Report finds plenty of scope for change

Despite the reasonable preamble from chairman James Hickey that the report on the Abbey Theatre commissioned from English director, David Brierley, be treated by shareholders as a confidential internal discussion document, it has been leaking steadily since it was issued. This is not surprising: your eyebrows creep up into your hairline as you read it. Based on a certain amount of internal consultation (mainly heads of departments) and documenting a number of outlandish historical gripes within the Abbey, its numbered, Tractatus-style clauses reflect mainly the concerns of the more reforming voices within the institution.

With reference to models of executive structures based on analagous UK organisations such as the RSC, The National Theatre and the Birmingham Repertory Company, the report is harshly critical of the considerable internal confusion in terms of lines of command. In particular, it singles out the brevity and ambiguity of the contracts of the general manager (last drawn up in 1977) and the artistic director, which contributed to there being six different artistic directors between 1985 and 1994, and a period of 18 months when impresario Noel Pearson ran the theatre as executive chairman.

The report lays out the history of the counter-productive shifting structures of responsibility between the past three artistic directors and the general manager. Under Noel Pearson's tenure as executive chairman, general manager Martin Fahy reported directly to him, but was largely in command of all departments. When Garry Hynes was appointed, she brought with her her own contract, which also involved the general manager reporting to her, in a much reduced executive role. However, the latter was not even informed of these changes by the board, until some weeks after Ms Hynes had arrived. As one can imagine, considerable friction resulted.

When the current artistic director, Patrick Mason, took over in 1994, the general manager, Martin Fahy, who also holds the title of secretary to the Society of the National Theatre, was equal with him in executive rank. From 1995, Fahy's role was extended to joint authority, with the artistic director, over all departments: all aspects of production, PR and marketing, box office and accounts.

The artistic director Patrick Mason adds that in fact there has been "an understanding" since the 1960s, that the artistic director was first in line of command - "but to the point that it wasn't clear. We need to clarify these thaings, and this is what the report was so good at doing."

The report suggests that the reins of authority to be considerably tightened and placed very much in the hands of the artistic director who, it suggests, should retain the position of chief executive under new terms of reference. It points towards an ideal establishment of four executive positions: the existing artistic director and general manager, a director of marketing (back to whom the responsibilities for box office and front of house operations should be transferred - they currently reside largely with the general manager) and the new executive director position. So far, after considerable internal consultation, only the recommendation of there being a new managing director is being acted upon.