The Silent Power Struggle – Reloaded: Why Major Institutions Don't Fail Because of Art, But Because of Leadership, Teamwork, and Culture

It's one of the uncomfortable truths of modern organizations:

It's not conflicts that destroy systems.

But rather unresolved tensions in relationships.

The cases of Markus Hinterhäuser at the Salzburg Festival and the developments surrounding the Leipzig Opera can be interpreted precisely this way: as a silent erosion of teamwork, culture, and leadership – despite simultaneously demonstrable excellence.

Salzburg: The conflict is personalized – but systemic

Outwardly: a world-class festival.

Internally: a conflict that has been brewing for years.

The facts clearly point in one direction:

The board of trustees was "unanimously of the opinion" that continuing the festival was not possible (Nachtkritik).

The code of conduct was only introduced because trust had already been damaged (DIE ZEIT).

The escalation wasn't just about decisions – but about communication, tone, and power dynamics.

The criticism of the leadership style itself is particularly revealing:

Hinterhäuser ultimately failed due to his "treatment of employees" and a lack of self-reflection (BackstageClassical).

This is crucial.

Because here the perspective shifts:

It wasn't a substantive error that was decisive, but a cultural one.

Leipzig: No scandal – but the same logic

In Leipzig, everything seems calmer. Almost technocratic.

Tobias Wolff's contract was not renewed, officially due to "differing views on the future direction" (Leipziger Zeitung).

That sounds like strategy.

But it's often culture.

Because behind such formulations typically lie:

differing ideas about leadership and control

tensions between artistic autonomy and political expectations

diverging visions of how an institution should be run internally

Furthermore, the opera is under structural pressure – artistic, financial, and programmatic. Decisions like the cancellation of major projects demonstrate how closely management and cultural issues are intertwined (LVZ - Leipziger Volkszeitung).

The Blind Spot: Team and Culture as a Strategic Factor

Both cases point to a systematic misconception in many leadership roles:

Culture is perceived as "soft."

Yet it is highly effective.

Three levels are crucial here:

1. Leadership creates cultural reality – every day.

Not guiding principles, but behavior shapes culture.

How is criticism received?

How is dissent handled?

Who is allowed to exert influence – and who isn't?

If leadership is inconsistent here, uncertainty arises.

And uncertainty is fertile ground for conflict.

2. Teams are sensitive to power imbalances.

Especially in artistic organizations, highly qualified, intrinsically motivated people work.

What they don't accept:

Lack of transparency

Lack of appreciation

Appears arbitrary decisions

What they need:

Clarity

Dialogue

Serious participation

When this balance shifts, there are no open revolts—but rather a silent loss of loyalty.

And that is more dangerous.

3. Culture becomes visible when things get difficult

As long as there is success, the system holds.

Only under pressure does it become clear:

Is there trust—or just functioning processes?

Is there team cohesion—or individualism?

Is there shared responsibility—or blame-shifting?

In Salzburg, precisely this moment escalated.

In Leipzig, it was mediated earlier.

The real cause: An outdated leadership model

Both cases represent the end of a certain type of artistic director:

The "strong artistic mind,"

who leads through content and derives authority from it.

This model is becoming less and less effective.

Why?

Because organizations today are:

more political,

more networked,

more transparent,

and more interdependent.

Authority no longer arises from position or achievement.

But from the ability to build relationships within the system.

What successors need to understand now

The next generation of artistic directors will not be judged by the art itself.

But by the quality of their system.

Three concrete imperatives:

1. Cultural work is leadership work.
Not delegable. Not optional.

Every decision sends a cultural signal.

2. Actively shape team dynamics.

Top performers don't need control—but guidance, dialogue, and respect.

Leadership here means: giving space without losing direction.

3. Translate power, don't wield it.

Mediating between politics, administration, the ensemble, and the public—that is the core of the role.

It's not enforcement, but integration that matters.

Conclusion: The real stage lies behind the scenes.

The most visible organizations rarely fail because of what is visible.

But because of what has long been ignored.

Salzburg and Leipzig demonstrate:

The future of leadership is not decided by the program.

But by the system of people, relationships, and culture.

Or, to put it more bluntly:

Anyone who wants to run a theater today
must not only be able to stage productions –
but also manage organizations.