Transcript

[00:00:00] Aubrey Bergauer: Hey, everyone. Well, the time has come. We have arrived at the final episode this season of the off stage mic. So far this season, we have looked at changing the narrative. Ten years later, what does that mean to our arts organizations today? To the profession of arts management today in 2026?

We looked at this from a variety of angles over the course of these last, now eight episodes, including today. We began the season with a research deep dive into the state of the industry of arts and culture. We covered three different case studies along the way of arts organizations who have absolutely changed the way they do business and in turn, changed their financial narrative. We reviewed predictions for the field and set up a midyear check in. We also explored the big high level issues in the field through the lens of opera or the battlegrounds within opera, and we brought in an AI expert to help us think about how to apply this new and rapidly evolving technology.

That definitely was not part of the conversation ten years ago, but most certainly is and on a daily basis today and now we are ending this season. That is all about changing the narrative. Ten years later, talking about change, specifically, we are talking about how to build a culture of change at our arts organizations, as well as how minds change. So we're going to end the season really the way that we began, which is with research.

We're going to do this in two parts, because there are two different sources that I want to share with you today. One I have been following and learning from for a very long time now, many years, and another one that is new to me because I met the scientist or researcher at a conference just earlier this year, and every once in a while, just to share some of that story. Every once in a while, I get invited to speak at a conference that's outside of the arts, and that's always really fun and interesting. And that's what happened here. I was the keynote speaker on day one. This person was the keynote speaker on day two, and when I saw that the topic they were speaking on was change and specifically how minds change, how do we change somebody else's mind?

I went to the session, whipped out my laptop, started taking notes furiously just like everybody else in the room attending the conference. So I've since read his whole book, and I'm going to share my top takeaways as it relates to our work in arts management here with you today. Also, this season, just as I'm continuing this recap in this welcome, we hit our 50th episode milestone. If you listen to the first episode this season, that was episode 50. And I just want to say again, most podcasts never make it that far.

And we celebrated with some giveaways as a way to say thank you. Thank you all so much for listening and giving this podcast life and legs in this field. And I just want to close the loop by saying all the winners from the giveaways have been contacted and prizes sent out. And I'm just, again, just so incredibly grateful for all of you who have listened and showed up here.

You are all in my mind, just part of a movement that believes that the challenges the sector faces, the cultural sector are not our fate, are certainly not our sealed fate and but rather our solvable and addressable and confronting. And you all are the ones who believe that changing the narrative is possible. And so many of you are leading out in your institutions and doing it at your institutions as we speak.

So this episode is for everyone who wants to see change in our industry, in our profession of arts management, arts administration, in our business models, in our institutions themselves. I get asked, I have to say all the time about change management. How do I get buy in from my boss or board? How do I bring others along with me in this work? How do I get someone else to say yes to a new idea to greenlight a new idea?

It is a whole field of study and body of research to lead and enact change. Well, and I've done a few episodes on this topic over the years, sharing with you as much as I can. And today I'm sharing with you the latest I've learned so that we can all be better equipped to lead out in this way. Build this movement for positive change in our industry of arts and culture, not leave anybody behind or make them feel ostracized in the process.

That is a real theme and key that we're going to cover, especially in the second half of today's episode. How do we bring others along and not make them feel left out and bring forward this idea that change doesn't have to be scary. It's actually, when done well, systematic, strategic, thoughtful, and dare I say, full of love and respect for each other and for our art and and our sector.

All right, I'm getting a little sentimental over here. We're just getting started out of the gate. But the point is, that's the plan for today. Welcome to episode eight, this final, final episode of season six of the off stage mic. We are talking the science and research behind change and I am so glad you're here for it. Let's go.

I'm Aubrey Bergauer and welcome to my podcast. I'm known in the arts world for being customer centric, data obsessed, and for growing revenue. I've been called the Steve Jobs of classical music and the Sheryl Sandberg of the symphony. I've held off stage roles, managing millions of dollars in revenue at major institutions, been chief executive of an orchestra where we doubled the size of the audience and nearly quadrupled the donor base, and wrote a bestselling book on the business of the arts. And I'm here to help you achieve all these same kinds of successes.

In this podcast, we are sorting through data, research and business strategies from inside and outside the arts, applying those findings to our work and bringing in some extra voices along the way, all to build the vibrant future we believe is possible for our institutions and for ourselves as offstage administrators and leaders. You're listening to the off stage mic.

Support for this season of the off stage mic comes from Evolve Arts. One thing I've seen firsthand is that most CRMs make it really hard to run your arts organization like a business. People ask me all the time, Aubrey, is there a CRM you actually recommend? That's why I want to tell you about Evolve Arts, an exciting new CRM that is revolutionizing the art space and the only one I've seen built specifically to make it easy to execute many of the strategies from my book.

Evolve Arts was created by people who were frustrated with the CRM at their own organization, musicians and board members with engineering and tech backgrounds. They created the tool that they needed, so it's built for modern use cases that performing arts organizations see all the time. It's extremely powerful, while still easy and intuitive to use.

In less than a minute, you can send personalized emails to first time attendees, identify and target patrons in every segment of the long haul model, and share a discount code with lapsed ticket buyers, inviting them to come back. Their team is responsive and supportive. If you are having conversations about CRMs at your organization, please check out Evolve Arts. That's evolve without the second E, E V O L, the A R T S. Search them on Google for free demos or tap the link in the show notes for more information.

I mentioned at the top I have two different bodies of work, two different bodies of research to share with you today on this topic of change, change management. In arts management, we'll call it.

The first body of research comes to us from i4cp, that's the Institute for Corporate Productivity. And they are the leading authority on next practices in human capital. The people we work with. I had their founder and CEO, Kevin Oakes, on the podcast way back at the start of season two. In some ways, it feels like a lifetime ago. It is episode ten, if you want to go look it up. Feels really cute to say that right now. And it's called Company Culture and How to Renovate It with Kevin Oakes.

I also interviewed Kevin for my own book as well as cite his book Culture Renovation as the name of it. And as I get into their latest research here today, what I like about their approach, always have liked about their approach is that one, they often work with big enterprise corporations, and the reason I like that is because if these massive corporations can make company wide change, particularly in their cultures, arts organizations absolutely can too and even the most slow or the largest or the most entrenched, like whatever category you might think your organization falls into. We're not as big as a big corporation. And so I think that's really good news for us. If they can do it, we can do it. These are big ships. We're turning and and we can do it too.

The second thing I like about i4cp is that the way they write about each finding to me, always feels very applicable. Every time I read one of their new reports, I can see myself applying this work in my own business now, and also when I'm leading another orchestra, another organization someday. So I think it's just really accessible in that way.

Their latest research report is called Building a Culture of Change, and we'll link it in the show notes for you for sure. The number one top line finding to get right into it is that change is the new normal. Okay, I don't know who needs to hear that or if it's just helpful to hear it said out loud said by other experts outside of our field. But we're just now in a constantly shifting environment. And in some ways that was helpful for me to hear too, of like, right, it's not just this time we're in or whatever we want to say. It's like, no, I think change is the new normal. So that was their top line finding just to share a little bit of their methodology.

What I did is they identified the core capabilities of a change ready culture. They did that through analysis of four different global research studies that they conducted over eight years. So this is sort of like a meta research. What am I trying to say. Roll up that this report is putting together for us across all four of their surveys over those eight years. They included a consistent outcome measurement. They were assessing respondents perceptions of their organizations openness to change. So these are surveys of employees at all kinds of different organizations truly across the globe.

And for each study, they examined statistical relationships between this outcome, the perception of a change ready culture as measured and perceived by the employees themselves. And they were able to map that again statistically to this broad set of practices, meaning leadership behaviors and operating norms. So they take kind of what is sentiment? How do I feel about the culture of my organization? And they were able to statistically map it to like, what does that actually look like? What do these change ready organizations and cultures have in common?

And they were able to identify recurring patterns that they were able to synthesize across these different studies. So this is pretty reliable information and methodology is what I'm trying to say. And this process that they went through resulted for them in three empirically grounded, again, repeatable capabilities that they say consistently distinguish the organizations who are able to anticipate, adapt to, and act on change. Okay. You ready?

Here are the three capabilities your organization must have to be ready for change to have a change ready culture. Those three are adaptability, cohesion and agency. So to define those, a change ready culture has all three of those components. So adaptability. They define it as the organization's ability to learn, to adjust, to innovate. All of that is adaptability.

Cohesion in your company culture is the degree to which trust and collaboration permeate the organization. How much of a through line and culture of collaboration and trust. So put a pin in that because that's going to come back. All of this will come back, I suppose, but that's cohesion. The third is agency. The ownership, autonomy and influence employees have in shaping their work and performance. We want agency over our own work.

Now, how this manifests when it's not working well, probably all of us have seen an experience to some degree, but you can tell me if any of this feels true or familiar to you, familiar to you at your arts organization now, or at any previous arts organizations you've worked at.

They say adaptability gaps when you're not, you know, a ten out of ten or whatever on this adaptability pillar, we'll call it, adaptability gaps appear when skills cannot be effectively acquired. This is a skills by the workforce. When skills cannot be effectively acquired, built or redeployed. Learning happens sporadically in innovation slows because the system cannot support new initiatives.

I think there's something really, I don't know on the nose. I'll say about that idea. The system cannot support new initiatives even when we want them. So I think I just think there's real applicability there. And it's again, that's what the data show. So okay. Next one cohesion fractures when you're not super cohesive at your organization. Cohesion fractures they say when information ceases to flow, when leaders send mixed signals and trust erodes under pressure.

I think that's interesting and maybe even logical. Trust erodes under pressure. Trust doesn't erode when everything's going well. Right. So they say teams struggle to collaborate, leading to diminished performance. And at the end of the day, that's what this is all about, is how can we be higher performing teams, how do we elevate our work. All of those kind of things.

Last one agency weakens when decision rights and goals are unclear, who's making the decision? Who has the authority here when that is unclear or overly centralized? You can tell me if that rings true for you or your organization or a past organization. Decision making is concentrated. In other words, employees wait for permission. They say managers hoard knowledge and power. I have certainly been an organization where I felt like or information was hoarded and was like a key to having power.

Using information for power and accountability blurs as a result. They say the challenge for leaders is that these failures rarely surface as culture problems. Instead, they show up. This is so good. Instead, they show up as missed deadlines, uneven adoption of new tools, misalignment among team members, burnout and regretted attrition.

This is so spot on and they're not even studying arts and culture. This is so, so no shame in the game. Really. This is like the meta analysis of all kinds of corporations, all kinds of institutions. And yet I read these findings and I'm like, yeah, feels like it hits. It's here for us too.

So what do we do about it? How do we solve for this and design our organization so that we can have those three pillars of competency, those three pillars of being culture, culture ready for change.

So I will say please go read the report for their full list of recommendations because they have many, many, many recommendations. I think they're all super good. But for the sake of time, I am just going to share with you five of their recommendations that really stood out to me.

So number one is have a growth mindset across the institution. This is a must. They say and I have talked about scarcity mindset in the past. I have blog articles on it. So if you want more of me talking about that, you can probably Google Aubrey Berger scarcity mindset think it'll probably come up. And how do you do that though? How do you how do you instill a growth mindset? You have to tie it to performance is what they say.

So continuous learning and other words has to become an explicit expectation. Now you can't have continuous learning as an explicit expectation if there is no dollars in the professional development budget. So this goes right back to the very top of the season when I said we have to invest in order to grow. If we invest, even if it's the teeniest, tiniest in professional development, because I've been there too, where I thought, we have zero dollars ever. But I'm like, we got to invest a little bit here just to give people something to grow their skills, skill build.

And then when that happens and the employees are not only up leveling their skills, but are more equipped to then bring it back to their work, then they have higher outputs, higher deliverables, better deliverables. And then it really there's ROI basically return on the investment and then they start producing more for their organization, which leads to a better bottom line.

So okay continuous learning has to become an explicit expectation as the point and learning has to drive a measurable impact. That's what I'm saying. It has to somehow be connected to the deliverables of their job, the deliverables of the organization and the bottom line. It's not just in other words, go to this conference, do this webinar. It's what are you taking back to your work from that opportunity. And I think that part is missed. To even the organizations that do have more in the professional development budget, sometimes there's a real disconnect. It's not just go feel warm and fuzzy for a few days and then get so overwhelmed with your job. Then when you come back that you can't actually apply what you've learned. So I talk about this in my book. If you guys want more on my thoughts on how do we connect these things to our bottom line, how do we measure it?

This second takeaway was they say you have to encourage innovation. How do you do that? I feel like there are a lot of arts organizations that say they encourage innovation. I see so many job descriptions at all different levels of seniority in the org chart, where they do say words that encourage innovation. And yet I kind of question if that's really the case and really what's happening.

So this report says, quote, the organization normalizes. This means like an organization that encourages innovation, the organization normalizes smart risk taking and invests in structured exploration. Elsewhere in the report they call it intelligent risk. And they go on to say, quote, teams are tasked to challenge and disrupt the current business model, informed by robust scenario planning while employees set stretch goals.

Okay, I just want to say stretch goal here. I think my opinion is not what we usually mean in our institutions and we say stretch goals, usually in arts and culture. When I've seen a stretch goal, quote unquote, it's like the annual fund goal that's actually twenty percent higher than it was last year. That's your stretch goal to balance the budget. In other words, it's really aspirational often. And I'm pretty sure that's not what this study is talking about. Something that's really out of reach. They are talking about exploring a question.

I think that's a great way to frame it, exploring a question you have at your organization because the data suggests something is happening or something might be true. Or if we do this, maybe that will solve a problem. If we do that, maybe it will unlock an opportunity that we suspect might be there. That's what doing a test is and doing a pilot test, not a grand, huge thing with a giant investment. That's not how innovation starts. Innovation starts small. We've talked about that, I think probably back in episode one as well, certainly throughout the season in the case study episodes, we had two. A lot of times these things start small. How do we test it? How do we pilot it?

And that's how you're able to continue to form your hypotheses, test your hypotheses. And that is what intelligent risk is, not spending a bunch of money that you don't have on something to see if it works out like that is not, not what I'm suggesting. That's certainly not what i4cp is suggesting, not do a capital campaign to update our lobby. Right. Like maybe if you have hypotheses and you've done all the work and all of that, then maybe then that becomes the thing. But my point is innovation is actually way, way, way smaller than we realize a lot of the time. Or at least it starts that way. That is great news for us, because the risk is actually so much lower than we kind of build it up in our minds to be.

Okay. Takeaway number three of five we must value and act with transparency. How they say you must offer, quote, open access to strategy, data and decisions. All right.

Everybody has been asking me, Aubrey, what is your take on the Boston Symphony? I am not here to weigh in on whether their decision was good or bad, but what has been on my mind as I've been reading the news about what's going on there, is that they could have used some transparency in their decision making with their musicians in particular. And that's what this takeaway is about. Organizations must value and act with transparency. This is called procedural justice.

I write about this in my book too. What that means is, regardless of the outcome for any decision that needs to be made, people need to feel the process by which the decision was made is just procedural justice. Otherwise, it doesn't even matter what the outcome is, it's a nonstarter. Do you see what I'm saying? If people feel like at least the process, there was due diligence, there was transparency, there was it was clear in what the thought process was. Then people accept the decision more. Whether or not they agree with it becomes less of an issue that is so important.

And so that's what this point is saying from my part. I always try to share as much as I can internally. That is true in my business. Now. That was true when I was running an orchestra. It was true when I was at Apartment Head before that. There is so much workplace research that concludes that the more we share information and the more we push decision making down the org chart, not Taunton trait it. We already said that earlier in this episode. The better.

So many research studies, not just what i4cp is concluding for us here. So to be clear, and anybody who has worked for me would tell you this. I also have very high expectations for discretion in return, very high expectations, very high expectations, period. I would say for anybody who works for me or with me. But these things go hand in hand. You can have high, you can be very transparent and also have high expectations with how people on the team manage that level of transparency.

Okay. And all of that leads to the next point. This is takeaway number four, which is that we must have high trust across the organization. Okay. So here's that idea of trust coming back again. If you want to be a change ready organization you must have high trust. If you don't have high trust, you cannot be change ready. You cannot implement change effectively at your arts organization.

Now, I suspect the BSO is probably thinking we can't tell the orchestra what's going down because someone will leak it. I totally understand we don't want leaks. That's bad. That means there's low trust. Okay, so not to throw anybody under the bus, not to throw shade or anything like that, but just to say I again, from afar, that's my take on this. A little lack of procedural justice and a lack of trust. And then now it's kind of boiled over into what we are now seeing play out in the media.

So how do you do that? How do you build high trust across the organization? Well, i4cp says it's the top and it's the bottom. So at the top leaders must model it. You have to model it at your organization from the top. Otherwise it's not going to trickle down. They found this across their research. How does this play out at the bottom. At the bottom they literally say this okay this is what I was just saying. They say place decision making close to the work. In other words here we go again. Push decision making as far down as you can.

Another way to describe this is that is giving agency that one of those top three pillars they were saying is that people want agency. People need agency in order to have a change. Ready culture at your organization. Agency builds trust. So I hope you see how this is all tying together, working together. One one of these things begets the other, right? They're all very, very connected okay.

Five of five take away here. And like I said, there were many more in the report of like things you can do, things you can, can and should have at your organization qualities of a change ready culture. But for now five of five is must have accountability for results and behavior. Okay, so there we go again I was talking about we have to measure results. We have to tie some of these things to performance. That's what this takeaway is saying as well.

Some roles. This is where it gets a little more nuanced. Some roles in our industry have very measurable, very quantifiable outcomes or results like some roles. It's a little easier to measure. It just is revenue generating roles. Did you sell enough tickets? Did you raise enough money? Did you grow the followers on socials? If it's an operations role, did you contract the artist by the deadline and did you stay within budget? Right. These are very measurable outcomes.

Some roles, maybe many more roles don't have such cut and dry, quantifiable results. That's where behavior comes in. Every role should be measured by some sort of behavioral outcome. But I'm just saying for the roles that aren't as easy to have quantifiable results, this behavior piece is measurable. You can evaluate it. What do I mean? You can absolutely identify behaviors you want to see at your organization and tie that to performance.

So this goes back full circle to why this is part of company culture. I said all this stuff is related. So here's how this works. When you can set your organizational values, you can and should then identify what each of those values looks like. In practice. Many, many organizations have organizational values at least stated organizational values printed on paper somewhere, put on a poster on the wall, you know, whatever. A lot of arts organizations have stated values the missing piece for so many. And again, this is not just arts and culture. This is every sector. So I'm not throwing shade the missing pieces then articulating what do those values look like in practice. What are the behaviors we want to see now that comes from this i4cp report, but it also comes from many other experts who have studied this kind of thing about just organizational culture and tying it to performance.

And when you make a list of the types of behaviors that reflect your values, you then can flow that to performance review and it becomes very clear who exemplifies the types of behaviors we want to see in our organizations and who doesn't. Just to throw out another expert on this topic, Patrick Lencioni. He's been around for a long time. Some of you probably know some of his books. If you don't, that's okay. I also cite his work and research on this topic in my own book.

And basically the the point I want to make is if you say as an example, as an organization, you value innovation, right? We already talked about that. So many organizations say we value innovation. We already talked about that. Then you have to ask, what are the behaviors that reflect that? Well, continuous learning is a great behavior we already talked about. Do people pursue their own professional development? Do we help support their professional development? What are they doing? Are they then being able to apply that professional development opportunity back to their job? That's something we can look at somebody work and behavior, evaluate it and tie it to their performance. So I hope that makes sense.

I hope you really are seeing how this all is connected. If you want more on all of this again, please, please, please go download the report from i4cp. Again, we'll link it in the show notes, and you can also hear my interview with their CEO and founder, Kevin Oakes in that really podcast episode number ten. And like I said, I interviewed him for my book as well. So all the say there's just lots of resources for you on all of this.

I care about these topics so much because I think it is such a critical piece of of arts management and leadership and just cultivating an atmosphere for our institutions where we can be change ready if in fact changes the new norm, which I think it is.

Let's say you're running your performing arts organization more and more like a business. Insights are clicking, dots are connecting. You're hungry for more eureka moments. But what holds a lot of organizations back is just not having time to assemble the data you need. Bolero is a new tool for performing arts organizations that creates comprehensive, beautiful reports that give you simple answers to many of your complex questions.

Questions like what programming actually brought in new audiences? How much of our audience returned this year compared to last? What events do people drive further into? See the data to answer these questions already lives deep in your CRM. Bolero reveals these answers so you can stop digging through data, sometimes even jerry rigging across spreadsheets trying to extract what you need. I know I've been there and instead allows you to spend your time thinking, planning, and making decisions.

If you want clear reports created with your ticket data in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost compared to consultants head to bolero dot narrative and click Let's Talk at the top of the page. Bolero will be at both the Opera America and League of American Orchestras conferences this year. If you're attending, go say hello to Bolero.

And if you book an introductory call before this season of the off stage mic ends, the founder of Bolero will help you identify five additional questions not already a part of their question bank to custom build for you in your data. If you decide to work together, go to bolero dot narrative. That's all Bolero at the top. To take the first step.

Everything we just talked about is to help develop a culture of change at your arts organizations, meaning that was more of a macro level change lens. We were just looking through organization wide, system wide. It's really about building systems that foster a change. Ready culture is what I'm trying to say.

Now. What we're going to do is talk about developing change on a micro level, meaning one to one. We all have scenarios at our places of work, at our arts organizations, where we are in a position sometimes where we are in a position where we must convince someone, aka we must help somebody change their mind. Right? We must try to get the green light, try to get buy in for an idea, that kind of thing. This is true. No matter your level of seniority, this is a skill we must must build as arts managers, as arts administrators, as arts leaders. It's called getting buy in right. It's another way to say it.

So this is one of the topics I get asked about the most. I have to say, it comes up all the time in my run at like a business academy office hours with clients. It's also a series of lessons I teach in my up level leadership development program, and I share all of this. To say that as leaders, again, no matter your title or place on the org chart, it's not about seniority. It's about our skill set that we must be honing.

And the reason is because if you don't have this skill, the skill to persuade others, the skill to, we're calling it today ability to help change somebody's mind. If you don't have that, that's when people start using power as a way to force their opinion or force the change. They want to see whether those opinions or the change they're trying to implement is good or bad. Right? And that's the type of misuse of power that isn't just old school. But today's workforce doesn't really respond to meaning. It's not it's just not effective in terms of getting the most out of your team, you know what I mean?

And even in the previous part, we were talking about a lack of trust and information hoarding and things like that. Like that is all in this category of that's what happens when you don't have the right skills and you're not really equipped to help, to help change somebody's mind, to help get buy in, to help bring others along.

So I am totally here to help us maximize output, maximize deliverables. I always want the maximum output from my team, and the research shows probably you'll not as long as you hear this, but this strong arm top down my way or the highway leadership, ain't it? Not in 2026, right? Plus, not everybody has that kind of power or authority built into their role anyways. Which all just points back to why this skill, this muscle, is so necessary for all of us, each and every one of us to build.

So for this last portion of this last episode of the season, I am sharing newer research on how to change somebody's mind. This comes from the book How Minds Change The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion by David McRaney. I mentioned I saw him speak at a conference and I just thought his talk was so interesting. I started taking notes, as I said, at the top, and then I got his book and I read through it to learn even more. So some of the things that stood out to me are what I'm sharing here with you today.

But again, if you want more on this topic, if you like what you're hearing, definitely please go get his book. It'll be in my year end book review as well, if you read that over the years, and will of course link to it in the show notes as well.

So first big takeaway is this was so, so good. It was so important for me to hear this to people don't change their mind in response to facts. Okay.

There's some new ones here, so let's break it down. This is really about knowing your audience. Who are you talking to and who are you trying to convince? I am a person that is so data driven. I use data all the time when I'm making the case for something. If you followed me for about half a second, you know that about me. So when I read this, people don't change their mind in response to facts. I was like, oh, okay, now what do we do? So okay. It really matters on who you're talking to though.

So if the person you're talking to generally agrees on the types of sources you share, then you can you can use facts and data to support your argument. So for example, a group of scientists debating can usually cite facts because they are already on the same page in terms of baseline acceptability of the data, baseline acceptability of the sources they're using.

But the author gives the example, if you are talking to a flat earther and you say, here are these NASA images, they don't trust that source. So the data doesn't matter, the source doesn't matter. The facts don't matter if they say to you in return to flip this, if they say to you. Well, look, here's my counterargument. Here are these YouTube videos I saw. You don't necessarily trust that. So it doesn't matter.

So that's why it's like, no, your audience know who you're talking to if you're not really on like the same kind of baseline page to begin with, facts aren't going to work for you to change somebody's mind.

Now, like I said, this was a huge learning for me because I approached so much of what I do with facts and data. And I think for a lot of us that has been effective. But I have to say, some days I ask myself why, after ten years of writing and speaking about changing the narrative and the ways we can do that in our industry, chock full of facts, data, statistics, studies and research, does it sometimes feel like the needle has barely moved or not. As much as I would like it to?

And I think the answer in part not the full answer. But I think the answer in part is because facts are not enough to help everyone in an industry change.

So that's saying one know who you're talking to and know if the facts in the data are going to be sufficient for your argument or not. Thing to learning. Number two is to understand that when our minds change, what exactly is changing? Like how is our mind made up in the first place.

So the author says, David McRaney says, quote, when we encounter novel information that seems ambiguous, we unknowingly disambiguate it based on what we've experienced in the past. Okay. What does that mean? What this means is our brains job is to make sense of the world, right? And a big way, even a primary way that our brains do that is through assimilating information, new information, new inputs, assimilating that against what it already knows to be true.

In other words, we have mental models, all of us based on how we have experienced the world around us in the past. And we know that our own lived experiences are not the same as everybody else is. Of course not. No two people have an identical life experience, and that plays out. And how our brains are making sense of everything around us, right.

And our brains are doing so at such a remarkable rapid pace. And that's good, because that's how we're able to survive and even thrive as a species.

There's a term for this. Scientists and social scientists as well call this subjective reality, meaning our reality is not the same as everybody else's. Like, I feel like like we're the matrix guys. It's a simulation. Just kidding. That's a joke. But but an example of this that is very real, that hopefully you'll remember is the dress.

So this is an example of subjective reality, how everybody's reality is not the same. So do you know what I'm talking about when I say the dress, the dress that broke the internet, which coincidentally was about ten years ago, it was 2015 when this phenomenon hit peak virality. Is that a word? Virality? Anyways, really, really peak of its viral spread. The dress that broke the internet. Is the dress blue and black, or is the dress white and gold?

Hopefully you remember this, by the way, I just have to say, wow, what a simpler time we were in when the debate that melted the internet was the color of a dress, not wars or politics or all the other things that divide us today. But okay. And if you don't remember it totally, you should Google it right now to know what I'm talking about, because it's pretty fun. And you can tell me, do you see blue and black or white and gold?

But okay, the reason people saw the dress differently and this is he writes about this in his book. He gives us an example and did so with such certainty. If you remember, like if you know, you know, right. Like, you know, like that dress was blue and black or that dress was white and gold like you, the reason people saw it with such certainty has everything to do with your prior experience.

So even things like, and I don't know the full science behind this, but it's things like if you worked in or lived in a place with a lot of light versus spent more time in less light, like if you worked indoors versus indoors with less light versus outdoors or things like that. Like those past experiences shape how your brain was processing the colors in the photos and telling you black and blue versus white and gold. Okay. So.

And I know I made that aside about, you know, what a simpler time. But that also has everything to do with why and how we are so polarized today. The author goes on to talk about things like vaccine hesitancy, for example, of a highly divisive, highly debated issue around us today. And that has everything to do also with one's own prior experience with things like vaccine effectiveness, like do you trust the government? Do you trust institutions? All of that prior experience and each and every one of our lives is what is like rolling up into our brain to help form the opinions that we have today.

Scientists who study this believe this is the crux of why people don't change their minds so easily. When presented with evidence alone. It goes back to like facts alone are not always enough. So in other words, with the dress, you can tell people. Oh, this is a matter of light refracting off the dress. And depending on your own personal experience with color, you see blue or black or white or gold, like nobody changes their mind because you tell them this is a matter of light acting in a certain way. Right?

This is essentially the same thing that happens when people are facing other issues, other highly stigmatized issues, whether that's politics, current events, science denial or, and arts management.

So the problem for almost all kinds of disagreements is that we as humans don't know about our own subjective reality. For us, it's just reality. It's not subjective reality, right. And we don't always know also how our brains are working in the background to disambiguate new information coming in based on our past experiences. Right. We're not like knowing that we're processing things in a certain way. We simply accept our truth as our truth and our normal truth.

And scientists have a word for that, too. It's called naive realism. And really, that's just saying, like, we believe that our perception of the world is what truly is. We believe our perception of the world is what is okay.

This is all part of why it can be so difficult to have conversations. Now I'm bringing it back to arts management. So difficult to have conversations about customer experience. For example, at our arts organizations, when we do have those conversations, it is very possible that every person at the table, every person in the meeting, has had a very different prior experience with going to arts organizations, going to cultural events in their life, right? Of course, that's true.

And every person believes their truth to be true, which we can and should. I'm not denying anybody's own life experience. The trouble is, when we don't understand or accept that there can be different versions of that truth. And again, we're not always consciously doing that. I'm trying to really slow it down and break it down for us. So to put the science terms back with it, when we don't understand or accept that people disambiguate the world around us differently. Like there's the rub, okay, that's where we start coming into conflict.

The author says, quote, when disambiguation collide, like with the dress, people find it difficult to understand how the other side could possibly see things differently. When the evidence seems obvious, they should have totally been there. It's like it seems so obvious, right?

So the path then to changing somebody's mind when you know you disambiguate differently. Not when you're talking to somebody who's already generally on the same page. Right. So again, this is right back to know your audience. But when you're talking to somebody who, you know, you disambiguate differently. The path to changing their mind is not presenting more evidence.

The path is understanding how they arrived at their conclusions, how they are using their own prior experience, which is different very likely than your prior experience and their own perceptions, which are different than your perceptions to come to their conclusions, because it all seems just as real to them, just as valid to them as it does to ourself.

To me, that really just gave me, I don't know, just so much more compassion for people where I'm like, why don't they get it? They just don't get it. And I'm like, Aubrey, there is a reason why there's a lot of reasons why. And actually it turns out they're quite valid.

So I hope that's that's helpful to you too. Okay. Thing three, takeaway number three from all of this research on how to change minds is to understand how we build our models in the first place, our mental models in the first place. So this is like kind of continuing down where we're going. But just like maybe one step earlier in the process in terms of of our mind and our mental models.

So the quick version on all of this is this starts as babies for us. We learn as infants and then small children. We learn things like colors. We learn things like shapes. We eventually put language to those things right. And we keep developing our mental models as we develop, adding more complexity as we grow.

Now we don't know what we don't know, right? You've heard that phrase before. So the author and other scientists who study this say, quote, being wrong feels exactly the same way as being right about something.

So if you to give an example, if you think of things that are now way, way outdated beliefs like back in the Middle Ages, they thought putting leeches on you would heal you of a disease, right? Like they used to think flies came from beef, like things that now are pretty universally like agreed upon. Like doesn't work that way. But the but the point is, because of the way our minds develop and the way our mental models form, we don't know we're wrong. When we're wrong. You don't know what you don't know. So we don't know. So feeling wrong feels being wrong feels the same as being as being right.

If that makes sense. When you don't know. So when our brain has a mental model that's formed, regardless of what that model is, its job is to use that model to help us navigate and interpret the world around us going forward. Right. Okay.

That's the disambiguation we already talked about. So when something threatens that model, new information enters the picture. Or something occurs in our life and our workplace and our world around us, that doesn't match our expectations. These are the things that the brain kind of stutters a little bit, like the brain has trouble. Disambiguate those new inputs immediately.

Researchers call that cognitive dissonance. So maybe you've heard that term before. For me, that was the one where I was like, oh yeah, I've totally heard of cognitive dissonance before it because I think it's a little more common. Okay.

The author says, quote, we initially try to explain it away. That's what happens. We initially try to explain it away, looking for evidence that our models are still correct, creating narratives that justify holding on to our preconceived notions.

This next part is super important. Okay, one moment of cognitive dissonance is not enough to change somebody's mind, okay? Just like facts are not enough to change somebody's mind sometimes one moment of cognitive dissonance, like that feeling of like, make it make sense. Not enough to train someone's mind. Okay.

One moment of cognitive dissonance is what we explain away as the quote just said, like usually the author, he goes on to say, usually our models must fail us a few times before we begin to accommodate. This is what researchers call a paradigm shift. Once there's there's multiple instances of cognitive dissonance, we need multiple instances of cognitive dissonance in order to have a paradigm shift okay.

This is not comfortable. All right. We've all experienced it at some point. This is why change is not easy. It can be uncomfortable. But without it without the cognitive dissonance, without feeling that discomfort, our brains struggling to disambiguate and make it make sense. We literally could never change our minds. So we have to have discomfort in order to change.

Here's why. It usually takes more than one experience. In order for our brains to begin to change our minds. It's because our brains want to resolve the dissonance, as we said. But. But if we change a mental model too soon, like our if our brains were too quick to be like, oh, yeah, all right, one instance of cognitive dissonance, let's change the whole thing. That could actually be dangerous. Because what if our brain is wrong? What if it changes its mental model too soon?

That could cause us harm, that could jeopardize our survival like our lizard. Part of our brain knows that, right? So that's why our default for our brain is to try to assimilate new information within the context of our current existing prior understanding, not jump to a conclusion, or immediately jump to a new world order. You see what I'm saying?

So when I think about it this way and I learn it like this, it starts to make total sense. Like people are resistant sometimes to change their mind because our brains are working so hard to protect us.

So there is a tipping point in all of this. Enough cognitive dissonance, and our brains start to question its existing model. That is why I think ten years later, starting to talk about changing the narrative in our field. It's the mounting financial crises, for example, in the arts, that are accelerating the frequency of that cognitive dissonance. For those who are maybe previously more reluctant to change, you know what I'm saying?

Like the increasing sad outcomes, the sad headlines we're seeing in the press, the instances of the old playbook not working anymore are mounting. And that is what's leading more arts managers, more arts administrators, more board members, even more artists to consider that, yeah, maybe there might need to be some updates to our model, whether that's our mental model. Certainly our business model, as the case may be.

So in other words, at some point, the author, David McRaney writes, quote, we realize that refusing to change is actually riskier than admitting that we're probably wrong.

Okay, let's get practical now that we all hopefully have a better understanding of what's going on in our brains, let's layer on some more research here. We're going to call this takeaway number four. People don't change their mind okay. We already said they don't always change their mind in response to evidence. They don't always change their mind in response to one instance of cognitive dissonance. So here we go. Another thing, people don't change their mind when there is a threat to three different things their belonging. If there's a threat to your belonging, you don't change your mind. If there's a threat to their status, if there's a threat to your status, you don't change your mind. And when there's a threat to your agency.

We talked about agency in the first half of this episode. If there's a threat to your agency, you're not going to change your mind. Another way to say all of this is to say we are social primates. The author says that a lot worse social primates. We are social beings. We are innately motivated to stay in group. That's another protection mechanism.

So here's how this plays out. When there's a threat to our belonging, whether consciously or subconsciously, our mind is thinking, if I change my mind, my group may ostracize me. When there's a threat to our status, we're thinking again, consciously or subconsciously. If I change my mind, my reputation might suffer. And if there's a threat to our agency, we could be thinking, if I change my mind, I am no longer in control.

These are deep, deep human needs. And when it's laid out like this is just one more reason why I'm like, yeah, no wonder people are resistant to change their mind. I don't want to be outgroup. Nobody wants to be ostracized. I said at the top that idea would come back. So here we are.

So this idea of belonging in particular, I think this is just huge for for all of us. But what I was going to say is huge for my own learning and my own understanding. I talk a lot about creating places of belonging in my work. I talk about creating places of belonging in our concert halls and our buildings and our venues and our offices. And through my own work and research with audiences, I know this is absolutely key to growing our audiences, to growing our donor base, to increasing revenue. They must feel like they belong.

So I know this and I know this. I've known this for years. And, you know, for a decade at this point, I have simultaneously have had these moments of, you know, banging my head against the wall because I don't understand or I should say, didn't understand, like why there's such resistance to that by some people in our industry. And now I know why it is so ironic and so fascinating, because their sense of belonging is called into question, or threatened, or could be called into question or threatened.

So maybe I'm realizing as I'm learning all of this, maybe there are some people on our teams, at our organizations thinking again, consciously or subconsciously, if I change the concert experience to make it not about the programming or the repertoire itself, for example, but rather if I make the experience about all these other elements surrounding the programming. What is every other artistic administrator, music director or artists going to think of me? Right?

Like if somebody has that going on in their mind, consciously or subconsciously, that's a huge threat to a portion of of their identity, of their sense of belonging. So suddenly one more time, that just gives me so much more compassion for my colleagues who I used to be frustrated with. And now I'm like, no, I get it, I get it.

The flip side of this is also true. And this is takeaway number five. This is a quick one.

David McRaney, the author, says, quote, once we consider a reference group trustworthy, questioning any of their accepted beliefs or attitudes questions all of them. He goes on to say, we don't just use our previous experiences to maintain our beliefs. He's saying we use the people around us. When they refuse to change their minds. It's a greater barrier to change. We find ourselves unable to change our minds when the facts suggest we should.

So if the reticence to change is what he's saying is out of fear of losing your in-group herd mentality, your uses the word tribal out the tribe in which you belong. If reticence to change is out of fear of being ostracized. In other words, then when multiple people in the in-group in your group start changing, start shifting their thinking. This creates a domino effect.

So this is excellent news. So what do we do? The last and final takeaway from all of this newer research on how minds change is really a list of tips. Okay, we already said if you go straight to sharing your sources, the opposing side will say internally, I don't trust those sources, so you get nowhere. Also, people are willing to challenge their prior beliefs when they are free of fear of ostracism.

We've said that. Here's another quote. The threat to our reputation can be lessened either by affirming a separate, different group identity or reminding ourselves of our deepest values. So this is another, I guess, flavor of all of this, helping people see that they are part of many groups, not just one in group. We have many identities as a person on this planet, not just one.

So helping somebody see that that can help. I'm not going to lose my identity if I'm out of one group. That is why it is so important not to get down on our colleagues again, not to make anybody feel shame or ostracized. That is why I try so hard to break the us versus them tropes or mentality we so often have in this sector.

We have to be. In other words, we have to be you and me. That in-group option for them, that alternate in-group option. I think at least if we want to advance change in our industry.

So a few more tips and then we'll wrap it up. Qualities that consistently make a message more likely to succeed across the body of research. So here we go. Qualities that make a message consistently. Make a message more likely to succeed. If you're trying to change someone's mind or persuade them of something, the communicator must seem trustworthy, credible, reliable. Hopefully that makes sense. Given everything we've talked about, that is actually the number one important factor.

So this idea of establishing trust that's come up many times in this episode. So just remember it's like the number one thing. Another tip okay. We haven't said this one yet. Share the counterarguments. At the same time you're sharing your arguments. So which one goes first? My argument or the counter-argument? Start with whichever side of the argument is most in line with the other person, with your audience's attitude. Then present the alternative. That's the order the research says you should go in.

So sometimes it means saying that the counterargument, their argument first and then going back to your argument next, frame messages as rhetorical questions instead of yes or no questions. So this is another tip we haven't hit yet. For example, a rhetorical question would be in our arts organizations. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who came here, came to our venue, came to our organization, had a baseline understanding of the music they were going to hear? Wouldn't that be nice? Rhetorical question versus do you think people should have a baseline understanding of music history? Why?

Why does it matter how we frame this? Because if it's a yes or no question, it actually we just we default all the way to our our known answer in our brains. It goes back to like the mental model we already have established. But if we ask a rhetorical question, that extra split second it takes our mind to process is actually encouraging people to produce mental justifications for their beliefs.

And if there's any friction in that mental justification, that's the beginning of some of that cognitive dissonance we're trying trying to.

So in that case, okay, last I kind of said it before, but I'll say it again. Avoid shaming the other person at all costs, even if it's them. Just interpreting your questions, your conversation, your approach as shaming. If they feel shame, no matter what you are doing, you've lost. Even if it wasn't your intention.

All of this is because people don't change people's minds. We don't change other people's minds. People change their own minds. Everything here this entire second half of the episode is to encourage self persuasion in oneself by helping folks generate their own rationalizations and justifications. That's what all of this is about slowing down their brain, letting them feel those moments of slight cognitive dissonance and feeling them multiple times and allowing space for that, allowing space for the pause rather than, we got to solve this now, we got to get to the other side of this. Now we got to convince you now, because that just actually exacerbates the issue and causes somebody to dig in their heels even deeper as a knee jerk reaction.

All right. Some conclusions and final thoughts as we wrap up this episode and wrap up this season. In no particular order, really, just some things I wanted to share on my mind as we're bringing this to a close.

The first is almost never do people change their mind one hundred eighty degrees. In one conversation, we said that it takes multiple instances of that cognitive dissonance, multiple conversations. So just remember that, Aubrey. Also, you need to remember that change is never fast. Changes is slower than you want it to be sometimes. So the lesson for all of us is keep showing up. Keep building that rapport. Keep making others around you, around us feel safe and not like they are othered. Right? That matches everything we've learned about today.

We are all on the same team. I have to remind myself of this often. We are all on the same team, all working together in this industry called arts and culture.

Next, changing our minds is actually one of our greatest strengths as a species. It is how as humans we are able to adapt, we are able to learn, we are able to modify, and that is what sets us apart from other animals and other species. So even though change is hard, conversations around change can be uncomfortable, right? Even though those things are true, we are actually so lucky to be able to have an experience that discomfort, because it is actually a great strength and a great advantage.

So how lucky also are we to serve this form? We care so much about that we're even willing to go there and go to some of these harder, uncomfortable places in the first place. Both. We're lucky to have both the parts we love and the parts that are work next.

Until now, we have been talking about at least the second half of the episode. We've been talking about changing one person's mind, but what about on a larger scale? Changing the narrative, changing whatever, changing things in our industry we want to change? How do we do it on a larger scale? Well, I kind of was just saying this inadvertently, but changes often. Slow. But what I didn't say, and this is the actual truth, changes slow until it's fast.

This is true for so many big societal issues over the course of time where people have, on the whole, changed their minds. People have, on the whole changed their minds about flat earth. Most people, not all people. But it was very slow for a long time until there was some like critical mass and then the change was actually quite fast. Same thing for slavery, quite slow, until eventually it was fast on the whole, in terms of the societal view of the issue.

The earth being the center of the universe. It was very slow until it was fast. And then and then many, many people changed their minds. Same sex marriage, many people against it. Until actually, on the whole, again in society it was quite fast. At a macro level, these are issues that to this day do not have one hundred percent population agreement or buy in, but they used to have almost zero buy in. Okay, so now they have a majority. That is huge, hugely important just to understanding how change on a larger scale works.

So maybe it feels slow. But sometimes it's slow until it goes fast.

Next, our brains are plastic, our minds are fungible. I talk about brain plasticity when I talk about consumer behavior and how we're designing for patron retention and things like that, and it applies here to every generation of humanity. Thinks we are certain about some things up till we realize we aren't right. We don't know. Feeling wrong is we're being wrong. Feels the same as being right. Right. So I think that's true. Where I'm going with this is I think that's true for our views on the business model for arts and culture, too.

We were certain, very certain, me included, for a long time on how it worked, because for a very long time that framework held up. Now we're in an era where that is all being put to the test. That mental model, that business model is being put to the test. There is new evidence entering the picture, changing consumer behavior. Speaking of consumer behavior, changing a world changing around us quite rapidly, societal shifts changing before our eyes. You know, all of those things that actually rock our mental boats are agitating this.

But I believe that if the ability to change is one of our greatest strengths as a species, that we can and will allow expansion in our mental models of arts management. I do choose to believe that there's just so much thinking in our field that has already changed in the last ten years. I have to remind myself I totally see it.

Ten years ago, for example, a lot of arts organizations still thought spending a big portion of their marketing dollars on newspaper ads was the way to go. They were still programing seasons with repertoire by almost entirely all dead white men, because it was called the canon, which somehow meant that was more accepted.

The question of are we? Are we serving our community? Or who are we centering? Who are we serving? Are we centering our customer? Are we truly prioritizing our customer and how we're in their experience? That was pretty much never being asked ten years ago, at least. At least in my own experience, we have come such a long way in ten years. When I think about it like that, that gives me hope. You can hopefully hear it in my voice. It gets me a little more energized and fire it up.

So as we try to land this plane today, what does changing the narrative look like ten years later? Now, today? That's the question we've been asking all season long. And the answer is that I think it looks like change in progress. It looks like like a cascade in motion, perhaps with more and more leaders questioning the model handed down to us in its effectiveness today, it also looks like approaching our work with more empathy for our colleagues, as we are all just trying to figure it out.

It looks like not threatening anybody's identity or agency, because part of our collective identity in this industry is that we all serve in art form we deeply, deeply care about. So changing the narrative and arts and culture in 2026 looks like a story unfolding, a story being written as we speak, and it will continue to unfold if we do our part, one mind at a time.

And till then, to all of the narrative changers out there, everybody listening, I hope that this season has been helpful to you, stimulating for you, and just full of ideas for you to take back to your daily work in this industry of arts and culture.

This officially wraps up season six of this podcast. I will see you next time, whenever that may be on The Offstage Mic.

Hey, Offstagers, as we've said this season of the off stage mic, running an arts organization is hard these days, without a doubt. As I've also said many times now, hard does not mean impossible. If you want to do this, work alongside each other. My run at Like a Business Academy is now open for enrollment through June eleventh, twenty twenty six. That's also why I am teaching a free masterclass where I share my top four strategies to grow your audience, expand your donor base, and ultimately increase revenue and grow.

At the end of the master class free training, I go over the details of the run at like a business academy, so you can have all of the information if you want to consider joining this year's cohort. I've now seen these strategies work with over three hundred individuals and organizations. Honestly, now it's closer to five hundred. I just ran the numbers the other day, who I have taught across budget sizes, geographies, and artistic disciplines, some of which you've heard about on the podcast this season, and you are invited to learn how to do it too.

Doors for my free Audience Growth Masterclass, as well as my run at Like a Business Academy close June eleventh. Think about the relief and freedom that lies ahead when you start implementing the strategies that have been proven to help you secure financial stability and sustainability for your arts organization.

This can absolutely be your reality. Reserve your free seat for the masterclass and get all the details right now by going to aubreyberger.com/aubreyclass. That's Aubrey. B E R G E R. Dot com forward slash Aubrey class. That's all for today folks. Thanks so much for listening. And if you like what you heard here, hit that button to follow and subscribe to this podcast. And if you've been around for a few episodes now, would you please consider leaving a quick rating or review?

I really can't thank you enough for your support in this way. To all of you. One more time. Thanks again. I'll see you next time on the off stage mic.

That's all for today folks. Thanks so much for listening. And if you like what you heard here, hit that button to follow and subscribe to this podcast. And if you've been around for a few episodes now, would you please consider leaving a quick rating or review? I really can't thank you enough for your support in this way. To all of you. One more time. Thanks again. I'll see you next time on the Offstage Mic.

This season of the Offstage Mic is produced by me, Aubrey Bergauer. Our additional production support as well as editing is by Morreale Digital. Our theme music is by Alex Grohl. Additional support this season comes from Sandy Kobashi and Johann Dudley. This is a production of Changing the Narrative.

This podcast is brought to you by Morreale Digital. We all want our arts organizations to reach wider audiences and engage our communities, right? Well, a video podcast is a great way to do that. But as I know too well podcasts to take a lot of time and technical skills to do well. That's why I partnered with Morreale Digital. They handle the technical elements of production, editing and distribution so I can focus on showing up and sharing ideas that matter. To learn how podcasting can help you reach and engage your audience. Visit morreale.ca that’s morreale.ca. Or hit the link in the show notes.