"If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going."

—Professor Irwin Corey

When change in the external world collides with the internal working of the museum, the initial reaction is often denial. "It’s only temporary," the board member promises. "It’s not really that bad," says the director. When in denial, leaders may blame the visiting public or the government for not supporting the museum. Enough denial makes the problem temporarily invisible and shifts responsibility for action from changing the museum to lobbying the external world to be more appreciative. This very human reaction explains why the vast majority of institutional change occurs only after a crisis. Acutely painful problems will eventually break through the denial.

A crisis forces a symptom-focused response. When pain stimulates action, it will invariably focus on pain relief, not systemic causes. Symptomatic relief will further muddle the problems, to the long-term detriment of the museum. Treating symptoms reduces the pain, usually quickly. How generous that the board chair cleared the deficit for the third year in a row! How dedicated that the staff agreed to work overtime, without pay, again, to get the show opened on time! How dangerous for the museum’s future! In the words of the renowned consultant, Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

The seeds of every organizational crisis were sown years ago by the organization itself. Leaders may lack understanding of complex museum systems. They may lose sight of cause and effect linkages. Even more serious, they may blame outside forces. Believing that the museum’s financial status results from decisions beyond the museum’s control abdicates responsibility. This response impede the possibility of effecting necessary changes. Real organizational change begins only when leaders take responsibility for the situation and find the courage to do more than react to the pain.

Some museums move beyond quick-fix, symptomatic problem solving and explore change. Change efforts often consist of applying a new organizational gimmicka gimmick perhaps valuable in itself but inadequate to accomplish real organizational change. Total quality management, reengineering, management by objective, strategic planning, and team work each has value, but only when integrated into a total change effort. Books, seminars, and consultants often promote gimmicks change technology tools and tidbitsand neglect the whole.

This article introduces a series on organizational change that will cover ten distinct elements of a strategic agenda that need alignment within the realities of museum change:

Strategic Agenda

1. Scan: Description of key environmental forces and trends.

2. Spirit: Values, including attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs about audience, staff, volunteers, collections, and community.

3. Strategy: Clarity, focus, and agreement about how to achieve purpose.

4. Structure: How work is assigned, coordinated, reported, and focused on process and hierarchy.

5. Staffing: Alignment of individual knowledge, skills, and style to jobs.

6. Systems: How and what to measure, monitor, and control.

7. Support: Resource allocation, includes money, space, staff, equipment, and time.

8. Sanctions: Formal and informal reward and recognition.

9. Stretch: Activities to enhance the museum performance to higher levels.

10. Self: Personal plans for re-creation and self-renewal.

Why Change Statement
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the bulb has to want to change. It seems simplistic, but museum stakeholders must want to change before change can occur. A leader can create the desire for change without a crisis by surfacing discomfort about the museum’s current situation and focusing the resulting energy constructively. This process can shatter denial and enable change to take place before a crisis occurs. One way to begin is to develop a Why Change Statement.

As consultants, we typically ask a client why the organization wants to invest the time, money, and energy into a change effort, such as strategic planning. We don’t want to start the journey only to find no one has the heart to follow. Taking a collective step backward to ask why bother to change often clarifies the requirement and commits the stakeholders.

The Why Change? inquiry involves key stakeholders (board, director, staff leaders) asking: Why should this institution bother to change? This process focuses on what is happening to the museum, verifiable facts and issues, not solutions or causes. A Why Change Statement records the facts, without predictions, solutions, or recommendationsjust the facts. Facts, both hard and soft, enables the largest number of key people to agree on the statement. This agreement creates the impetus and energy for change. The facts in the Why Change Statement may already be known to many. The value is in the public presentation.

The Why Change Statement is a call to action intended to mobilize staff, board, and volunteers and build a commitment to change. It can be written by the director, the board chair, or a leadership team. In most cases, it can be produced in two hours. After the first draft, the next step is to share it with all the museums stakeholders in small groups to solicit their reaction as to its accuracy. The director (and possibly the board chair) should lead these meetings with staff and volunteers. Even the community can be involved if the museum is brave enough to be open. The board chair and director should lead similar sessions with the board. Discussion should revolve around demonstrable facts, not opinion, historical analysis, or blame. Delay discussions of causes and solutions at this stage of a change effort. Keep to the present and agreement is fairly easy to obtain. The next step is for the stakeholders to agree on the conclusion: We must change.

The Why Change Statement makes public what some or many already know about the museum. The process of acknowledging private matters strikes at the heart of denial. It changes the psychological contract board and staff have with the museum. Failure to develop a Why Change Statement sows the seeds of resistance to change.

The increased effort and sustained ambiguity of a change effort often conspire to stop or derail the process. The acute symptoms, and the pain, ebb with initial efforts. A loss of momentum will erode long term effort. When this happens, reviewing the Why Change Statement will remind the stakeholders why they began the work. The review also provides an opportunity to confirm past conditions, progress, and trends. The Why Change Statement can serve as a reason to strengthen resolve, press ahead, and continue with the re-creation of the museum.

Why The Museum Must Change

The Facts

1. Admission has been flat for the past two years.

2. Operating expenses have increased 5 percent in each of the past two years.

3. Endowment income covered 2 percent less of our operating budget for each of the past four years.

4. Donations of cash have declined by 1 percent in each of the past eight years.

5. We have experienced an operating, deficit for three of the past five years.

6. We’re unable to spend 3 percent of our operating budget on staff training, as per board policy.

7. No staff member has gotten a raise in two years.

8. We have left three critical staff positions unfilled and used the savings for deficit reductions.

The Conclusion
It these financial trends continue, we will experience a net loss of 4 percent per year, providing for 20 percent reduction in purchasing power by the year 2000. We will not have an operating deficit this year, due to a hiring freeze and two retiring employees. But unless we change, we can expect an undesirable and untenable future for this museum. The future is bleak under current conditions. This document does not tell us what to change, only that change is necessary.