Those who draw up a theatre’s programme also allocate work: roles, rehearsal time, artistic opportunities. Those who decide not to renew contracts change the course of people’s lives. The question of whether a theatre is run by one person or a team of equals therefore reaches far beyond the nameplate on the office door.
At the Münchner Kammerspiele, Anja Dirks, Antú Romero Nunes and Jörg Pohl are set to share this power in future. The cultural affairs committee approved the proposal on 29 October 2026; the full council’s decision on 25 November is still pending. The plan is for an initial five seasons from 1 September 2028, succeeding Barbara Mundel.
Equality does not mean everyone does everything
>Dramaturg Dirks, director Nunes and actor Pohl come from the joint leadership of Theater Basel’s drama division. There, however, the model began in 2020 with four people, including dramaturg Inga Schonlau. This background matters because the Munich trio cannot simply be equated with the original Basel structure.
Pohl described the division of labour in concrete terms in 2021: Dirks liaised between the drama division, executive management and scheduling — the planning of timetables and staff deployment. Nunes was lead director, Schonlau chief dramaturg; Pohl looked after ensemble matters. The others were expected to support decisions within each person’s remit, even where these were debated internally. Equal standing therefore did not mean signing off every detail together.
This separates two questions that are easily conflated: how is power distributed within the leadership? And how much of it does the leadership pass on to employees? A trio can hold its members to account. That does not automatically give others a say.
Having a say takes more than open doors
Collective leadership draws on experiments in shared decision-making in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, it brings different demands into play: artistic autonomy, reliable working conditions and the right to influence decisions whose consequences one has to bear.
Describing Basel, Pohl spoke of joint programming discussions in which the company could put forward suggestions for themes and directors. According to his account at the time, its meetings operated by consent: a proposal could proceed as long as no one raised a serious, reasoned objection. This is neither a majority vote nor a requirement that everyone agree enthusiastically.
In 2022, the company blog also described material provisions: an age-based pay scale that also applied to guest artists, the option of a 70 per cent post and limits on the number of roles performers were required to take on. Sharing power was thus understood not only as a culture of discussion, but also as protection against individually negotiated privileges. These are documented accounts by those involved, not an independent assessment of their impact.
Who takes responsibility for the difficult decisions?
Pohl himself identified the limits of collegiality: he was the one who informed ensemble members when their contracts would not be renewed. A fellow performer remained their superior at the same time. A team does not make this dual role disappear; it requires clear responsibilities and opportunities to challenge decisions.
Munich also entails a structural change. In Basel, the drama leadership works within a multi-disciplinary theatre under artistic director Benedikt von Peter. At the Kammerspiele, the trio is to take on the artistic directorship itself. The appointment announcement does not specify which portfolios, decision-making rules and conflict-resolution procedures are to be binding there.
The city emphasises the commitment to participation. This tells us nothing about how employees at either theatre view the practice to date or the forthcoming change. The decisive issue will therefore not simply be whether three people lead as equals, but whether the ensemble can clearly understand who makes decisions, who hears objections and who answers for the consequences.
Original reviewed by the editors · 31 October 2026
