Joanna Zdebska-Schmidt, The Organisation of Public Theatres

The Organisation of Public Theatres Joanna Zdebska-Schmidt

T

he purpose of this paper is to present the organisational structure of Poland’s public theatres on the basis of their regulations and schematics. The documents subjected to analysis were drawn from the institutions’ BIP websites1, as well as being made available at the author’s written and e-mailed request. The study does not encompass all of the country’s public theatres, since many of them do not publish the information in question on their BIP websites; indeed, one of them does not have such a site at all. Furthermore, over half the theatres failed to respond to the request for information. The article makes use of citations from individual regulations. These quotations are given in italics but the author does not indicate the precise source. This arises from the fact that her aim is not to turn the spotlight on the provisions of any one specific theatre, but to extrapolate general conclusions.

INTRODUCTION “(…) artistic institutions which are to yield some kind of defined development must be long-term undertakings.

They cannot be improvisations. (…)”2 Jerzy Grotowski

T

o assert that theatre is an organisation is to give voice to a truism. Nonetheless, it is essential to emphasise this aspect of their being, since the wealth of meanings pertaining to the concept of ‘theatre’ push the organisational per-

spective well into the background. Meanwhile, the way in which a theatre functions, the rules it adopts, the division of its work and its methods of operating give every appearance of being just as essential to the birth, creation and performance of a production as are the director’s vision, the actors’ skills and the design of the set upon which it is performed.

“Organizations are complex and multifaceted.

They are paradoxical (...) (they) can be seen and understood in many ways”3 [Morgan, 1997, p. 11].

From the praxeological perspective, an organisation is most frequently defined as “an entirety, of which the constituent parts co-contribute to the success of the whole” [Zieleniewski, 1969, p.

274] and as “an entirety which contributes to the success of its parts” [Koźmiński, Obłój, 1989, p.

18]. These last assertions emphasise two possible views; the fulfilment of a mission laid upon the organisation as an entirety and the fulfilment of the personal needs, plans and ambitions of its members. This duality is delineated with particular vividness in the theatre since, on the one hand, it carries out, in enormously generalised terms, the ‘social mission’ which is the dissemination of culture, whilst, on the other, it affords an opportunity for the fulfilment of any number of other things, including the artistic ambitions and projects of the actors, directors, set designers and musicians in its employ.

For an organisation to be able to perform its role, its individual elements and parts must be cohesive and mutually adapted. It is thus also “a separate part of reality, having a certain in-

1 BIP (Biuletyn Information Publicznej / Public Information Bulletin) was established in order to disseminate public information in electronic form. It consists of a unified system of websites on which public entities and institutions publish the information required under Polish law.

2 Translated from the Polish for the purposes of this article.

3 English original found at http://tinyurl.com/6ar2t8p; pp. 337, 341; 3rd September 2011

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

Joanna Zdebska-Schmidt Graduate of theatre studies and culture management at the Jagiellonian University, PhD student at the Faculty of Management and Social ­Communication.

Interested in the organization and management of public theatres. In her doctoral dissertation she is concerned with the subject of authorial management in institutional theatres.

ternal structure, comprised of parts ordered in accordance with established rules which define their mutual relationships” [Kieżun, 1997, p. 12].

It is, indeed, the organisational structure, the working rules formulated in the organisational regulations and the organisational schematics of public theatres that are the subject of this article.

Organisational structure is “the entire set of matters pertaining to the management process, to ensuring the efficient functioning of the organisation and its attainment of its established goals. An organisational structure defines the division of work within the organisation, sets out the essential links between various functions and activities, shapes the division of power, arranges the hierarchies of the constituent parts and sets up a system of responsibility” [Nalepka, 2001, p.

17]. In terms of type, organisational structures most frequently differ in respect of the management levels and spans of control, the predominant organisational links and the principle adopted for grouping the organisational units [cf. Przybyła, Wudarzewski, Koziński, 1992, pp. 102–133; Nalepka, 2001, pp. 59–93].

In the first group, distinguished by management levels and spans of control, mention can be made of two structures, the tall and the flat, which are characterised by a relatively substantial or more modest number of management layers, respectively [Koźmiński, Piotrowski, 2002, p. 276].

When dissected in terms of organisational links, the structures discernible are line structures, which are characterised by Fayol’s principle of unity of command, in the sense that each subordinate should have only one superior, comprising the first element in the chain of command; line-and-staff structures, which simultaneously provide for both unity of command and specialist assistance, or support units, for the senior management; and functional structures, whereby functional units perform specialised tasks requiring specialist managers and a given employee at the bottom of the structure reports to several superiors, each of whom is responsible for specific aspects of management [Krupa, 2003, p. 22, e-doc].

In respect of the principle adopted for grouping the organisational units, the criteria by which tasks are divided, hierarchal dependencies are established and the authority to take decisions is allocated pertain to several structures; the functional, characterised by grouping the organisation’s units in accordance with a single task type within the task sets, forming what are known as vertical organisational lines, or departments; the

divisional structure, which aims for an organisational separation into independent elements; the matrix structure, which takes the form of a matrix and is characterised by a twofold grouping; and the project structure, wherein what is essential is the establishment of task-oriented teams strictly bound up with the performance of a specified task [Krupa, 2003, pp. 21–22, e-doc.; Nalepka, 2001, p.

84, Koźmiński, Piotrowski, 2002, p. 282].

A graphic depiction of an organisational structure, presenting the individual components of the organisation and the hierarchical system of dependence between them, as well as assigning them particular functions in a more generalised fashion by means of relevant titles, constitutes an organisational chart [Koźmiński, Piotrowski, 2002, p. 272]. It serves as evidence of the level of the structure’s formalisation, setting it out and affording management and employees alike a view of the organisation in its entirety. Besides this, an organisational chart should also illustrate the five fundamental aspects of the organisational structure, namely the division of work, management and subordinates, the type of work carried out, the grouping of work segments and the management layers [Krupa, 2003, p. 14, e-doc.].

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC THEATRES

P

ublic theatres in Poland operate principally on the basis of the Act on the Organisation and Running of Cultural Activities, of 25th October 1991 (Dz. U. [ Journal of Laws], 2001, No. 13 item 123, with further amendments), their charters of foundation and the statutes conferred upon individual entities by the administrative body to which they report. The organisational regulations are issued by the theatre’s director after obtaining the opinions of the administrative body and the trades unions and artists’ associations active within the institution [The Act on the Organisation…, 1991]. Although the act imposes no such obligation, an organisational chart is most often appended to the regulations.

As defined under item three of the Standards for Management Control, which are binding upon theatres as publicly financed entities, “an entity’s organisational structure should conform to its current aims and tasks. The scope of the tasks, authorisations and obligations incumbent upon the entity and its individual organisational sections, as well as the denotation of employee

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

reporting lines, should be clearly and cohesively specified in writing (…)” [Communiqué No. 23 of the Minister of Finance…, 2009].

The working principles and procedures are prescribed in the theatres’ organisational regulations.

Some institutions are more explicit, specifying, for instance, that they set out the principles for management and internal organisation and the scope of the activities of individual organisational sections or the organisational structure, the basic duties and competencies of those performing a management role, and the principles for the functioning of sections and independent positions. The wording here suggests some reflection on the part of the authority issuing the regulations in respect of his, her or its significance to the functioning of the institution. Highlighting and pointing to such questions as “the principles for management” and “management role” may well be evidence of the fact that the director or organising entity perceives and appreciates the importance of management in the implementation of the theatre’s statutory tasks. Besides the organisational regulations, an employee handbook setting out conditions of employment is also binding in a great many theatres. In one case, there is a separate document described as the regulations for remuneration.

In most cases, the organisational charts constituting appendices to the regulations are very general. Of the five fundamental aspects which should be illustrated, as listed in the previous section of this article, they include the management layers and the grouping of work sections, as well as specifying the managers. As regards divisions of work, they present organisational units and sections, as well as independent positions, but either fail to include organisational positions, or include only some of them. This has the effect of obscuring the picture and could lead to erroneous conclusions. Two of the schematics were not represented in graphic form at all, whilst a great many included no graphic differentiation between positions whatsoever, either in terms of the nature of the employment or as regards the position within the hierarchy.

CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS

O

ne of the fundamental matters addressed at the outset in all the regulations and presented in the organisational schematics, is the classification of positions. This makes it possible to order and arrange them and constitutes a starting point

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

for the description and analysis of the institution’s structure. An organisational position is a post held by an employee of the theatre and defined primarily by the scope of the tasks and the authority it involves, as well as by relationships in respect of other positions [cf. Nalepka, 2001, p. 18]. The positions most frequently in evidence are management, staff, in the sense of advisory support, and enactors [Koźmiński, Piotrowski, 2002, p. 268].

Enactors’ positions are also divided into operational and back office posts [Nalepka, 2001, s. 18]. In line with this division, the posts of actor, deputy stage manager, technician, costume maker and dresser are operational, whereas those of accountant, secretary and legal adviser are back office, or internal service posts, and those of the director and his or her deputy, as well as the heads of individual units, are management posts. In view of the scope of their duties and the role they fulfil in preparing a production, the director and designer of any given show might also be numbered amongst the last of these groups. In theatres, the staff role, which is to say the advisory positions, are filled by either the Artistic Committee or the Advisory Council. The necessity of establishing these bodies is imposed upon theatre directors by the organisational statutes, which, in numerous cases, also stipulate the procedure for their appointment and the scope of their activities.

Organisational positions can be grouped, thus creating an organisational cell and, by the same token, in grouping the cells, the organisational units can be established. In the organisational documents analysed for the purposes of this study, several different sets of terminology and principles for the division of positions are operative.

Organisational sections are generally defined as a workshop, crew, section or team, such as sound engineers, lighting, and so forth. At the same time, however, in several cases, the Polish word for the last of these descriptors, zespół, is also used to refer to a larger organisational unit, primarily in the case of the acting ensemble or the workshop personnel in their entirety. Apart from this, in the vast majority of the charts, the organisational units function as either ‘sections’ or ‘departments’, or, in a few theatres, as ‘(vertical) divisions’.

ORGANISATIONAL DEPENDENCIES

V

arious organisational dependencies between particular positions, sections and units can occur and are most frequently grouped in line with

functional and hierarchal dependence. In the first of these groupings, the links that can be discerned are informational, operational and advisory, whilst in the second, they relate to the issuing of orders and are regulative [cf. Nalepka, 2001, pp. 18–19].

In terms of theatre, informational links can, for example, be traced between the director and set designer of a given production and the costume, paint and metalwork workshops engaged in making the costumes and scenery. In turn, operational links exist, for instance, between the marketing department, engaged in preparing a questionnaire in order to conduct a survey amongst the audience, the director, who approves the project and the front-of-house department, which carries it out. An example of advisory links exists between the director and the programming committee; links connected with the issuing of orders run between the director, the heads of individual departments and the employees, and an instance of regulative links are those between the chief accountant and the bookkeeping and payroll staff.

THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES, DUTIES AND ORGANISATIONAL AUTHORITY

T

he classification of positions and organisational links presented in the previous sections shape the scope of authority and duties assigned to individual posts.

The section of the regulations most frequently designated as the principles for the running of the theatre begins by listing the management posts, together with an outline of their role in the functioning of the institution. Three fundamental positions are detailed in terms of both a description of the scope of duties and a graphic representation in the organisational chart. The single, highest level is the director; depending upon the theatre, this may the general director, the general and artistic director, or, quite simply, the director, with no further definition. Then come two lower levels; artistic director, or deputy director, or technical director and chief accountant.

The director stands at the head of the theatre, he or she represents it externally and is responsible for the shape and form of its activities in their entirety. Some regulations add that he or she supervises the theatre’s assets and organises its activities or manages it. Despite indicating deputies and advisory units, all the regulations emphasise the solo nature of both the leadership and its incumbent responsibilities. When it comes

to the actual division of tasks within public theatres, there is great diversity at work. As is evident from the organisational charts, in a case where the function of director and artistic director is split at the highest level, there is a general director at the highest level and, at a lower level, an artistic director; there is also sometimes an adminstration and technical director or a deputy general director.

In situations where the function is not specified in the job title and what is used is ‘director of the theatre’, then, in several cases, the role of artistic director as a deputy ‘for’ a given area is also assigned. This post is sometimes accompanied by the post of deputy director for administration.

When there is no separate director for artistic matters, there is only a deputy director. Where the director combines the functions of general and artistic director, he or she is assisted by one or two deputies whose tasks are sometimes defined by the title ‘technical’ or ‘administration’. Only one theatre presents a graphic depiction of the role of deputy director as ‘advisory’.

In every case where there is no position of artistic, or deputy artistic, director, it appears from the way in which the dependencies between individual sections are laid out that, regardless of the job title, the director is, in fact, first and foremost, engaged upon artistic matters. The artistic department reports directly to him or her, as do several independent positions, such as the health and safety officer, the legal advisor and the director’s personal assistant or office, whilst the remaining departments are ‘separated’ by various management levels.

The detailed descriptions of the directors’ tasks contained within the regulations prompt similar conclusions. Primarily, the director is responsible for the theatre’s artistic activities, this being the first item on the list of his or her duties. Apart from this, the list of tasks unequivocally points to the fact that full responsibility for every possible aspect of the theatre’s operations is a solo matter. The regulations emphasise the director’s function as the employer and direct superior of all employees; he or she should tend to their development, the improvement of their qualifications and their safety and provide them with proper working and welfare conditions, as well as holding both the managers reporting to him or her and the independent employees accountable for the tasks assigned to them. In addition, the director represents the theatre, enters into contracts, exercises vigilance as regards compliance with the law, approves financial plans and work

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

schedules, supervises the process of managing the theatre by ensuring that the organisational structures and document flow systems function efficiently and formulates the marketing policy and promotional strategy.

The sheer profusion of duties would seem to be more than any one person is capable of bearing. Hence the practice whereby directors in fact focus on the artistic side of things, ceding their administrative authority and duties to their deputies, becomes understandable.

In the regulations of the theatres analysed here, the duties of the deputy directors or the managers performing that function are usually highly generalised and indicate that their detailed tasks will then be allocated by the director. In a few cases, specific tasks are mentioned, such as establishing contact with the media in respect of promoting the theatre, attending to the ongoing technical modernisation of the theatre and organising and improving the internal economic information system. The deputy director is most often chosen by the director him- or herself [Teatry polskie 2007 – 2009 (Polish Theatres 2007-2009), 2010, p. 44] As a result, there is a chance that communication and collaboration will be good, something which, in the light of the duties, responsibilities and activities of the theatre which have been ceded, is a matter of priority.

The chief accountant is only incorporated directly into the financial department in two of the organisational charts. In the remainder, the post is denoted as independent, expressed graphically as being equiponderant to the deputy director and other similar positions. As a rule, the financial department reports directly to him or her. When no such department functions, as is the case in seven of the institutions, then independent positions related to the theatre’s finance come under the chief accountant’s direct supervision, such as, for instance, the payroll, bookkeeping, capital assets and archives officers, as well as the box office and the head cashier. He or she also very often has a deputy. In terms of the organisational regulations, the chief accountant is mentioned as a either a deputy director or a direct manager, responsible for the financial management of the theatre, responsible for the proper and timely execution of tasks in respect of accounting and reporting in accordance with the law in force and manages economic and financial matters.

The remaining positions functioning in the theatre are listed in the succeeding chapter of the regulations, which is designated as the internal

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

organisation of the theatre. Laid out graphically, they can be analysed on the basis of the organisational units, positions and departments detailed in the charts.

Three fundamental departments most frequently operate; artistic, or artistic and programming; technical, or technical and housekeeping; and administrative, or administrative and housekeeping. Only in the case of one theatre is there neither an artistic department nor an ensemble and the actors, deputy stage managers and prompters are directly subordinate to the director.

Apart from the organisational units mentioned in the foregoing, many of the theatres also have a financial, or financial and bookkeeping, department, a marketing department, a promotion and sales department, responsible for filling the house, a staff department and a property adminstration department. Besides this, independent positions also function, such as legal advisor, IT specialist, OHS officer, public procurement and supplies officer, personnel and employment officer, fire prevention officer, publications and archives officer, computer graphics specialist and IT officer. One of the theatres even has a BIP editor on its staff; his duties include drafting the theatre’s BIP bulletins and releasing public information and the fact of the matter is that this theatre’s BIP website is up to date and contains all the information deemed essential. In one of the theatres, the director is the direct supervisor of a chief engineer who coordinates the work of the technical manager, looking after the workshops and the sound and lighting teams; a head of transport, supplies and sales; a chief electrician and IT specialist; and the fire prevention officer and maintenance staff.

A theatre’s organisational sections are relatively small, consisting of three to five posts as a rule. Its organisational units, however, are large and normally encompass from seven to fourteen organisational sections and individual positions.

In this respect, the largest is always the technical department, which will most often include the metalwork, carpentry, paint, modelling and costume workshops, as well as the entire stage crew, the electricians, the storage facilities, the lighting, sound and props teams and the dressers, make-up artists and hairdressers. They are sometimes split into production and implementation; at the same time, regardless of the details of the structures, they always incorporate both the preparation and performance of a production.

At this level of analysis, the provisions of the organisational regulations are indicative of

a vagueness and inaccuracy in the organisational layouts. The basic reason for this state of affairs is, as has already been mentioned, their overlarge generalisation. In some cases, too, what crops up is a certain inadequacy as regards the job titles in terms of the tasks they involve.

The regulations stipulate that without a separate authorisation, employees of the theatre have no right to issue instructions to employees who are not under their supervision. However, within the sphere of the tasks assigned to them, they are obliged to cooperate with every section and employee, bypassing the official, vertical chain of command. This cooperation is emphasised in all the regulations analysed. At the same time, provisions can be found which state that employees of the theatre are obliged to carry out not only the activities set out in their job description or as instructed by their superior, but also those which arise from the possession of knowledge and experience and are essential to the accomplishment of the tasks of a given organisational section. This ‘freedom’ adopted under the criteria of cooperation would seem to be a response to the nature of work in the theatre in respect of almost every position, demanding considerable independence and awareness of what they are doing from the employees. The absence of these qualities could give rise to numerous conflicts.

It is worth noting that, once again, individuals are overburdened with duties, in this case, the heads of specific departments. This relates first and foremost to the head of the technical department. He or she has sole responsibility for the activities of given organisational units in their entirety, in some cases even supervising as many as several dozen employees performing widely differing tasks. On the other hand, bearing in mind the fact that the building and performance of a production is a task which demands cohesion of the individual activities involved, centralised management would seem to be warranted.

In analysing the individual departments, sections and positions and the duties corresponding to them, it is striking that, given the unrelenting financial problems faced by public theatres, there is no assignment of a post with the single and sole responsibility of obtaining funding by means of, for example, drawing up applications for project financing or seeking sponsors. The way in which these tasks are formulated include actively seeking and obtaining sources for the financing of statutory activities; obtaining financial resources; seeking sponsors; drawing up agreements beneficial to

the theatre with business entities and they are mentioned under the numerous duties of a wide variety of posts. They are most frequently undertaken by the promotion department, for whom it appears to be an activity of secondary importance.

In a few cases, these duties form part of the deputy director’s job description and, in one case, they fall within the general and artistic director’s remit.

Another matter worthy of note is the bureaucratisation of document flow. In the majority of cases, the regulations clearly emphasise which documents are to be held by whom, accentuate the necessity of every document’s being initialled by the employee who draws it up and stipulate the procedure for obtaining information or for relaying proposals, work schedules and projects.

In some institutions, it is possible to speak of centralised documentation and responsibility for employee affairs. In the majority of the theatres analysed, the managers take care of their own documentation and are responsible for carrying out personnel-related tasks connected with the controlling and recording of hours worked.

THE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC THEATRES

T

he analysis of the regulations and schematics of the organisational structures, with a focus on the grouping of the sections, suggests that the public theatres studied operate a functional structure, within which, the hierarchical dependencies are of a typical, single-line nature and authorisations to make decisions are centralised.

Within this structure, advisory units in the form of artistic committees or advisory councils operate alongside the director, managers and enactors.

This structural solution creates and consolidates the departments carrying out the specifics of the mission and the tasks within the organisation. It is suited to organisations operating on a stable market and producing unique products or, as in the case of theatre, services and it strengthens the centralisation of decisions [cf. Nalepka, 2001, p. 78].

To a considerable extent, the foregoing conclusion simplifies and generalises the organisational schematics and regulations analysed. This arises from the fact that enormous differences occur between the individual documents in terms of both form and content. The regulations are marked by a highly differentiated level of detail as regards the outlining of the tasks and remit of individual units.

Provisions occur which do no more than stipulate

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

that, for instance, that the director manages the theatre and bears responsibility for its activities in their entirety. He or she acts independently in respect of the way in which the theatre’s statutory aims are accomplished, within the boundaries of the law in force and, in particular, the legislation regulating matters of culture and art, cooperating in this regard with the deputy director, as do those wherein the director’s tasks, duties and decisionmaking authority are set out in over a dozen points, or even in several dozen. Similarly significant differences occur in terms of the form in which the organisational schematics are set out. Mention has already been made of the fact that, in a few cases, they are not even depicted graphically.

When reading the organisational regulations, it is possible to gain the impression that, in a great many cases, the provisions that appear within them are stagnant and fail to translate into the actual functioning of the theatres in question.

Evidence of this might be found, for instance, in the wording which stipulates the necessity of providing a document with the typewritten name of the person initialling it, something that occurs in two independent sets of regulations. If, therefore, contrary to the claims of directors of the theatres, these formal documents in fact fail to translate into reality, then, to all intents and purposes, it is possible to determine neither the

form nor the method by which the institutions themselves operate.

CONCLUSION

U

nder the laws in force, the principles upon which the organisational structures of public cultural institutions and the categorisation of positions, duties and organisational dependencies are founded are non-uniform. On the one hand, the administrative bodies and theatre directors thus have a greater freedom to shape structures which correspond to the nature of a given theatre, as well as the function it fulfils in a given place. On the other hand, this freedom can have an impact upon the specific licence which is manifest in, inter alia, the lack of a position responsible for obtaining funding, the overload imposed upon individual managers and the many, many cases where organisational documents are treated as ‘a necessary evil’. The first priority would thus appear to be the imperative need to draw the attention of legislators, organising bodies and directors alike to the significance role that the proper and comprehensive formulation of regulations can play, since they are not a corset restricting an institution’s activities, but, in fact, constitute the spinal column upon which the efficacy and efficiency of its operations rest.

Literature: Kieżun W., Sprawne zarządzanie organizacją, Warszawa 1997.

Koźmiński A., Piotrowski W., Zarządzanie. Teoria i praktyka, Warszawa 2002.

Krupa M., Struktury organizacyjne zarys problematyki, Rzeszów 2003 [PowerPoint presentation].

Morgan G., Obrazy organizacji, Warszawa 1997.

Nalepka A., Struktura organizacyjna, Kraków 2001.

Płoski P., Przemiany organizacyjne teatru w Polsce w latach 1989 – 2009, Warszawa 2009.

Przybyła M., Wudarzewski W., Koziński J., Struktura organizacyjna jako narzędzie zarządzania, Wrocław 1991.

Teatry polskie 2007 – 2009, Warszawa 2010.

Ustawa z dnia 25 października 1991 roku o organizowaniu i prowadzeniu działalności kulturalnej (Dz. U. [ Journal of Laws], 1991, No. 114 item 493 with further amendments), http://www.gok.org.pl/prawo/ustawadzialalnosc.pdf (retrieved: 30.06.2011)

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

Komunikat nr.23 Ministra Finansów z 16.12.2009 roku w sprawie standardów kontroli zarządczej dla sektora finansów publicznych, http://finanse-publiczne.pl/ artykul.php?view=1108 (retrieved: 25.04.2011) The Organisational Schematics of twenty-five public theatres Organisational Regulations: Teatr Dramatyczny im. Aleksandra Węgierki w Białymstoku [the Aleksander Węgierki Theatre, Białystok ] Teatr im. Adama Mickiewicza w Częstochowie [the Adam Mickiewicz Theatre, Częstochowa] Teatr im. Stefana Żeromskiego w Kielcach [the Stefan Żeromski Theatre, Kielce] Teatr im. Boya-Żeleńskiego w Krakowie [the BoyŻeleński Bagatelle Theatre, Krakow] Teatr im. Juliusza Słowackiego w Krakowie [the Juliusz Słowacki Theatre, Krakow ]

Stary Teatr im. Heleny Modrzejewskiej w Krakowie [the Helena Modrzejewska National Old Theatre, Krakow] Bałtycki Teatr Dramatyczny im. Juliusza Słowackiego w Koszalinie [the Juliusz Słowacki Baltic Theatre, Koszalin] Teatr im. Wiliama Horzycy w Toruniu [the Wiliam Horzyca Theatre, Toruń]

Teatr Powszechny im. Zygmunta Hübnera w Warszawie [the Zygmunt Hübner Universal Theatre, Warsaw] Teatr im. Stanisława Ignacego Witkiewicza w Zakopanem [the Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz Theatre, Zakopane]