I was thinking about this after seeing some news about upcoming leadership changes in the big Hollywood institutions. It feels like every time a major awards body or a massive industry organization makes a decision about who’s running the show, there’s this massive debate about whether they are actually evolving or just keeping things exactly the same to maintain the status quo.
Don't get me wrong, stability is important. When you're looking toward a massive milestone like a centennial, you want people who know where the bodies are buried and how the machinery actually functions. But I can't help but wonder if the same hands on the wheel for too long eventually leads to a lack of fresh perspectives. We see it in every industry, really—the tension between honoring tradition and actually staying relevant to a changing audience.
Sometimes it feels like these organizations are just playing defense, trying to protect their legacy rather than pushing the medium forward. Does anyone else feel like the "incumbent" mindset is becoming a bit of a hurdle for cultural evolution, or do we actually need that continuity right now?
Don't get me wrong, stability is important. When you're looking toward a massive milestone like a centennial, you want people who know where the bodies are buried and how the machinery actually functions. But I can't help but wonder if the same hands on the wheel for too long eventually leads to a lack of fresh perspectives. We see it in every industry, really—the tension between honoring tradition and actually staying relevant to a changing audience.
Sometimes it feels like these organizations are just playing defense, trying to protect their legacy rather than pushing the medium forward. Does anyone else feel like the "incumbent" mindset is becoming a bit of a hurdle for cultural evolution, or do we actually need that continuity right now?