Part Two: The Washington National Opera Departure
Let’s talk about leadership. The most revealing aspect of the Washington National Opera and Kennedy Center separation is how each organization handled it. The Washington National Opera’s statement demonstrates what actual institutional leadership looks like in crisis:
“The board and management of the company wish the center well in its own future endeavors including recognizing the center for having secured significant funding, including $275 million from Congress, for upgrades to the center.”
This is measured, diplomatic, and notably absent of blame, even when the political situation made scapegoating extraordinarily easy. The opera company could have leaned heavily into the politicization narrative, pointed fingers at Grenell’s management, or used this moment to score points with its donor base. Instead, they took the high road, preserving relationships and institutional dignity while making clear they had to leave for operational reasons.
This matters because the Washington National Opera is thinking long-term. They need to find new venue partners, maintain donor relationships, keep artists engaged, and preserve their reputation. Burning bridges, even justified ones, would undermine those goals.
Grenell’s approach represents the opposite. His now-deleted social media post claiming the opera wasn’t “financially smart” and that “our patrons clearly wanted a refresh” accomplishes several things, none of them good:
1. Deflects responsibility by suggesting this was a predetermined business decision rather than acknowledging the crisis his leadership helped create
2. Contradicts the Kennedy Center’s own statement about a “financially challenging relationship,” creating confusion about institutional position
3. Demonstrates no awareness of audience development economics or how resident organizations function
4. Abandons institutional voice for personal social media performance
5. Burns bridges with an organization the Center worked with for decades
The deletion of the post is particularly telling—it suggests even Grenell or his advisors realized this was counterproductive, but the damage was done. This is reactive crisis management, not institutional leadership.
Projection and Deflection: The Illusion of Leadership
There’s a pattern here that extends beyond arts management into broader questions of institutional governance. Grenell’s approach demonstrates what happens when projection and deflection become substitutes for strategic planning:
Project blame outward: The problem is the opera wasn’t “financially smart,” not that the political environment made their partnership untenable.
Deflect from uncomfortable realities: Talk about “flexibility” and “refresh” instead of addressing donor flight and artist boycotts.
Claim imaginary mandates: Assert that “our patrons clearly wanted a refresh” when patrons are actually leaving.
Ignore long-term sustainability: Focus on winning the day’s news cycle rather than building institutional capacity.
This might get you through a news cycle. It might even satisfy political backers who prioritize loyalty over competence. But it doesn’t sustain an arts institution that needs to sell tickets, attract donors, book artists, and serve audiences year after year.
The Washington National Opera, meanwhile, is thinking institutionally. They’re preserving relationships, managing their transition carefully, and maintaining their reputation. They’re doing the harder work of building toward long-term sustainability rather than performing leadership for an audience of one.
What This Tells Us About Governance
This case study illustrates a broader truth about institutional governance: Ideological commitment without operational competence creates the crises it claims to solve.
Grenell presumably came to the Kennedy Center believing the institution needed political correction. He implemented policies designed to reshape the organization according to his vision of American culture. These policies had predictable effects: alienating core constituencies, driving away artists, collapsing donor relationships, politicizing the brand.
Now, as consequences arrive, the response is deflection. The opera company wasn’t “financially smart.” Patrons wanted a “refresh.” These are manufactured explanations for an institutional crisis that is, in fact, a leadership crisis.
The Washington National Opera is surviving this crisis precisely because they did the opposite: they built sustainable relationships, maintained professional standards, preserved institutional dignity, and thought strategically about their long-term position. They’re not immune to external political pressures, no organization is, but their response has been measured, professional, and focused on sustainability.
The lesson for arts leaders is clear: Projection and deflection might win a news cycle, but they don’t build audiences, attract donors, or sustain institutions. Real leadership requires humility about what you don’t know, grace under pressure, honest assessment of challenges, and strategic thinking about sustainability.
The Kennedy Center is learning this lesson the expensive way. The Washington National Opera already knew it.