Description
This assessment has three-parts. Click each of the items below to complete this assessment.
Part I: Systems and Constraints Analysis of an Organization
- Develop robust systems diagrams that capture the system behaviors and outcomes for your client’s organization. Include a 5-Whys “effect-cause-effect” analysis and a causal loop diagram (CLD) that identifies appropriate system constraints and delays and that also identifies the key system archetypes described in the case. (1 page for the 5-Whys diagram, 1 page for the CLD)
- Write a persuasive, prioritized description of your findings and recommendations that integrates the analyses you have performed. (3–4 pages)
Part II: Executive Summary
- Write a brief executive summary description of your prioritized findings and recommendations. (1 page)
Part III: Presentation of Recommendations
Create a presentation that lists your key findings (Slide 1) and relevant recommendations (Slide 2).
SP006 Assessment Preparation Guide
Bringing It All Together—The Consulting-Based Written Plan and Summary Documents
The SP006: Organizational Improvement Planning Competency has been designed to help you
integrate your thinking and exercise your systems and performance management skills, which
you’ve already completed in Competencies SP004 and SP005. The primary objectives of this
Competency are to see how well you can utilize your performance improvement analysis skills
and integrate them into three distinct communications platforms—each of which is targeted
toward senior leadership: (1) a persuasive consulting-based recommendations plan; (2) a
persuasive written executive summary of the plan; and, (3) a persuasive PowerPoint
recommendations summary.
You will be asked to review and select one of the comprehensive case studies provided in your
Assessment documents. You will be writing your plan and summary documents for the senior
leaders of your chosen organization, and they are your target audience. The case studies
available for you to choose from offer a wide range of analysis situation. Pick a case that looks
fun and interesting to you, and that will help you integrate and practice your systems thinking
and performance and constraint management skills.
You Are the Consultant
Think of yourself as a paid consultant. Perform a thoughtful systems analysis, then develop and
write an effective action plan, based on your analyses, that clearly explains what the
organization ought to do, how they should do it, and (most importantly) present a cogent
argument for why you believe your recommendations will improve the performance of the
organization.
Remember, your opinion doesn’t matter! Good systems analysis and diagnosis matters, backed
by evidence and effect-cause-effect reasoning and diagramming. It is important that you put
together a cogent, clear, and concise systems and constraints analysis that can help you explain
the root causes of the problems, and then write a reasonable and feasible action plan and
recommendations that can help solve the organizational problems.
To prepare for this Competency, please go back and review the resources and work you did in
Competencies SP004 and SP005, which are prerequisites. Review any feedback you received
while completing those Competencies, and be prepared to put your systems thinking and
constraint analysis skills back to work.
This is your time to show that you can integrate your technical Competencies within an
effective consulting-style set of deliverables.
1
Developing Your Plan
To develop your plan, first perform a comprehensive systems analysis, using the 5-whys and the
causal loop logic to develop the most robust systems diagram that you can (use archetype
identities, delays and +/- impact designators). These diagrams should include specific details
relevant to the organization/case that you chose. The diagrams and your plan (based on the
diagrams) should explain and diagnose the central issues/problems the case describes. Of
course, you should also offer reasoned, evidence-backed solutions to the problems in the body
of the plan!
Being “Analytic” in Your Plan
If you’ve reviewed the Assessment Rubric (and you should have by now), you will note that
nearly all of the major focus is on how you put together your “core argument” within the plan—
and then, how convincing that argument is. The core “argument” is critical to being both
analytical and persuasive.
However, the word “argument” may be confusing, and unfortunately it can have a negative
meaning. Unfortunately, it is the term used in logic to ask for a chain of reasoning that can
convince others of your point, so let’s use “convince.” You should focus all of your writing in the
Assessment to integrate your analysis story so that it is convincing to your senior leadership
audience.
Describing the “what,” “where,” “how much,” etc., is “descriptive writing” and is not convincing
in and of itself. For this Assessment, your writing and editing must be all about “convincing”
your reader about your story (why senior leaders should follow your recommendations and
action plan, and how it will work, etc.).
Convincing writing means you are trying to tie everything together to tell an integrated story
(core argument) that will convince others of the “how and why” logic. That is an “analytic”
perspective.
If you turn in your Assessment Plan with few or no “convincing/analytic” elements, then you
will not pass the Assessment—as the writing (for the plan, the executive summary, and the
presentation) should be about helping the reader understand “how” and “why” your
story/plan/action plan sticks together.
2
SP006: Organizational Improvement Planning
Assessment Guideline Resource
Writing Your Executive Summary of the Plan
Once you have written your organizational performance improvement plan (with supporting
systems thinking diagrams and analyses), it is time to write a powerful and polished executive
summary.
Typically an executive summary is the first thing your audience will read, and if they like what
they read, they may read your actual plan! Therefore, it is essential to be able to write a
concise, powerful summary. Your executive summary must focus like a laser beam on your core
set of major improvement recommendations, and discuss the “why” of your argument—
through cost/benefit and/or risk/rewards of your recommendations.
You must not take time early in the summary to “set up” the problem. Start with strong
recommendations then support them with the “big picture” analysis. The body of your analytic
plan is where you will then talk about the “how/when/where,” and provide much more detail.
Your summary should leave no major insight unsaid. Assume that senior leadership won’t read
your plan—so you must capture the essence and urgency in the summary (then they will read
your plan!)
Writing a good, analytically focused executive summary is some of the most difficult writing you
can master, so be sure to write and edit through at least three drafts.
Preparing an Effective “Executive Summary Style” PowerPoint Pitch
There are a couple of ways to think about the PowerPoint (PPT) version of your summary. You
could use the PPT to help you write your full executive summary (in which the PPT helps you
start your thinking), or you could “extract and polish” your written summary into a PPT format.
In either case, the logic of your persuasive argument should be the same, and the target
audience remains the same.
Think of it this way—if you started a meeting with your PPT presentation, it should hook the
audience to read the full executive summary, which should hook the audience to read your
entire recommendation plan.
3
Here are some “format” suggestions that can enhance the look and power of your
presentation:
•
Do:
o Use powerful, active verbs and thought-ideas (backed by images if you can).
o Use fonts and colors that are easy to read.
o Consider the presentation as the “teaser” to get folks to read your document. Make
it professional and interesting.
o Have fun with it!
•
Don’t:
o
o
o
o
o
Use simple black and white text with no graphics.
Use block-text/paragraphs or lots of words.
Use many levels of nested bullet-points.
Use cursive or other difficult to read fonts with colors that make it hard to read.
Assume your listener cares—make them care!
4
9 -5 1 2 -0 2 6
REV: MAY 5, 2015
ROHIT DESHPANDE
ALLEN S. GROSSMAN
RYAN JOHNSON
The American Repertory Theater
To expand the boundaries of theater.
— A.R.T. Mission Statement
In late September 2011, Diane Paulus, artistic director and CEO of the American Repertory
Theater (A.R.T.) since the 2008–2009 season, walked through the Loeb Drama Center at Harvard
University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as the company was wrapping up its latest big show, The
Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess. The A.R.T. was a not-for-profit regional theater company that was
affiliated, through financial support, teaching assignments, and physical space, with Harvard
University.
Founded in 1980, the A.R.T. had long been a beacon of new and challenging theater. Paulus, who
made her name directing edgy musical theater, brought new life to the A.R.T. She attracted media
coverage around an aesthetic that aimed to give the audience more ownership over the theater
experience, excited theatergoers by experimenting with new venues, and received critical recognition
for the breadth and range of the work she staged. Paulus’s approach, which stood in contrast to her
predecessors at the A.R.T., was initially controversial and created a schism between supporters and
detractors. The former felt it was revolutionizing theater, while detractors saw the approach as overly
commercial and cheap. However, many of the shows were hits at the box office, and Paulus was
confident that she could broaden audience demographics at the A.R.T. by delivering interesting,
exciting, and relevant content.
For years, the A.R.T. had relied heavily on a subscription-based model—the traditional not-forprofit theater model—and attracted older patrons willing to both subscribe and donate. These
patrons and their subscriptions provided the A.R.T. with cash up front, greater financial stability, and
lower dependence on individual show revenues. However, since the late 1990s, the A.R.T. had seen a
decline in subscribers and struggled to break even. Paulus’s approach, inspired by the mission of the
A.R.T.—to expand the boundaries of theater—included operating two unique segmented venues,
creating and presenting varied content that aimed to be both challenging and popular, and driving a
sales and marketing campaign focused on single-ticket buyers, memberships, and dynamic pricing.
This approach, which directly addressed the changing reality in regional theater, hastened a shift in
the A.R.T.’s business model and moved the A.R.T. toward a younger, often more economically
diverse demographic who were more likely to be single-ticket buyers. It was not at all clear that this
new “single-ticket-based” revenue model could compensate for the continued decline in subscriptions.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Professors Rohit Deshpande and Allen S. Grossman, and Research Associate Ryan Johnson, of the Global Research Group, prepared this case.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Senior Researcher Laura Winig of the Global Research Group. HBS cases are developed
solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or
ineffective management.
Copyright © 2011, 2015 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-5457685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators. This publication may not be
digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
512-026
The American Repertory Theater
Donald Ware, chairman of the A.R.T. board of trustees, pointed out, “One of the challenges we face in
the areas of programming and development is that our future depends on attracting a younger and
more diverse audience, but we don’t want to lose our older, longtime subscribers in the process.”
Early results showed some promise; the A.R.T. was closer to break-even than in previous years.
However, some questioned if the A.R.T. was beginning to look like a commercial theater, focused on
presenting theater that sold, rather than truly expanding boundaries. Despite the questioning, Paulus
remained committed to fulfilling her vision of the A.R.T. mission in order to solidify the A.R.T. as a
leading and financially stable not-for-profit regional theater.
Tough Times for Theater
By 2010, 60% of U.S. not-for-profit theaters were in the red; overall income had decreased 12% on
average since 2005 and covered 20.3% fewer expenses.1 From 2005 to 2010, show attendance had
dropped by 3%, while the number of performances rose 3% and expenses nearly 10%.2 Also alarming
was the drop in subscription income, which decreased 8.5%, with the number of subscribers falling
14%.3 Regional theaters depended on subscriptions to provide upfront capital, helping to offset risk
and make budgets and fundraising targets easier to estimate and reach. As subscriptions declined,
single-ticket purchases increased 7%. Many theaters stayed the course and sought to convert singleticket buyers to subscriptions through messaging and incentives. Others attempted to create flexible
subscriptions, a nod to the belief that single-ticket buyers were young and enthusiastic about theater
but were discerning and had specific projects and themes in mind. Other theaters started to market to
single-ticket buyers, accepting the trend as a “new reality” and attempting to compensate for the
variability and unpredictability of single-ticket purchases with volume. However, this approach was
more expensive; from 2004 to 2007, theaters targeting single-ticket buyers spent 22 cents on
marketing and advertising for every dollar of single-ticket income, compared to 15 cents for every
dollar of subscriber income.4
Additionally, theaters faced stiff competition from cheaper entertainment options such as movies
and small live music venues. The average theater ticket price hovered around $70, which stood in
stark contrast to $10 movie tickets, or $40 dollar tickets for a live music show. Paulus commented:
Why are we losing our audiences, and why aren’t new audiences coming to the theater? It
is common to explain these trends by pointing to the changing world outside the theater:
Video games and interactive digital technology have shortened attention spans, and have
therefore changed our audiences’ appetite for theater; how can we possibly compete, given the
multitude of entertainment choices available in our world? . . . I believe the responsibility lies
with the people who create theater. Could it be that as arts producers, we are failing to provide
a theatrical experience that values the audience’s engagement and empowerment? If we want
to truly broaden our penetration into the culture at large, we have to concentrate our attention
on the total arts experience for our audiences. 5
History of the A.R.T.
The A.R.T., founded by Robert Brustein in 1980, was one of the country’s most acclaimed resident
theaters; it had won Tony Awards, the Pulitzer Prize, the National Theater Conferences’ Outstanding
Achievement award, and numerous local prizes.6 Under Brustein’s tenure, reviews heralded the
A.R.T. as “the most successful, cosmopolitan, and ambitious repertory theater in present-day
America” (London Observer) and “one of the most vital influences on the U.S. stage in the last twenty
2
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
The American Repertory Theater
512-026
years” (International Herald Tribune).7 In 2003, it was named one of the top three regional theaters in
the country by Time magazine.8
By 2011, the A.R.T. had presented more than 200 productions, over half of which were premieres
of new plays, translations, and adaptations, and had performed in 21 cities in 16 countries.9 Through
its affiliation with Harvard University, the A.R.T. artistic staff taught undergraduate theater classes
and the A.R.T. housed the Institute for Advanced Theater Training, offering graduate-level training
in acting, dramaturgy, and voice and an M.F.A. degree from the Moscow Art Theater School. 10
In 2011, the A.R.T. consisted of two venues, the Loeb Drama Center and OBERON, named after
the king of the fairies in William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The Loeb’s 530-seat
theater was the venue for most A.R.T. productions, typically hosting an average of four to six shows
per season, with 25 to 40 performances of each show. The Loeb had a full liquor license and
concessions could be purchased before the show and during intermissions. OBERON was a club
theater with a 300-person capacity, limited seating, and flexible stage space. Patrons could visit its bar
as well as mingle, dance, and party throughout the club during shows. The A.R.T. maintained two
performances a week of The Donkey Show and produced two subscription productions at OBERON. In
addition to season programming, the A.R.T. curated the use of the space for other local and emerging
arts groups. OBERON made the A.R.T one of the first theaters in the country with a club theater as its
second stage. (See Exhibit 1 for seating charts.)
For the upcoming 2011–2012 season, the A.R.T. had 1,800 subscribers. Subscriptions cost $200–
$555 and gave subscribers access to all shows. The not-for-profit aimed to break even, and received
significant financial and physical space support from Harvard University. (See Exhibit 2 for the
A.R.T.’s financials.)
Competition for the A.R.T. included other theater companies in Boston such as ArtsEmerson, the
Huntington, New Repertory Theater, and Actors’ Shakespeare Project. Traditional regional theaters
around the country, such as the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Goodman Theater in
Chicago, Illinois, and the Yale Repertory Theater in New Haven, Connecticut, competed for product
and national awards and recognition.
Evolution of the A.R.T.’s Directorship
The A.R.T. had only three artistic directors in its history, founder Robert Brustein (1980–2002),
Robert Woodruff (2002–2007), and Diane Paulus (since 2008). Brustein’s aesthetic was regarded as a
fearless and experimental take on classics.11 He relied on a steady company of actors to establish the
A.R.T. as a hub for avant-garde works that challenged traditional notions of theater and original
interpretations of classic plays. When he retired, few doubted Brustein’s legacy of staging unique,
audacious theater and reimagining and contemporizing classics, helping to start the careers of many
controversial writers and directors and helping to build the foundation for not-for-profit repertory
theaters around the country.
In 2002, as his replacement Robert Woodruff was announced, Brustein described him as “one of
the most imaginative and visionary directors in the world.” 12 At the A.R.T., Woodruff presented
challenging works that often defied interpretation and mystified audiences. Expenses rose and ticket
sales fell. During his tenure the A.R.T. began to draw on its endowment more than usual to cover
costs.13 As Woodruff’s contract expired, the media reported that Harvard University decided not to
renew Woodruff’s contract based on financial concerns.
3
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
512-026
The American Repertory Theater
Woodruff defenders, including former actors and board members, decried the decision. “The
responsibility of Robert Woodruff was to be creative and a genius, and that’s what he did,” argued
one advisory board member.14 Another board member posited that things were changing in theater:
“What is the new paradigm? There is nobody at an administrative level searching that out. It’s too
much to ask a Robert Woodruff to be stepping out of his creative zone.” 15 In 2008, after a search to
replace Woodruff that took well over a year, a search committee from Harvard University picked
Diane Paulus, a widely acclaimed theater and opera director, as the A.R.T.’s new artistic director.
Diane Paulus
After graduating from Harvard College in 1988, Paulus moved to New York City and decided to
pursue directing. In 1993, Paulus, along with her future husband, Randy Weiner, cofounded Project
400, a small theater troupe that gained notoriety for producing unique, populist musical theater.16
In 1999, Paulus and Weiner began production on The Donkey Show, a disco-music-inspired version
of Shakespeare’s play A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The show was performed at a club theater where
drinks were served throughout the show, disco music blared, and cast members mingled with the
audience before the show. Paulus remarked, “Everybody thinks theater has to be where you go
inside a certain kind of architecture where you sit in a chair that’s bolted to the floor and you look at
a stage. . . . That is a very small piece of theater history. . . . Theater was festival, theater was
nightclubs; I really believe rock concerts and the way certain rock stars commune with an audience is
closer to what the Greek [theater] festivals were like.”17
In 2007, after stints directing Mozart and Monteverdi operas and the success of The Donkey Show,
which had run continually since 1999 in various venues, Paulus directed a revival of the musical Hair,
an “American Tribal Love Rock Musical,” on its 40th anniversary. The revival was first staged by the
Public Theater at Central Park’s Delacorte Theater and later moved to Broadway, London’s West
End, and a national tour. Paulus’s version of Hair was showered with praise for bringing the spirit of
the times back to the stage: it won both a Tony Award and a Drama Desk Award for best revival of a
musical, and Paulus’s standing as a leading director was raised. (See Exhibit 3 for biography of
Paulus’s career before the A.R.T.)
Paulus and the A.R.T.
Named artistic director in 2008, Paulus was tasked with revitalizing the A.R.T.18 Paulus was
thrilled: “I took the job at the A.R.T. because its mission is ‘to expand the boundaries of theater.’ I can
throw my blood, sweat and tears into that mission, because that’s exactly what I’ve been doing all my
life.”19 Paulus spent one year listening to constituencies and studying before making big changes at
the A.R.T., including transforming the Zero Arrow Theater, located at the other end of Harvard
Square from the Loeb, into a club theater and renaming it OBERON. She recalled, “I spent a year
developing my ideas and meeting audiences and talking to people about revitalizing the vibrancy of
the theater.”20
Some found the match surprising; a New York Times critic said that “the club kid got the Harvard
job”21 and described Paulus’s works as “Generation MTV in their sensory overload, often with
compact running times and orgiastically esoteric in their sourcing, these productions could take the
starch out of the most tightly stuffed J. Press shirt.” 22 While Paulus’s strong focus on musical theater
and the inclusion of the audience in the theatrical experience had brought her high critical acclaim in
the past, she explained her aesthetic goals at the A.R.T.: “What I am trying to do is create challenging,
4
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
The American Repertory Theater
512-026
avant-garde theater that is also popular. I really don’t believe these need to be mutually exclusive.”
As part of this effort, the A.R.T. rolled out a new branding initiative, “Experience the A.R.T.” Paulus
explained:
“Experience the A.R.T.” seeks to revolutionize the theater experience through a sustained
commitment to empowering the audience. This audience-driven vision will completely
transform the way we develop, program, produce and contextualize our work. A new
allocation of A.R.T. resources will give equal importance to the social aspects of theater and the
potential for a full theater experience, including interaction and engagement before, during
and after the production. I believe that if theater is to remain a vital art form, it must give
audiences a voice, a sense of ownership and a feeling of importance in the theatrical event. 23
First Season
As the 2009–2010 season opened, Paulus was explicit about moving the A.R.T. aesthetic toward
“populist theater with integrity” in an attempt to bring in a new demographic and expose more
people to theater. 24 “My belief is that the theater is more than just the play on the stage,” Paulus said.
“I believe very much in the theatrical event and how that can be newly defined.”
Paulus divided her first season into three festivals, each organized around a theme. The first was
“Shakespeare Exploded!” which included The Donkey Show (performed at OBERON); Best of Both
Worlds, an R&B and gospel musical inspired by Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale; and Sleep No More, a
recasting of Shakespeare’s Macbeth performed at the Old Lincoln School in Brookline, in which the
audience could roam from scene to scene, each in a different room. The second festival, “America:
Boom, Bust and Baseball,” featured Gatz, a theatrical adaptation of novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The
Great Gatsby; Clifford Odets’s Paradise Lost; and Johnny Baseball, a world premiere musical by Robert
Reale, Willie Reale, and Richard Dresser about the Boston Red Sox and the integration of AfricanAmericans into baseball. The final festival, “Emerging America,” a collaboration between Boston’s
Institute of Contemporary Art and Huntington Theater Company, introduced new artists and
works.25
In Paulus’s first season, attendance nearly doubled from the previous year.26 The theater, which
had a $10.9 million operating budget, expected to almost break even, a significant achievement in the
theatrical arena where costs often exceeded direct theater revenues and sustainability relied on other
funding sources such as gifts and endowments. The A.R.T. received a $1 million grant for artistic
initiatives from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and Harvard University doubled its annual
financial support to $2 million.27
Paulus’s supporters hailed her as a revolutionary, a director breaking down barriers and
reinventing theater. Oskar Eustis, the artistic director at New York’s Public Theater, commented: “She
is engaging seriously with the classics, but she’s figuring out ways to do them that reverberate in the
exact historical moment we’re in right now. She’s also extremely interested in theatrical event, and
thinking about social transactions and using those ideas to create a genuinely experimental theater
that is not a reproduction of what anybody else is doing. It’s not working within any received
tradition; it’s taking traditions and breaking and altering them. 28” Internally, an A.R.T. staff member
reflected, “I have watched audiences in this building for 12 years. I watched them disappear and I
watched them reappear. This year I watched people jump with joy at the end of shows.” 29
However, her detractors felt that Paulus’s aesthetic was commercial, aimed solely at selling tickets
and making headlines, and that the A.R.T. had lost sight of its mission, which they interpreted as a
need to push culture forward by staging serious, often esoteric plays, regardless of box-office sales.30
5
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
512-026
The American Repertory Theater
Two A.R.T. board members who resigned after Paulus’s first season expressed their opinions in a
letter to Paulus: “The problem as we see it is that you are destroying the heritage of the A.R.T. by
making it into something completely different—a place to preview musicals heading for Broadway,
musicals in general, and sensory saturated productions generating visceral experiences that often
include pandering to sexual appetites.”31 One former A.R.T actor said, “Shakespeare serves The
Donkey Show as an effective marketing tool, but the process is not adaptation. It is not reinvention. It
is, simply and precisely, exploitation. The resulting shows were popular, fun, and in one case visually
stunning, but they contained none of the power, intellect, and beauty of Shakespeare. They didn’t
need to. That’s not how they seek to impact the audience.”32 Paulus felt that such criticisms missed
the point: “I am creating visceral experiences, challenging yet relevant theater that creates a renewed
feeling of involvement, engagement, and ownership for the audience.”
Brustein focused his criticism on the departure of longtime staff, including the executive director,
general manager, and comptroller, saying, “This theatre was based on the idea of a collective
company, and it’s no longer the theatre it was without that company. While Diane has every right to
choose her own staff, I have been very upset by the abrupt way in which so many loyal and
dedicated people have departed.”33 However, in the 1990s under Brustein and then Woodruff, the
A.R.T. ensemble had been reduced to just five actors, who were given consistent work but were not
salaried, a departure from a true repertory theater.34 Additionally, Brustein recognized Paulus’s
artistic ability and range: “Diane has been doing some remarkable things at the A.R.T., and has
managed to attract a whole new generation of spectators, primarily through the use of music . . . in
her approach to classical plays and new work. The most interesting thing about Diane’s work is its
unpredictability. A single season can be a cornucopia.”35
Paulus was cognizant of her polarizing role, and yet she remained confident in her work and
vision. “I knew that in my first season I couldn’t just drop a stone in the ocean,” she explained. “I had
to drop a boulder to wake people up about the A.R.T. We’ve done that, and now we have audiences
again who want cutting-edge work, who want to be challenged, but who also won’t be falling asleep
at the theater.”36
Second Season
At the start of her second season at the A.R.T., Paulus seemed encouraged by the controversy.
“For me it’s an absolute continuation of the history of the A.R.T.,” she noted. “The most gratifying
comments I hear are from people who have been supporting this theater for years, and they say to
me, ‘You may be doing different things, but that’s exactly what Bob Brustein was doing in the ’80s
and the ’90s at the A.R.T.—leading us into new territory.’” She hired two new executives: Diane
Borger as producer and Anna Fitzloff as director of marketing and communications. (See Exhibit 4
for short bios of key staff.) Paulus said, “You know, when you take over a theater, you can sort of
gingerly, over many years, turn the ship in a different direction. But I guess that’s not my nature. I
really felt that I was going to have to deliver and show the audience at A.R.T. what I meant. So I went
pretty deep pretty fast.”37
Highlights from her second season included continuing The Donkey Show; the box office hit Cabaret
by John Van Druten and Christopher Isherwood; Alice vs. Wonderland, Brendan Shea’s take on Lewis
Carroll’s original; The Blue Flower, a world premiere musical by Jim and Ruth Bauer; D.W. Jacobs’s
one-man show, R. Buckminster Fuller: The History (and Mystery) of the Universe; a new adaptation of
Sophocles’ Ajax; and a world premiere rock-musical version of Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound, with
script and lyrics by Steven Sater and music by Serj Tankian, the Grammy award-winning lead singer
6
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
The American Repertory Theater
512-026
of System of a Down; and Death and The Powers: The Robot’s Opera, composed by Tod Machover,
libretto by Robert Pinsky, and story by Robert Pinsky and Randy Weiner.38
Prometheus Bound, which showed at OBERON, cast the character Prometheus as the first prisoner
of conscience. The A.R.T., in partnership with Amnesty International, dedicated the performances to
eight “Amnesty actions” prisoners of conscience and individuals at risk who were being silenced by
their governments. The effort related a Greek tragedy to current human rights violations and brought
in a new audience to OBERON. The Boston Globe called Prometheus Bound “mind-numbingly loud,”
and the Boston Herald described it as a “highly entertaining ride” that brought a unique demographic
to the theater.39 Paulus commented, “That audience does not look like the typical A.R.T audience—
there’s no question about it. It looks like a rock club, people 30 and younger. There are a lot of men in
the audience, which is not your typical demographic for the theater. We are uncovering the next
audience
Bringing It All Together—The Consulting-Based Written Plan and Summary Documents
The SP006: Organizational Improvement Planning Competency has been designed to help you
integrate your thinking and exercise your systems and performance management skills, which
you’ve already completed in Competencies SP004 and SP005. The primary objectives of this
Competency are to see how well you can utilize your performance improvement analysis skills
and integrate them into three distinct communications platforms—each of which is targeted
toward senior leadership: (1) a persuasive consulting-based recommendations plan; (2) a
persuasive written executive summary of the plan; and, (3) a persuasive PowerPoint
recommendations summary.
You will be asked to review and select one of the comprehensive case studies provided in your
Assessment documents. You will be writing your plan and summary documents for the senior
leaders of your chosen organization, and they are your target audience. The case studies
available for you to choose from offer a wide range of analysis situation. Pick a case that looks
fun and interesting to you, and that will help you integrate and practice your systems thinking
and performance and constraint management skills.
You Are the Consultant
Think of yourself as a paid consultant. Perform a thoughtful systems analysis, then develop and
write an effective action plan, based on your analyses, that clearly explains what the
organization ought to do, how they should do it, and (most importantly) present a cogent
argument for why you believe your recommendations will improve the performance of the
organization.
Remember, your opinion doesn’t matter! Good systems analysis and diagnosis matters, backed
by evidence and effect-cause-effect reasoning and diagramming. It is important that you put
together a cogent, clear, and concise systems and constraints analysis that can help you explain
the root causes of the problems, and then write a reasonable and feasible action plan and
recommendations that can help solve the organizational problems.
To prepare for this Competency, please go back and review the resources and work you did in
Competencies SP004 and SP005, which are prerequisites. Review any feedback you received
while completing those Competencies, and be prepared to put your systems thinking and
constraint analysis skills back to work.
This is your time to show that you can integrate your technical Competencies within an
effective consulting-style set of deliverables.
1
Developing Your Plan
To develop your plan, first perform a comprehensive systems analysis, using the 5-whys and the
causal loop logic to develop the most robust systems diagram that you can (use archetype
identities, delays and +/- impact designators). These diagrams should include specific details
relevant to the organization/case that you chose. The diagrams and your plan (based on the
diagrams) should explain and diagnose the central issues/problems the case describes. Of
course, you should also offer reasoned, evidence-backed solutions to the problems in the body
of the plan!
Being “Analytic” in Your Plan
If you’ve reviewed the Assessment Rubric (and you should have by now), you will note that
nearly all of the major focus is on how you put together your “core argument” within the plan—
and then, how convincing that argument is. The core “argument” is critical to being both
analytical and persuasive.
However, the word “argument” may be confusing, and unfortunately it can have a negative
meaning. Unfortunately, it is the term used in logic to ask for a chain of reasoning that can
convince others of your point, so let’s use “convince.” You should focus all of your writing in the
Assessment to integrate your analysis story so that it is convincing to your senior leadership
audience.
Describing the “what,” “where,” “how much,” etc., is “descriptive writing” and is not convincing
in and of itself. For this Assessment, your writing and editing must be all about “convincing”
your reader about your story (why senior leaders should follow your recommendations and
action plan, and how it will work, etc.).
Convincing writing means you are trying to tie everything together to tell an integrated story
(core argument) that will convince others of the “how and why” logic. That is an “analytic”
perspective.
If you turn in your Assessment Plan with few or no “convincing/analytic” elements, then you
will not pass the Assessment—as the writing (for the plan, the executive summary, and the
presentation) should be about helping the reader understand “how” and “why” your
story/plan/action plan sticks together.
2
SP006: Organizational Improvement Planning
Assessment Guideline Resource
Writing Your Executive Summary of the Plan
Once you have written your organizational performance improvement plan (with supporting
systems thinking diagrams and analyses), it is time to write a powerful and polished executive
summary.
Typically an executive summary is the first thing your audience will read, and if they like what
they read, they may read your actual plan! Therefore, it is essential to be able to write a
concise, powerful summary. Your executive summary must focus like a laser beam on your core
set of major improvement recommendations, and discuss the “why” of your argument—
through cost/benefit and/or risk/rewards of your recommendations.
You must not take time early in the summary to “set up” the problem. Start with strong
recommendations then support them with the “big picture” analysis. The body of your analytic
plan is where you will then talk about the “how/when/where,” and provide much more detail.
Your summary should leave no major insight unsaid. Assume that senior leadership won’t read
your plan—so you must capture the essence and urgency in the summary (then they will read
your plan!)
Writing a good, analytically focused executive summary is some of the most difficult writing you
can master, so be sure to write and edit through at least three drafts.
Preparing an Effective “Executive Summary Style” PowerPoint Pitch
There are a couple of ways to think about the PowerPoint (PPT) version of your summary. You
could use the PPT to help you write your full executive summary (in which the PPT helps you
start your thinking), or you could “extract and polish” your written summary into a PPT format.
In either case, the logic of your persuasive argument should be the same, and the target
audience remains the same.
Think of it this way—if you started a meeting with your PPT presentation, it should hook the
audience to read the full executive summary, which should hook the audience to read your
entire recommendation plan.
3
Here are some “format” suggestions that can enhance the look and power of your
presentation:
•
Do:
o Use powerful, active verbs and thought-ideas (backed by images if you can).
o Use fonts and colors that are easy to read.
o Consider the presentation as the “teaser” to get folks to read your document. Make
it professional and interesting.
o Have fun with it!
•
Don’t:
o
o
o
o
o
Use simple black and white text with no graphics.
Use block-text/paragraphs or lots of words.
Use many levels of nested bullet-points.
Use cursive or other difficult to read fonts with colors that make it hard to read.
Assume your listener cares—make them care!
4
9 -5 1 2 -0 2 6
REV: MAY 5, 2015
ROHIT DESHPANDE
ALLEN S. GROSSMAN
RYAN JOHNSON
The American Repertory Theater
To expand the boundaries of theater.
— A.R.T. Mission Statement
In late September 2011, Diane Paulus, artistic director and CEO of the American Repertory
Theater (A.R.T.) since the 2008–2009 season, walked through the Loeb Drama Center at Harvard
University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as the company was wrapping up its latest big show, The
Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess. The A.R.T. was a not-for-profit regional theater company that was
affiliated, through financial support, teaching assignments, and physical space, with Harvard
University.
Founded in 1980, the A.R.T. had long been a beacon of new and challenging theater. Paulus, who
made her name directing edgy musical theater, brought new life to the A.R.T. She attracted media
coverage around an aesthetic that aimed to give the audience more ownership over the theater
experience, excited theatergoers by experimenting with new venues, and received critical recognition
for the breadth and range of the work she staged. Paulus’s approach, which stood in contrast to her
predecessors at the A.R.T., was initially controversial and created a schism between supporters and
detractors. The former felt it was revolutionizing theater, while detractors saw the approach as overly
commercial and cheap. However, many of the shows were hits at the box office, and Paulus was
confident that she could broaden audience demographics at the A.R.T. by delivering interesting,
exciting, and relevant content.
For years, the A.R.T. had relied heavily on a subscription-based model—the traditional not-forprofit theater model—and attracted older patrons willing to both subscribe and donate. These
patrons and their subscriptions provided the A.R.T. with cash up front, greater financial stability, and
lower dependence on individual show revenues. However, since the late 1990s, the A.R.T. had seen a
decline in subscribers and struggled to break even. Paulus’s approach, inspired by the mission of the
A.R.T.—to expand the boundaries of theater—included operating two unique segmented venues,
creating and presenting varied content that aimed to be both challenging and popular, and driving a
sales and marketing campaign focused on single-ticket buyers, memberships, and dynamic pricing.
This approach, which directly addressed the changing reality in regional theater, hastened a shift in
the A.R.T.’s business model and moved the A.R.T. toward a younger, often more economically
diverse demographic who were more likely to be single-ticket buyers. It was not at all clear that this
new “single-ticket-based” revenue model could compensate for the continued decline in subscriptions.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Professors Rohit Deshpande and Allen S. Grossman, and Research Associate Ryan Johnson, of the Global Research Group, prepared this case.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Senior Researcher Laura Winig of the Global Research Group. HBS cases are developed
solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or
ineffective management.
Copyright © 2011, 2015 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-5457685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators. This publication may not be
digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
512-026
The American Repertory Theater
Donald Ware, chairman of the A.R.T. board of trustees, pointed out, “One of the challenges we face in
the areas of programming and development is that our future depends on attracting a younger and
more diverse audience, but we don’t want to lose our older, longtime subscribers in the process.”
Early results showed some promise; the A.R.T. was closer to break-even than in previous years.
However, some questioned if the A.R.T. was beginning to look like a commercial theater, focused on
presenting theater that sold, rather than truly expanding boundaries. Despite the questioning, Paulus
remained committed to fulfilling her vision of the A.R.T. mission in order to solidify the A.R.T. as a
leading and financially stable not-for-profit regional theater.
Tough Times for Theater
By 2010, 60% of U.S. not-for-profit theaters were in the red; overall income had decreased 12% on
average since 2005 and covered 20.3% fewer expenses.1 From 2005 to 2010, show attendance had
dropped by 3%, while the number of performances rose 3% and expenses nearly 10%.2 Also alarming
was the drop in subscription income, which decreased 8.5%, with the number of subscribers falling
14%.3 Regional theaters depended on subscriptions to provide upfront capital, helping to offset risk
and make budgets and fundraising targets easier to estimate and reach. As subscriptions declined,
single-ticket purchases increased 7%. Many theaters stayed the course and sought to convert singleticket buyers to subscriptions through messaging and incentives. Others attempted to create flexible
subscriptions, a nod to the belief that single-ticket buyers were young and enthusiastic about theater
but were discerning and had specific projects and themes in mind. Other theaters started to market to
single-ticket buyers, accepting the trend as a “new reality” and attempting to compensate for the
variability and unpredictability of single-ticket purchases with volume. However, this approach was
more expensive; from 2004 to 2007, theaters targeting single-ticket buyers spent 22 cents on
marketing and advertising for every dollar of single-ticket income, compared to 15 cents for every
dollar of subscriber income.4
Additionally, theaters faced stiff competition from cheaper entertainment options such as movies
and small live music venues. The average theater ticket price hovered around $70, which stood in
stark contrast to $10 movie tickets, or $40 dollar tickets for a live music show. Paulus commented:
Why are we losing our audiences, and why aren’t new audiences coming to the theater? It
is common to explain these trends by pointing to the changing world outside the theater:
Video games and interactive digital technology have shortened attention spans, and have
therefore changed our audiences’ appetite for theater; how can we possibly compete, given the
multitude of entertainment choices available in our world? . . . I believe the responsibility lies
with the people who create theater. Could it be that as arts producers, we are failing to provide
a theatrical experience that values the audience’s engagement and empowerment? If we want
to truly broaden our penetration into the culture at large, we have to concentrate our attention
on the total arts experience for our audiences. 5
History of the A.R.T.
The A.R.T., founded by Robert Brustein in 1980, was one of the country’s most acclaimed resident
theaters; it had won Tony Awards, the Pulitzer Prize, the National Theater Conferences’ Outstanding
Achievement award, and numerous local prizes.6 Under Brustein’s tenure, reviews heralded the
A.R.T. as “the most successful, cosmopolitan, and ambitious repertory theater in present-day
America” (London Observer) and “one of the most vital influences on the U.S. stage in the last twenty
2
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
The American Repertory Theater
512-026
years” (International Herald Tribune).7 In 2003, it was named one of the top three regional theaters in
the country by Time magazine.8
By 2011, the A.R.T. had presented more than 200 productions, over half of which were premieres
of new plays, translations, and adaptations, and had performed in 21 cities in 16 countries.9 Through
its affiliation with Harvard University, the A.R.T. artistic staff taught undergraduate theater classes
and the A.R.T. housed the Institute for Advanced Theater Training, offering graduate-level training
in acting, dramaturgy, and voice and an M.F.A. degree from the Moscow Art Theater School. 10
In 2011, the A.R.T. consisted of two venues, the Loeb Drama Center and OBERON, named after
the king of the fairies in William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The Loeb’s 530-seat
theater was the venue for most A.R.T. productions, typically hosting an average of four to six shows
per season, with 25 to 40 performances of each show. The Loeb had a full liquor license and
concessions could be purchased before the show and during intermissions. OBERON was a club
theater with a 300-person capacity, limited seating, and flexible stage space. Patrons could visit its bar
as well as mingle, dance, and party throughout the club during shows. The A.R.T. maintained two
performances a week of The Donkey Show and produced two subscription productions at OBERON. In
addition to season programming, the A.R.T. curated the use of the space for other local and emerging
arts groups. OBERON made the A.R.T one of the first theaters in the country with a club theater as its
second stage. (See Exhibit 1 for seating charts.)
For the upcoming 2011–2012 season, the A.R.T. had 1,800 subscribers. Subscriptions cost $200–
$555 and gave subscribers access to all shows. The not-for-profit aimed to break even, and received
significant financial and physical space support from Harvard University. (See Exhibit 2 for the
A.R.T.’s financials.)
Competition for the A.R.T. included other theater companies in Boston such as ArtsEmerson, the
Huntington, New Repertory Theater, and Actors’ Shakespeare Project. Traditional regional theaters
around the country, such as the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Goodman Theater in
Chicago, Illinois, and the Yale Repertory Theater in New Haven, Connecticut, competed for product
and national awards and recognition.
Evolution of the A.R.T.’s Directorship
The A.R.T. had only three artistic directors in its history, founder Robert Brustein (1980–2002),
Robert Woodruff (2002–2007), and Diane Paulus (since 2008). Brustein’s aesthetic was regarded as a
fearless and experimental take on classics.11 He relied on a steady company of actors to establish the
A.R.T. as a hub for avant-garde works that challenged traditional notions of theater and original
interpretations of classic plays. When he retired, few doubted Brustein’s legacy of staging unique,
audacious theater and reimagining and contemporizing classics, helping to start the careers of many
controversial writers and directors and helping to build the foundation for not-for-profit repertory
theaters around the country.
In 2002, as his replacement Robert Woodruff was announced, Brustein described him as “one of
the most imaginative and visionary directors in the world.” 12 At the A.R.T., Woodruff presented
challenging works that often defied interpretation and mystified audiences. Expenses rose and ticket
sales fell. During his tenure the A.R.T. began to draw on its endowment more than usual to cover
costs.13 As Woodruff’s contract expired, the media reported that Harvard University decided not to
renew Woodruff’s contract based on financial concerns.
3
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
512-026
The American Repertory Theater
Woodruff defenders, including former actors and board members, decried the decision. “The
responsibility of Robert Woodruff was to be creative and a genius, and that’s what he did,” argued
one advisory board member.14 Another board member posited that things were changing in theater:
“What is the new paradigm? There is nobody at an administrative level searching that out. It’s too
much to ask a Robert Woodruff to be stepping out of his creative zone.” 15 In 2008, after a search to
replace Woodruff that took well over a year, a search committee from Harvard University picked
Diane Paulus, a widely acclaimed theater and opera director, as the A.R.T.’s new artistic director.
Diane Paulus
After graduating from Harvard College in 1988, Paulus moved to New York City and decided to
pursue directing. In 1993, Paulus, along with her future husband, Randy Weiner, cofounded Project
400, a small theater troupe that gained notoriety for producing unique, populist musical theater.16
In 1999, Paulus and Weiner began production on The Donkey Show, a disco-music-inspired version
of Shakespeare’s play A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The show was performed at a club theater where
drinks were served throughout the show, disco music blared, and cast members mingled with the
audience before the show. Paulus remarked, “Everybody thinks theater has to be where you go
inside a certain kind of architecture where you sit in a chair that’s bolted to the floor and you look at
a stage. . . . That is a very small piece of theater history. . . . Theater was festival, theater was
nightclubs; I really believe rock concerts and the way certain rock stars commune with an audience is
closer to what the Greek [theater] festivals were like.”17
In 2007, after stints directing Mozart and Monteverdi operas and the success of The Donkey Show,
which had run continually since 1999 in various venues, Paulus directed a revival of the musical Hair,
an “American Tribal Love Rock Musical,” on its 40th anniversary. The revival was first staged by the
Public Theater at Central Park’s Delacorte Theater and later moved to Broadway, London’s West
End, and a national tour. Paulus’s version of Hair was showered with praise for bringing the spirit of
the times back to the stage: it won both a Tony Award and a Drama Desk Award for best revival of a
musical, and Paulus’s standing as a leading director was raised. (See Exhibit 3 for biography of
Paulus’s career before the A.R.T.)
Paulus and the A.R.T.
Named artistic director in 2008, Paulus was tasked with revitalizing the A.R.T.18 Paulus was
thrilled: “I took the job at the A.R.T. because its mission is ‘to expand the boundaries of theater.’ I can
throw my blood, sweat and tears into that mission, because that’s exactly what I’ve been doing all my
life.”19 Paulus spent one year listening to constituencies and studying before making big changes at
the A.R.T., including transforming the Zero Arrow Theater, located at the other end of Harvard
Square from the Loeb, into a club theater and renaming it OBERON. She recalled, “I spent a year
developing my ideas and meeting audiences and talking to people about revitalizing the vibrancy of
the theater.”20
Some found the match surprising; a New York Times critic said that “the club kid got the Harvard
job”21 and described Paulus’s works as “Generation MTV in their sensory overload, often with
compact running times and orgiastically esoteric in their sourcing, these productions could take the
starch out of the most tightly stuffed J. Press shirt.” 22 While Paulus’s strong focus on musical theater
and the inclusion of the audience in the theatrical experience had brought her high critical acclaim in
the past, she explained her aesthetic goals at the A.R.T.: “What I am trying to do is create challenging,
4
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
The American Repertory Theater
512-026
avant-garde theater that is also popular. I really don’t believe these need to be mutually exclusive.”
As part of this effort, the A.R.T. rolled out a new branding initiative, “Experience the A.R.T.” Paulus
explained:
“Experience the A.R.T.” seeks to revolutionize the theater experience through a sustained
commitment to empowering the audience. This audience-driven vision will completely
transform the way we develop, program, produce and contextualize our work. A new
allocation of A.R.T. resources will give equal importance to the social aspects of theater and the
potential for a full theater experience, including interaction and engagement before, during
and after the production. I believe that if theater is to remain a vital art form, it must give
audiences a voice, a sense of ownership and a feeling of importance in the theatrical event. 23
First Season
As the 2009–2010 season opened, Paulus was explicit about moving the A.R.T. aesthetic toward
“populist theater with integrity” in an attempt to bring in a new demographic and expose more
people to theater. 24 “My belief is that the theater is more than just the play on the stage,” Paulus said.
“I believe very much in the theatrical event and how that can be newly defined.”
Paulus divided her first season into three festivals, each organized around a theme. The first was
“Shakespeare Exploded!” which included The Donkey Show (performed at OBERON); Best of Both
Worlds, an R&B and gospel musical inspired by Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale; and Sleep No More, a
recasting of Shakespeare’s Macbeth performed at the Old Lincoln School in Brookline, in which the
audience could roam from scene to scene, each in a different room. The second festival, “America:
Boom, Bust and Baseball,” featured Gatz, a theatrical adaptation of novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The
Great Gatsby; Clifford Odets’s Paradise Lost; and Johnny Baseball, a world premiere musical by Robert
Reale, Willie Reale, and Richard Dresser about the Boston Red Sox and the integration of AfricanAmericans into baseball. The final festival, “Emerging America,” a collaboration between Boston’s
Institute of Contemporary Art and Huntington Theater Company, introduced new artists and
works.25
In Paulus’s first season, attendance nearly doubled from the previous year.26 The theater, which
had a $10.9 million operating budget, expected to almost break even, a significant achievement in the
theatrical arena where costs often exceeded direct theater revenues and sustainability relied on other
funding sources such as gifts and endowments. The A.R.T. received a $1 million grant for artistic
initiatives from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and Harvard University doubled its annual
financial support to $2 million.27
Paulus’s supporters hailed her as a revolutionary, a director breaking down barriers and
reinventing theater. Oskar Eustis, the artistic director at New York’s Public Theater, commented: “She
is engaging seriously with the classics, but she’s figuring out ways to do them that reverberate in the
exact historical moment we’re in right now. She’s also extremely interested in theatrical event, and
thinking about social transactions and using those ideas to create a genuinely experimental theater
that is not a reproduction of what anybody else is doing. It’s not working within any received
tradition; it’s taking traditions and breaking and altering them. 28” Internally, an A.R.T. staff member
reflected, “I have watched audiences in this building for 12 years. I watched them disappear and I
watched them reappear. This year I watched people jump with joy at the end of shows.” 29
However, her detractors felt that Paulus’s aesthetic was commercial, aimed solely at selling tickets
and making headlines, and that the A.R.T. had lost sight of its mission, which they interpreted as a
need to push culture forward by staging serious, often esoteric plays, regardless of box-office sales.30
5
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
512-026
The American Repertory Theater
Two A.R.T. board members who resigned after Paulus’s first season expressed their opinions in a
letter to Paulus: “The problem as we see it is that you are destroying the heritage of the A.R.T. by
making it into something completely different—a place to preview musicals heading for Broadway,
musicals in general, and sensory saturated productions generating visceral experiences that often
include pandering to sexual appetites.”31 One former A.R.T actor said, “Shakespeare serves The
Donkey Show as an effective marketing tool, but the process is not adaptation. It is not reinvention. It
is, simply and precisely, exploitation. The resulting shows were popular, fun, and in one case visually
stunning, but they contained none of the power, intellect, and beauty of Shakespeare. They didn’t
need to. That’s not how they seek to impact the audience.”32 Paulus felt that such criticisms missed
the point: “I am creating visceral experiences, challenging yet relevant theater that creates a renewed
feeling of involvement, engagement, and ownership for the audience.”
Brustein focused his criticism on the departure of longtime staff, including the executive director,
general manager, and comptroller, saying, “This theatre was based on the idea of a collective
company, and it’s no longer the theatre it was without that company. While Diane has every right to
choose her own staff, I have been very upset by the abrupt way in which so many loyal and
dedicated people have departed.”33 However, in the 1990s under Brustein and then Woodruff, the
A.R.T. ensemble had been reduced to just five actors, who were given consistent work but were not
salaried, a departure from a true repertory theater.34 Additionally, Brustein recognized Paulus’s
artistic ability and range: “Diane has been doing some remarkable things at the A.R.T., and has
managed to attract a whole new generation of spectators, primarily through the use of music . . . in
her approach to classical plays and new work. The most interesting thing about Diane’s work is its
unpredictability. A single season can be a cornucopia.”35
Paulus was cognizant of her polarizing role, and yet she remained confident in her work and
vision. “I knew that in my first season I couldn’t just drop a stone in the ocean,” she explained. “I had
to drop a boulder to wake people up about the A.R.T. We’ve done that, and now we have audiences
again who want cutting-edge work, who want to be challenged, but who also won’t be falling asleep
at the theater.”36
Second Season
At the start of her second season at the A.R.T., Paulus seemed encouraged by the controversy.
“For me it’s an absolute continuation of the history of the A.R.T.,” she noted. “The most gratifying
comments I hear are from people who have been supporting this theater for years, and they say to
me, ‘You may be doing different things, but that’s exactly what Bob Brustein was doing in the ’80s
and the ’90s at the A.R.T.—leading us into new territory.’” She hired two new executives: Diane
Borger as producer and Anna Fitzloff as director of marketing and communications. (See Exhibit 4
for short bios of key staff.) Paulus said, “You know, when you take over a theater, you can sort of
gingerly, over many years, turn the ship in a different direction. But I guess that’s not my nature. I
really felt that I was going to have to deliver and show the audience at A.R.T. what I meant. So I went
pretty deep pretty fast.”37
Highlights from her second season included continuing The Donkey Show; the box office hit Cabaret
by John Van Druten and Christopher Isherwood; Alice vs. Wonderland, Brendan Shea’s take on Lewis
Carroll’s original; The Blue Flower, a world premiere musical by Jim and Ruth Bauer; D.W. Jacobs’s
one-man show, R. Buckminster Fuller: The History (and Mystery) of the Universe; a new adaptation of
Sophocles’ Ajax; and a world premiere rock-musical version of Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound, with
script and lyrics by Steven Sater and music by Serj Tankian, the Grammy award-winning lead singer
6
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc.’s CMBA SP006-Organizational Improvement Planning-1 at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Mar 2019 to May 2020.
The American Repertory Theater
512-026
of System of a Down; and Death and The Powers: The Robot’s Opera, composed by Tod Machover,
libretto by Robert Pinsky, and story by Robert Pinsky and Randy Weiner.38
Prometheus Bound, which showed at OBERON, cast the character Prometheus as the first prisoner
of conscience. The A.R.T., in partnership with Amnesty International, dedicated the performances to
eight “Amnesty actions” prisoners of conscience and individuals at risk who were being silenced by
their governments. The effort related a Greek tragedy to current human rights violations and brought
in a new audience to OBERON. The Boston Globe called Prometheus Bound “mind-numbingly loud,”
and the Boston Herald described it as a “highly entertaining ride” that brought a unique demographic
to the theater.39 Paulus commented, “That audience does not look like the typical A.R.T audience—
there’s no question about it. It looks like a rock club, people 30 and younger. There are a lot of men in
the audience, which is not your typical demographic for the theater. We are uncovering the next
audience
Categories: