Salzburg’s brief joint leadership and the question of shared power

Joint leadership suggests two equally large desks, two voices in the same room, shared responsibility. At Schauspielhaus Salzburg, this model will barely last two seasons: Sophia Aurich will leave her role as artistic co-director on 31 October 2026. She is nevertheless expected to direct two productions to which she has already committed. Her early departure will therefore not end all collaboration – but it will end the joint leadership.

The case brings a delicate question for theatre into focus: what does ‘shared’ mean when an institution continues to name an artistic director alongside a co-director? And who decides when ideas about programming, staffing or working methods cannot be reconciled? So far, there is no detailed, publicly substantiated answer to these questions.

A brief joint venture

Alexander Kratzer and Aurich took over the artistic leadership at the start of the 2025/26 season. This followed Robert Pienz’s tenure of more than two decades as artistic director. The new leadership meant more than a change at the top: the ensemble was reduced, the management structure reorganised, and the programme placed greater emphasis on new writing and younger directorial voices. In ORF’s coverage of the following season, Kratzer and Aurich described themselves as a duo shaping the programme together.

According to the theatre’s statement, Aurich was told in spring 2026 that her two-year contract, which had begun at the start of the season, would not be renewed beyond 31 July 2027. She then asked for her contract to end early, on 31 October 2026. The theatre explained the termination by saying that the conditions for continuing the joint artistic leadership were no longer in place. This wording identifies the outcome, but not the path that led to it: the available statements do not reveal which responsibilities were disputed, how decisions were made or what attempts were made to reach an understanding.

Co-leadership is not a procedure in itself

Joint artistic leadership can bring decision-making together, introduce different perspectives into the programme and spread responsibility across several shoulders. But it can also exacerbate uncertainty if it is not clear who has the final say in which area. A title such as ‘co-director’ does not in itself explain whether both people have equal authority over programming and staffing, whether their remits are divided or how a deadlock is resolved.

This is precisely why the distinction between a shared ambition and the structure in practice matters. The Schauspielhaus listed Kratzer as artistic director and Aurich as artistic co-director. This establishes their official job titles, but not the actual distribution of decision-making powers. Without access to contracts, internal agreements and both individuals’ perspectives, the hierarchy of titles cannot provide a reliable explanation for the partnership’s end.

Criticism from outside, unanswered questions within

The departure did not go unchallenged. In an open letter, twelve theatre-makers criticised the decision not to renew Aurich’s contract and pointed to her contribution to the theatre’s new direction. The Thomas Bernhard Institut at Mozarteum University also publicly expressed its dismay and highlighted its collaboration with Aurich. These are statements by supporters and partners – not accounts of the internal reasons for the decision.

Publicly available reports recount Aurich’s request for her contract to end early, but contain no detailed account from her of her reasons. Nor does the theatre’s brief statement explain why, from its perspective, continuing was not possible. Both perspectives matter for a fair assessment; the gap must not be filled with speculation about personal conflicts.

What remains after 31 October

For audiences, the immediate point is that Aurich is expected to continue with the agreed directing work. ‘Orlando’ and ‘Elisabeth’ are on the programme; according to the theatre, these involve artistic commitments for the current season. The question of leadership is separate: directing individual productions does not mean that shared artistic responsibility continues.

The case is therefore less a settled account of a duo’s failure than an opportunity to ask about the rules intended to sustain such a partnership. How clearly are responsibilities defined? What avenues are available when decisions diverge? And how transparently can a publicly funded theatre communicate a change of leadership without disclosing confidential personnel matters? As long as these questions remain unanswered, Salzburg’s brief joint leadership can be recorded as an event – but its causes cannot be conclusively explained.