the deepest reach and the best results.  

Thank you, Elaine, for giving us those thoughts and the depth of thinking around management and boards and their role.  

I would now like to introduce Mindy, and all I need to do is find her bio. Mindy Leow is Director of Impact and Growth at B Lab Australia & Aotearoa New Zealand. She has been working at the intersections of purpose and profit. She was involved in growing the social enterprise sector through her roles at Social Traders and StartSomeGood. She has been a force for good and instrumental in growing the B Corp movement in this region, working with hundreds of businesses to measure and improve their impact.  

She holds qualifications in business, journalism, and an MBA in sustainability and social entrepreneurship. She serves as an ambassador for Better Futures Australia, promoting ambitious climate action.  

Welcome, Mindy, and over to you.  

Thank you so much. Hello everybody. I am Mindy and I use she/her pronouns. I am an Asian woman, wearing a green shirt, and I have brown hair. I pay my respects to the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung people as custodians of this land.  

I am humbled to be speaking to you all today, as I don't normally work in the arts community sector, but I do hope to bring some of my past and current experience to this conversation about governance.  

A bit about my background, which I will be drawing from. I arrived in Australia about 15 years ago and identify as a corporate refugee. Since then, I changed careers and have been working in the social enterprise and not-for-profit sector. I've been working with community organisations and social entrepreneurs.  

I currently have a role at B Lab Australia & Aotearoa New Zealand, and in fact, today is exactly my eighth-year anniversary at B Lab. B Lab is the nonprofit behind B Corp certification for businesses.  

For those of you who may not be aware of B Corp, it is a certification for for-profit companies who want to be a source for good impact within the world. Our vision as a movement is to see an economic system that is inclusive, equitable and regenerative, and that businesses benefit all people and the planet, not just shareholders.  

To achieve this ambitious vision, our work to date has been directly with the business community. We developed tools, built standards, and encourage behaviour and cultural change within business. B Lab has been around for 18 years globally and 10 years in Australia.  

We are really encouraged to see that there has actually been an acceleration and shift in business from a shareholder primacy model to a stakeholder primacy model, where more and more businesses are embracing purpose, managing impact and improving their impact, and wanting to be a force for positive change in the world.  

We are really encouraged that here in Australia and in New Zealand there are almost 700 businesses that have certified, and more than 8,000 globally. For those companies certified in this region, it also means that they have legally adopted stakeholder governance, considering stakeholders, be that workers, community, customers and the environment, in their decision-making in order to deliver more positive impact.  

This shift in business is incredibly encouraging, and what we really need more of in the world. The shift to embrace purpose and profit is one that is happening around the world.  

The provocation posed for the session that I am slightly reframing is: if for-profit companies are becoming for-purpose, what is the arts sector's role in promoting positive impact? And then, how far do you or could you go to promote social and ethical impact?  

Unfortunately, I am not giving you the answer today, but I will share a couple of practical ways that you can do so.  

Drawing from my experience currently working with businesses, we offer a free holistic assessment tool called the B Impact Assessment tool. The BIA tool allows organisations to understand the impact on its workers, community, environment and also governance.  

One of the ways to think about impact is really to consider the impact you are having on stakeholders, both positive as well as negative. Impact measurement is definitely the first step we encourage organisations to undertake, because you can't understand what you don't measure.  

We offer up this tool to larger organisations, which I know are amongst you in the audience today. It would be a really informative tool to undertake for larger organisations and projects, to really understand the potential impacts that you could be having on your stakeholders.  

But what about smaller organisations? How else can you meaningfully practise stakeholder governance? Many of you have already experienced that balancing stakeholder needs is complex. What I want to offer today, from our experience of working with businesses to help them embrace stakeholder governance, is a practical, but maybe not easy, way for boards to consider stakeholder needs. This can be an exercise that is done by the boards of large and small organisations.  

I will just run through this exercise really quickly. You may need to dedicate a board meeting specifically to this topic or exercise. You want to start by making a list of stakeholders of your organisation. Then the first exercise is to rank your stakeholders according to their importance from a financial perspective. Obviously, funders and donors would probably rise to the top. It is really important that everyone attending shares their view as to why that is, why they ranked everyone the way they have, and to understand different perspectives.  

The second exercise is to look at the same set of stakeholders but rank them again from a moral and ethical lens. Consider to whom you might owe some social responsibility. From this conversation you might discover some new stakeholders that previously did not show up from the first exercise. Naturally, from the second exercise, artists, employees, the community, and maybe even nature, might show up as stakeholders that are important to your organisation. And again, why? Why is that? Why is the ranking as such?  

As I said before, this is not an easy conversation and it is not aimed at achieving consensus. You are probably unlikely to get to full agreement around rankings, but the point is having the robust conversation and understanding the diverse views, as well as the tension between stakeholder needs.  

After this meeting and exercise, you may need to further engage the management team to gather more information, or further engage a particular stakeholder group, but ultimately this enables the board to guide and to steer the organisation towards a better strategic decision.  

Lastly, I will introduce the image of a seesaw, for balancing the organisational financial needs, with a very provocative question that Elaine asked around: how do you live another day? With: how do you meet the needs of these stakeholders?  

Using the seesaw analogy, it is about prioritising what is important. With my experience working with social enterprises, it is a delicate balance. You might need to make multiple decisions at the same time about prioritising financial needs while also prioritising your stakeholders. If an organisation is only prioritising financial needs, there might be mission drift, which can happen in community and social enterprises.  

This analogy or image of a seesaw is a really good one to remind yourself of.  

I hope to leave you with the message that stakeholder governance is important, but it is also achievable. It is easy to start by having robust conversations and building your muscle over time. I also hope to have left you with practical examples of how you can do that. Large organisations might benefit from undertaking the assessment, but all organisations, large and small, can begin to consider your stakeholder needs and better engage your stakeholders and allow their voices to be heard.  

Thanks so much, Mindy, for giving us food for thought about the importance of governance in terms of social and ethical concerns, and bringing your impact and entrepreneurial lens to the conversation.  

I wonder if there is a way we can get the link to your impact assessment so that if anyone is interested, they might be able to do that. Also, thank you so much for those two exercises that I know I'm definitely going to do with my board as well, about how to think about stakeholders at the governance level.  

I'm going to ask you some questions now, following on from those. The link to the B Impact Assessment, can we find that? Oh, you have popped it in.  

It's not just large organisations. Any organisations could benefit from the tool, but large organisations might have the data more easily available to answer the questions because we really do get into quite a lot of reporting. But just going through the tool itself really uncovers some interesting questions, tensions and food for thought.  

Yeah, and I liked what you said about when we do the exercises, to also know that we won't agree with each other necessarily, but to really try to deeply listen and understand each other's positions.  

You have both mentioned balancing sponsors and donors. So, to both of you, maybe starting with Elaine, how do you, or should you, find or work with philanthropic and sponsorship partners, philanthropies and sponsors? Elaine, can I pass that to you?  

Yeah, I will go first. It's the multi-million-dollar question, isn't it? As a fundraiser, having raised significant funds for projects, let's be completely honest, it's very challenging. It's a challenging environment out there.  

But I've always been extremely optimistic. The reason I feel that way is because I have a real belief that everyone wants to make a difference. We want to give. I think charity in Australia is obviously not at the same level as in the States and other places, but there is a very strong willingness for people to give back.  

For organisations, my starting point is always: look at your values, make sure they are public, and make sure the people you want to speak to understand and share an understanding of your values. Because the artistic output, the projects, whatever you are trying to or looking to find support for, is really based around an expression of those values. They are out there.  

I say to a lot of organisations, don't forget your ticket buyers. They are the stickiest supporters. Yes, it is transactional, but the fact that they keep buying tickets means they like what you do. So look at that and enter into a conversation with them about why they keep coming back. What is it they could do? Think about the additional depth and engagement you can have with those philanthropic and other partners.  

The alignment is incredibly important. Following that, it is about the sustainability aspect of it. I know the best partners are there for the long term, or for a fixed term, and that is defined upfront.  

It is of course challenging to get year-on-year or project-by-project funding. I have seen it too, where you will find someone who will support a creative development element, and once it is presented they feel that others can join on and their job is done. I can totally understand that.  

How you find philanthropic partners is about firstly looking at your values, looking at the alignment, and then having the conversation. It's a long journey. It doesn't happen quickly. But in my experience, once you actually have those conversations, it becomes very easy, and a lot of really generous people out there will actually say, "We love what you do. How can we help?"  

I definitely support what Elaine has said around alignment of mission, purpose, objectives and values. I would add to that, from my observation of the philanthropic sector, that yes, there are arts funders. There is also impact funding as well.  

Bringing my impact lens here from a business perspective, if that is added to a project, if that is added to an arts organisation, that increases the value proposition, sorry to use business words here, but the value proposition of the project or the organisation. I think that may open additional funding opportunities with more partners and additional funders as well.  

The other thing I would say too is, we talk about partners. I wonder if there is the opportunity here to really consider partnering with other organisations as well to deliver, whether they are arts organisations or impact organisations, so that it really expands on that value proposition of the project.  

Sorry about that. I think you have already touched on this. I was also going to ask you about how you find those organisations who are supporting social impact and social benefit, in the board's role.  

I feel that you, Elaine, have touched on that. You have spoken about your ticket buyers and about starting conversations and being transparent about your mission as an organisation and having that well-known to whoever you might be approaching.  

But are there specific strategies or ways in which you actually are able to identify, from a governance perspective, the organisations that the board should play a role in that are supporting social impact or social benefit, that we haven't already discussed?  

I will add a point there. Sorry if that question was for Elaine.  

If an organisation is expanding into impact, I think it's really important to spend some time understanding the issue at hand, the topic at hand. If the organisation is partnering with a new organisation that might not be an arts organisation, I think it's important to explore the types of organisations in that space and really understand why they have different approaches to solving that social issue before jumping into a solution.  

Impact funders and investors want to see impact being delivered. Often the impact is harder to measure and quantify, but it's really important to have a theory of change for creating change established, so for that partnership, hopefully as long-term, as Elaine said, it's a really sound logic of investing in that project that is connected to outcomes and impact.  

Thanks so much, Mindy. Unless you want to add anything, Elaine, I can move to the next question, which is for you.  

I think I might add quickly. We talk about language, and I love Mindy's language around all of this because I think it is relatively new for us in the arts sector, but it's so important.  

As CEO of the foundation, a lot of the questions we ask of ourselves as a philanthropic organisation are: what difference will we make? That is increasingly moving into the social enterprise, social impact space. It is really exciting because it's a different shift. It is of course very aligned, but it is a very different shift in the thinking in our approach.  

Defining the outcome is not easy, but it forces us to think about why we do what we do and to be able to communicate that to potential philanthropists or sponsors. It is a great exercise. If you can't believe in what you do and can't express it, no one else will be able to understand it either.  

Elaine, you have worked in large and small organisations that may not have a development or board team. How much is a board expected to give of their time and money? What are the traditional expectations of boards?  

I don't know who is in the seminar, so apologies in advance if I'm being provocative. But I have a very strong belief that being on a board is not about giving just your time and expertise. You have to give money. It doesn't matter the quantity. It's an expression of support.  

I believe every board member should contribute financially and every board member should be talking about the organisation with great pride in every appropriate setting that they can.  

Lena, as you say, I have worked in small organisations. I am the Chair of an organisation that has two not quite full-time staff. Certainly no development team, and the board has to do the heavy lifting in that aspect, and proudly so.  

I have worked in large organisations such as the Adelaide Festival, and there was a foundation and a separate board with a separate entity whose sole role was to support fundraising for the festival. In many ways the board members understand their role clearly, but I don't think it changes in terms of what the quantum is.  

We have to give. We have to encourage people to give. We come in with time, expertise and money. The board should be able to, with management, approve a budget with a line for philanthropy or for partnership, understanding that they have a role to actually support the management to meet that budget line. Otherwise, you are setting up your management to fail.  

I really and truly believe that if every board member could do that, then we would be a much more sustainable sector.  

Mindy, you have a slightly different take on this, don't you? With your social enterprise hat on, how do we challenge the role of the board? And how does a board play a different role in governance rather than just the "fix the business" role? I'm really interested to hear your perspective on this as well.  

Yeah, for me it's actually really fascinating to hear Elaine's response around the expectations of an arts board to really come in with their wallets and their networks to help the organisation survive. It almost is a strategy, it seems.  

This is very different from my experience, coming from the social enterprise sector as well as, more recently, for-profit organisations and for-purpose as well.  

I often see the role of the board really around strategy and governance. When we think about fixing the business model, it's actually finding income streams, diversifying income streams so that it is not reliant on a particular donor or funder, which is unsustainable if something happens with funding cuts and whatnot.  

For me, fixing the business model is not really about plugging the gap, but rather having a business model that is market-oriented, market-based. Looking at customers and ticket buyers, if there can be ways to not rely, to have the financial risks reduced. I think that's how I see boards can play a strategic role.  

I think that actually requires a mindset shift in the organisation. This requires thinking about funding and income in more enterprising ways. You might need to look into the start-up world, the social enterprise world, to see how organisations are diversifying their incomes, whether it is from crowdfunding or cross-sector partnerships.  

In my world, I've come across certified B Corps who use a private business model to work in the arts. Art Pharmacy is one, the first arts-based B Corp in Australia. They call themselves arts consultants. They have purpose at their heart, but also use a business model for long-term viability.  

Another one I have come across is ColourSpace, a certified Social Traders enterprise. They use an arts subscription model, hopefully I'm describing this correctly, to put art in corporate and public spaces. This generates income, makes art accessible to more people, and generates income for artists.  

I encourage looking at these innovative ideas, looking at the Social Traders directory and looking at the arts social enterprises there to see how they are positioning their businesses and coming up with new innovative business models that will balance both achieving the mission and long-term viability.  

Thank you. There are some really good tips there. So, everyone, go to the Social Traders directory for some inspiration and to learn more.  

I think for me, coming from a social and community services background and then working for a long time in the community and cultural development space, I also always have to, Elaine, challenge a bit that everyone needs to give financially, because I know that I have been the CEO of organisations where we have, on our boards, people from one of the public housing estates that we were working in at the time, or people who were more recently arrived as migrants or who may come from refugee backgrounds. They may not always be able to give financially, but always give all this other amazing resource and support and connections as well. So I always have to push back a little bit with that as well, although I do take your points.  

Both of you had such great, complementary positions, I think, to talk about the role of the board.  

In terms of the long-term sustainability of the organisation, what is the role of the board? What is needed for an organisation to build sustainable capabilities in an environment where Elaine has said funding is really tough, we all know it's very tough, and we are often funded project to project? I think you said something, Elaine, very funny about Contemporary Asian Performance being one grant away from pretty much going out of business.  

So, what is the role of the board in terms of sustainability of the organisation? How can they support that? Who would like to go next?  

I can jump in and build on what I was saying in the last question.  

My view is that instead of plugging the gaps and funding the role, maybe that is the need now and that need needs to be filled, but also building the capability of the organisation to diversify income streams, develop different partnerships and funding models, income models. This requires time. I think it's important to be patient.  

Using B Lab as an example, I have been here exactly eight years, as I shared before. Only in the last few years has our business model, which has not really changed much, we have a certification and membership-like model, only started to take off in the last few years. It was many years of sticking with it, believing that it will happen and building the team, growing slowly, growing the organisation.  

So yes, you have to do the research. You have to really back the teams and support the CEO and the whole team to take a real different approach to the organisation, embedding this enterprise thinking.  

When you are experimenting with these different partnerships or different funding models, you are embracing innovation, and that means there will be failure. I was very encouraged to hear from Elaine that maybe the arts sector is used to that, and that's really good, because it's about failing forward. It's about how quickly you can learn from those failures and pivot from there. I'm using language from the start-up world, pivoting, constantly pivoting to grow and to further tinker at the business model.  

One thing that is often a test for us is: is it safe enough to try? There can be a conundrum around needing to have the perfect solution, needing to do all the business planning. Yes, there is value in doing that, but it's also important to give it a try, prepare people to fail, but also learn from that and develop that learning mindset.  

Thanks so much, Mindy. Yes, I think in the arts, taking risks is something a lot of organisations are comfortable doing in terms of actual artists and practice.  

Elaine, did you have anything to add to that? You are on mute.  

Sorry, I need to stop doing that. You would think we would have learned after so many years.  

Firstly, I want to respond to your comment, and I totally agree with you. We are talking about really different, I guess, contrasting worlds. When I qualify the fact that the board should give, I did mention it's about quantum. It doesn't actually matter if it's just a dollar. I think it's the gesture for me that is important, not the quantum. Let me qualify that. It's never about a certain value. It's just something that is the gift.  

In terms of sustainability, I agree with Mindy. The role of the board is about looking at what the business model is. Is the current business model sustainable? Is it innovative? Can it withstand shocks, external shocks, unexpected shocks?  

That is the role, for me, of a board: to be able to interrogate that without sounding alarm bells way ahead of time, but in a very positive, proactive way. To say, "Maybe we need to think about how we shift or adjust or just reset in a way that enables us to then grow or move forward for sustainability." Grow is probably the wrong word.  

We see that all the time. In the arts we write three-to-five-year strategy plans, and it happens far less now, but when I started 10 or 15 years ago, you would write it, give it to your funding bodies, everyone would tick off, and it would go in the drawer. You would only review it when something went wrong.  

The model for boards now is to really interrogate that and always think about: is it actually going to be able to recover? Can we recover from unexpected shocks and stay true to our values and our vision, and be opportunistic to take those new directions and the risks of that, maybe even before others are ready to?  

That is the dynamic role, I feel, that a board can encourage leadership to do within the boundary of saying there is a governance framework, but the framework is actually about making sure we are always open to innovation.  

Nice. Thank you so much.  

So, what about personal ethics and the needs of the company or organisation? How do we navigate that? That is obviously a big question at the moment here and in the world more broadly.  

There is always the question of whether an organisation, for example, takes responsibilities from certain companies or bodies that may not align with the ethics of the artists or the staff, and it is a complex issue. I wanted to speak to you both about some of that and the complexity of that.  

I've thrown two questions into one a little bit: navigating personal ethics with the need of a company, and also how an organisation approaches sponsorship from certain companies and bodies where sometimes there will be a real pushback and serious consequences if artists and staff are not in alignment, if your communities aren't in alignment with that.  

Who should I throw this lovely thesis to? It is definitely a PhD. Elaine or Mindy?  

I'm happy to respond first. It's challenging. As individuals and organisations, we are very complex.  

The reason that the arts is so dynamic, or any organisation thrives, is because of our differences. They could be very minor, but they could be a chasm, as we know. But it's the commonality that I find is so important.  

We all need to give ourselves the opportunity to feel, we talk about cultural safety, but to feel safe in a workplace that we can have our own belief, our own lived experience. That is what contributes to the success of, and to our own personal reward of, why we do what we do every day and why we give of ourselves every day. Because we believe that ultimately it's aligned with what we do, and with what the others we work with in our team, whether it is artists, creators, funders, partners, we believe in the commonality and that shared value overrides our differences.  

I will give you a quick example. When I was at the Recital Hall, I started a crazy idea called Flash Mob Choir, where we called a spontaneous choir by SMS. Within three years we had 10,000 subscribers. I used to stand on stage once a month and say, I don't know how you all turned up to sing together, but for these 45 minutes it doesn't matter where you've come from. It doesn't matter what you do when you leave, but there are 45 minutes where you have decided to come together and share something together.  

I think that's what I hold very dear to in these troubling times. We will keep that shared value, that commonality. That is how our personal ethics feeds into moving forward together.  

It's such a good question, Lena. How do we navigate personal ethics with the needs of the company? I might reframe the question to say: how might we navigate personal ethics with the needs of the stakeholders of the organisation?  

Taking the stakeholder view again, it's about understanding the needs and views and tensions that are involved, and being able to hold those tensions. I think that's really, really important.  

To what Elaine said, find the commonality. Being the bridge, building the bridge to find that commonality. Sometimes that doesn't exist. Sometimes the views are just different, and we can agree to embrace the diversity. But I think as much as we can bring conversation to it and promote understanding, that is really important. This is the times we live in.  

How transparent should you be? And how would you communicate to your stakeholders and communities more broadly about who your sponsors and funders are? Does it need to be disclosed? Elaine, I will throw to you.  

I think if you are going to be authentic, yes. We have to stand up and understand what we do and every decision we make. That is a huge responsibility of arts leaders. So the simple answer is yes. We have to make very considered decisions, personally, but also as an organisation and board.  

We have to understand, as Mindy said, our stakeholder relationships and value them. Once we have gone through that journey, I think we should be able to be transparent about that.  

Do you agree, Mindy? What's your position on that?  

I agree with that. In the work we do, promoting transparency is one of the requirements of certification because that leads to authenticity, as Elaine said, but ultimately trust. To build long-term partnership, even with diverse views, I think that is possible if there is trust. So it's about building a relationship with your stakeholders, and it takes time.  

Coming back to the question before, when you are faced with risks, decisions that can take an organisation either way, it's important to understand those risks and also to take care to protect those relationships. If you decide to do something maybe slightly controversial that might not sit well with a stakeholder, take care to explain why you are doing that. I think communication is really key.  

Thank you so much.  

I want to shift a bit, although I feel we have definitely talked about this a little bit, to balancing competing interests and needs, and what to do when it all goes wrong. Elaine, you have a bit of an example, and so does Mindy, to share with us.  

So, happy to start with either of you. Mindy, you said pre-conversation that you deal with controversies all the time, and you had actually mentioned, I believe, the London Science Museum example. I wondered if you might like to share that.  

I will start with that, because this is an example from a number of years ago, and it draws from experience of working in climate activism and advocacy. There are many other similar examples like this.  

The example is that the Science Museum in London, a number of years ago, took a sponsorship from Shell for a climate change exhibition, which really attracted lots of attention about greenwashing. Unfortunately, I think there has been a further example of a sponsorship at the Science Museum with a Norwegian fossil fuel company.  

As many organisations have started to realise our role in shifting to a renewable world and severing relationships or working with fossil fuel polluting companies, there has really been a shift.  

This is a controversy that took a lot of attention. Our view at B Lab is twofold. Because we are a behaviour change and cultural change organisation, we believe also in working with organisations, because if not, they won't change. So we try to embrace the tension and bring people along the journey as well.  

But in this example for the Science Museum, it's really interesting. I wonder what was the impetus for doing that? Had they realised the potential reputational damage that would have come to them by taking that sponsorship? It is something to be aware of. Hopefully, that is one that we can apply to our organisations.  

That's a really good example. Elaine, what do we do when it all goes wrong? Would you also like to share your example? I feel like I did forget to ask this of you before we started.  

That's fine. I have been in the, I wouldn't say fortunate position in hindsight, but right at the time it was an unfortunate position, of a couple of instances where it did all go terribly wrong. It's devastating, and sometimes you just can't work your way through because it is at most times unexpected.  

I will give you one very light example first of all. When I was at the Recital Hall, quite often we would be approached by certain companies to hold their annual general meetings. Corporate hire and venue hire is, I think it is for every venue, what supports the cultural program. We would all prefer probably not to have to move too far down the corporate venue hire route, but it pays very well.  

We did get approached by an organisation to do an annual general meeting, and my team, actually a lot of them, refused to work because they felt that this company was working in an area that was not something they wanted to support. We had a very deep, robust discussion around that. In the end, we agreed that those who didn't feel comfortable working for that particular event should not work. Some of them actually went out with the protesters and protested at the front of our venue on the day.  

But we all agreed that we needed to go ahead and accept that, because it was a place for us to voice our differences, but also allow that conversation to be had. So that's one example.  

The other example, which is the one that Lena touched on in a previous conversation, and many of you working in visual arts will remember, was a big blow-up around Transfield and the Biennale in Sydney a few years ago. Transfield was awarded the contract to run the offshore detention centres, and the Biennale was boycotted. I think that was an example close to home where it did go terribly, terribly wrong.  

I say it went terribly wrong not because of the boycott, because I think artists have every right, and that's what we expect artists to do, to provide commentary, to activate the community to think about these really, really difficult issues. Where I believe it went wrong is because Transfield, the company that was awarded the contract to run the detention centres, was a different company to Transfield Holdings, who actually supported the Biennale of Sydney.  

I think it went wrong personally because the nuance was lost in that conversation. As a result of that, a family that actually founded the Biennale, who had given so much to those artists and other artists for so many years, was damaged, and I'm not sure if they will ever really recover from that. If there had been an opportunity just to be able to have the separation, to say it is a complex issue, we do think that this is wrong, but this is actually what the real full, comprehensive story is, then that for me was very disappointing to see that didn't happen.  

Thank you so much, Elaine. Two really good and concrete examples.  

Before I move to the other examples, we do have a very good question in the chat, a great provocation from Don, asking: if the board is expected to be unpaid, does management donate their time and money as well?  

I think this is a great question in the arts at the moment in particular, because we have also been asking questions about when we are using a lot of labour, people's labour, and expecting it to be constantly given for free. I know I am shaking up the conversation a bit here, but I thought it was a question that I wanted to hear your perspectives on. If that's okay. Did I totally throw you a curveball?  

I'm happy to have a go. I think the rules of engagement are slightly different. An arts board, certainly, I mean, there are lots of boards that are not unpaid. I don't know in your world, Mindy, whether the boards are unpaid, but in the arts it is certainly the expectation that if you join a board you are unpaid. We understand that when we join.  

Management are appointed to do a job, and they are paid for the job. I think that managers, all arts workers, already donate a significant amount of their time and money because no one works a 38-hour week in the arts, as we know.  

So I don't think, for me, if you don't feel that a board should be unpaid, then you shouldn't join that board.  

My experience with the community sector and not-for-profits in general is that the vast majority of not-for-profit boards are volunteer boards and give their time. It is kind of their give back to community.  

This is just the reality, I think, of the arts sector because of the resource constraints. However, I don't necessarily think that we shouldn't change that if we can. Even just nominal amounts to pay boards for their contributions.  

I think it also speaks to potentially an issue. I may be provocative here in sharing my personal views, but I think boards being unpaid in the charitable sector can bring its own bias to the board, because being in a privileged position enables you to take on a volunteer board role.  

If we are truly going to have robust governance, how do we bring the voices of the underrepresented and diverse views to the boardroom table, to the boardroom conversations?  

So yes, I think I'm slightly taking this question in a different direction here, but there is something to be said about boards being expected to be unpaid.  

Thanks so much for those perspectives.  

In terms of what we were talking about, at moments when there are big crises, our values often become even more important. So how do we find and come back to, how do we centre ourselves so that, and I think you may have talked about this a bit, we can each feel safe in ourselves and the environment in which we work, but where we can also agree to not have the same opinions?  

How do we do that in the work we do? What role does the board have in helping to facilitate an environment where people can have different views, different opinions, different positions, but also feel safe at work, feel that they are aligned with the organisation's values and ethics?  

Who would like to respond?  

I will jump in. Putting on my hat as the Chair of a board, when situations get tricky, I think overwhelmingly dialogue is so important. The conversation is so important. There should not be a mismatch where management is speaking, then someone is speaking to the board, then the board is having conversations that management doesn't necessarily understand because it is in camera, and then that filters down to staff as a direction or a decision where there is not their input. Then we have the real risk that things can break down.  

Now more than ever, I think I have had so many conversations about how we navigate that together and how we bring a forum where we can actually just talk. How do we express our view and not necessarily come to a decision? Because maybe there isn't a decision right away. Maybe there isn't an outcome right away. But having that space and prioritising a space for people to express how they feel, that is, I think, core to being good decision-makers and being good organisations.  

Thanks, Elaine.  

I would really agree with that. I think first and foremost it's about creating a safe space where people can express their different opinions. There are actually very different ways of doing that. Affinity groups, potentially, being one. But also anonymous ways, and I know it's tricky to do when you have a very small organisation.  

Maybe if that is the case, and anonymity is difficult, then it's having a facilitator create a very safe space for people to express their views and to have those views heard and acknowledged.  

I so agree with Elaine that sometimes it's not about having to arrive anywhere, but really just to have them heard, put it out there and acknowledge. I think creating that shared understanding through dialogue is, again, adding to Elaine's point.  

Sometimes when there are crises, people will shut down and they are not open to different views and perspectives. So it can be quite tricky.  

Quite often in the arts and creative sectors, it is seen that the role of the arts and creative sector, or often the work that is produced, a lot of the creative work, is about shifting things, challenging and intervening into existing systems. So connected to this, do you think that the role of the arts is to provoke, and that there should be people within organisations being given a voice to provoke, artists and creatives you are working with, and do that work? Or is it the role to build bridges and bring people on the journey? Elaine?  

I think both, Lena. I don't think they are independent. This is the beauty and the multiplicity of the industry and the sector that we work in. There are lots of different voices, and putting those two together is where we can find the positive tension to get a better outcome for our society.  

Some are better at being activists, and there are many more articulate people out there than me who know how to say things and cut through the red tape and really have a voice that I really admire, even if I might not agree with it.  

There are others that perhaps are a bit more like me, who maybe would like to think we have an ability to build bridges and find a way to be inclusive to all of those conversations. So I think both.  

Thanks, Elaine. Mindy, do you have anything to add?  

Definitely both. I think I would lead with, there is this unique opportunity as creatives and creators to transcend and to work on this challenge. How can we be both provocative, bring your unique perspective, and build a bridge? That would be my challenge to artists.  

I like that. A new provocation for a new work series.  

We have another question in the chat. Leaders in the arts or not-for-profit have a responsibility to change the circumstances and systems we are in, not strengthen them. The reality of arts history has forced so many of us to leave the industry.  

Totally agree. Tricky, very tricky. Especially post-COVID and during COVID, just the number of really, really talented people who left our sector because they had just had enough and it was all too hard. We need to change what we do.  

I think this is the role that the private sector has with government. I hope, and I know from speaking to those leaders at the Australian Council, there is a real interest to do it. But we absolutely can only strengthen it by changing it. Maybe the models, as Mindy alluded to, if we need to take inspiration from the area that Mindy has worked in around social impact and others, because there are very successful models out there and the arts could really learn from that.  

Yeah, I'm really interested in exploring Mindy's models as well for our sector. I think they will be really relevant.  

Can I just jump in there? I really feel the sadness around this, people leaving something so passionate because of the reality of it. Working in change, as I do, it is all about challenging systems. I think that is worth working on.  

It is not about perpetuating the system, just seeing another day, but really, how can we be part of changing the system? The system is actually made out of people, and it really starts with holding the people that we have in the system.  

We have to be innovative. I think we can be innovative to support our people, whether it is within the organisation, raise the emotional health, deal with the complexity, hold people through times of crisis. Also to work collaboratively maybe with the corporate sector, not just from a sponsorship perspective, through internships, so people in the arts have different types of training and mindsets they have developed to bring back to the sector to help change the system that we are currently in.  

Thank you so much. Thank you so much to both of you.  

We have about seven minutes left, and we will pop in another survey at the end so you can give us some feedback on the session, which we really value. I hope we can do these questions succinctly, which you have managed to do, both of you. So thank you.  

Elaine, previously we were talking about cultural safety. In the intersections of conflict and tension, we often talk about those things but we don't often talk about cultural safety. What is the role of cultural safety in these conversations?  

It's really up there at the top. What does it mean for cultural safety in today's world? It transcends, I think. We have to navigate that through lived experience, cultural heritage, where we are now, what our current identity is, what our religion is. There are so many components of it.  

The acceptance of someone being different and having a different opinion is, for me, the first point. We have to come into a room, and I think when you said, Lena, that you and I don't necessarily have to agree, we shouldn't agree, but we all want the same thing. To create that space means to say that we celebrate difference. As uncomfortable as it is for me, I want to embrace that because I will not grow as a person if I only see more of what I agree with.  

For me, that is where cultural safety is really important. We have to live and breathe it as leaders, as boards, with stakeholders, and in every minute of every conversation.  

Thanks so much, Elaine. Unless you want to add to that, Mindy, I have a different question to throw to you.  

I will just add that it is along the same lines, but it can be uncomfortable. It's about not denying lived experience of a different view, even though it may be in total opposition to your position. So I think it's about shared respect and shared meaning.  

My question, and maybe we won't be able to answer now, is about how you actually do that. What strategies would you employ? How do we have our opinions acknowledged and seen and still come together in unity, even when there are glaring differences, at a practical level? Maybe that is another conversation.  

Unless anyone has very quick thoughts on that. We acknowledge that it needs to happen, that we need to be able to bring our whole selves, to honour and respect each other's lived experience and identities. But how do you actually do it at a practical level, on a daily basis? That's the big question.  

Do either of you want to attempt something, or shall I just put that there as a provocation?  

I think it's a shared responsibility. As a leader, you have to make sure that the space is there, but you really need the rest of your colleagues to embrace that as well. Creating that environment can be tricky, but it will only work if everybody is on board.  

So it is about calling it and finding. There is no quick solution, but I think we all know, everyone who is on this at the moment would be able to think of an example when it feels really great.  

Yes. And sometimes in the space I've worked in, there is so much diversity that we have to do specific work to address that and not pretend that everyone is just going to get along easily, but work on it.  

Mindy, we have two minutes left. Do you have anything to add to that? And I need to do a wrap-up. Emerald, if you don't mind, could you please put the survey into the chat?   

I think it is supporting our people to embrace duality and discomfort. There is something more fundamental to that: how do we support people, just on a personal level, to really develop? I think this is an interesting time to be alive right now, and this is the opportunity to take it to a human development and personal evolution perspective. This is the work. I don't have any short answers to that, but I think we just have to give it a red-hot go.  

Thank you so much. Thank you, both of you, for being so wonderful to have a conversation with today, and for your amazing generosity and insights and sharing your vast experience.  

We have just included a link to the survey, because it's really important for us to get your feedback on the session. We have one final session left next month, which we hope you can join. As mentioned, you can catch up on the sessions on Creative Australia's website.  

Thank you so much again to our wonderful speakers, Mindy Leow and Elaine Chia. Thank you to Creative Australia for leading this project. A massive thank you and acknowledgement to our series producer. Thank you also to our Auslan interpreters, Rebecca and Jodie, and our AI captioners from AI-Media. Importantly, thank you to all of you for participating in this conversation. We hope you can join us for the next one in March.