The Glass Cliff in Arts Leadership: A Case Study of Oregon Shakespeare Festival

This week on this blog I’m going to do a “Research Roundup”, short pieces about research I’m reading.

First up is “The Glass Cliff and Cultural Heritage and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (2019-2024)”, an article by Dr. Michael DeWhatley published in the American Journal of Arts Management (AJAM). AJAM is free and available for anyone to read. (I edit the Teaching Notes section of the journal.)

This article analyzes the challenges faced by Nataki Garrett, the first woman of color appointed artistic director of Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF), through the lens of the “glass cliff” — a phenomenon in which women, particularly women of color, are appointed to leadership roles during periods of organizational crisis and are later blamed for ongoing problems.

Garrett became artistic director in 2019 amid growing financial instability for OSF she inherited after the theater’s time under its previous artistic director Bill Rauch, declining audiences (also experienced in theaters nation wide), and increasing wildfire risks in the Northwest that had been forcing OSF to cancel performances for the previous two seasons, and were not showing any signs of abating. Garrett was OSF’s leader throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and tried a bigger digital push to offer theater online than many other organizations. Garrett was one of the most prominent leaders advocating for federal level funding specific to performing arts during COVID and in the continued recovery post-COVID.

The article highlights how Garrett’s identity as a Black woman intersected with perceptions of leadership and cultural stewardship, leading to amplified scrutiny, withdrawal of donor support, and even personal threats. Though she secured historic public funding and led national advocacy for the arts, private support dwindled. Ultimately, Garrett resigned in 2023 after being promoted to a dual leadership role with insufficient backing. Her successor, Tim Bond, was welcomed by donors and stabilized finances, underscoring the biased dynamics at play.

DeWhatley argues that organizations like OSF must critically examine how cultural heritage narratives and internal governance practices shape the conditions under which leaders of color succeed or fail. It calls for a reckoning with how boards support — or fail to support — leaders tasked with transformation during moments of institutional precarity.

Since audiences are my main area of research interest, I honed in on DeWhatley’s analysis that the audience saw the productions of OSF as part of their cultural heritage and OSF as a cultural heritage institution. Was the board aware that this was the sentiment of the audience, donors, and major supporters? I ask because if they DID know that these influential groups had this deeply held belief about what OSF should be, then they selected Garrett, they should have been ready to lose audience and donors and do the hard work of finding new supporters and standing behind her vision. If they did not know, then I would argue that they should have done more in-depth work and listening sessions or research with audiences and donors. I’m agnostic as to whether the board should have chosen an artistic director that wanted to drive change or not; my point is that it’s not clear that they knew where their audience and donors stood and were therefore unprepared for the consequences of their decision.

But one thing I just can’t get over is the animus and threats that were directed at Garrett. I feel a bit silly even talking about organizational strategy when those actions are a part of this episode in the theater’s history. There is absolutely no reason that anyone should be threatening bodily harm to another person over anything short of protecting themselves or another person. The fact that she was targeted in this way taints and discredits the audience faction that wanted the theater to return to what they saw as more traditional Shakespeare productions. I hope that the person who sent those threats were found and appropriately punished for their actions.

This story isn’t just about one leader or one organization—it’s about how audiences, boards, and institutions reckon with change, identity, and legacy. As researchers, we can parse governance decisions and audience dynamics, but we can’t ignore the human cost when racism and misogyny shape the terms of the conversation. DeWhatley’s article is an important reminder that supporting transformational leadership means more than making a bold hire—it requires a sustained commitment to listening, learning, and standing behind the vision you’ve chosen to pursue.