Many of the most critical managerial problems facing American arts institutions concern the careers of the individuals who manage them. An artistic discipline must induce capable managers to enter career paths that lead to executive positions. It must provide these individuals with the experience and knowledge they need to perform effectively as top executives, and it must reward talented executives sufficiently, so they will remain in the field. In short, for a field to attract and retain talented managers, it must provide careers—sequences of jobs that lead to desired end-users motivated to participate. Orderly careers allow individuals to compare their progress with that of their peers, to seek goals with some certainty that they will lead to valued outcomes, and to work from day to day with some confidence that competent performance will be rewarded. In fields where careers are chaotic (the paths to higher positions being irregular and unpredictable) or where opportunities are few, it is difficult to attract talented managers or to persuade them to stay. Individuals and service organisations in all artistic disciplines are concerned with administrative recruitment. But, as yet, we have known little about who art managers are: their background, their education, their preparation, and their success (or lack of success) in their chosen fields. Where concern is great and information meagre, stereotypes abound. Managerial careers in the arts are characterized by instability and job-hopping. Arts managers are sometimes portrayed as failed artists, frustrated accepting executive positions for which they are unqualified as substitutes for artistic roles they would rather play.