The pressures of change trigger two distinct processes. First, external action occursa deep cut in funding, for example, the demands of a new audience, the unexpected loss of a beloved leader, or an exhibition success which strains the museum's infrastructurecan focus the museum's attention and precipitate change. Second, a transition occurs, internal to the individuals involved. Too often we focus on the external action and absolutely neglect the internal transition. This guarantees undermined plans and short-lived change.

Foundations tend to award based on the merit of planned, external changes (i.e., new programs) and fail to consider the subterranean internal transitions. Following foundation priorities may sway the museum's programming. When a powerful community foundation announces new guidelines, nonprofit align to the guidelines. If the foundation shifts emphasis from cultural to social objectives, museums may follow with programs for under served audiences delivered by an under skilled education department. These programs may extend and even dilute the museum's mission and stretch staff beyond their expertise. Foundation staffers think: Hey, this museum is serious about its public service role and it plans to reach inner city kids. If we fund them for a few years, we will create a museum prepared to address the challenges of inner city kids.

Unfortunately, without incentive to engage in the internal transition that parallels programmatic change, new values of public service, inclusiveness, or cross-departmental work fail to materialize. At the end of the multi-year grant, the program dies. The museum remains fundamentally unchanged. The education department scrambles for a new grant. Frequently, the museum carries increased costs associated with the program because it does not cut back to pre-grant levels.

Most business change efforts fail. Forty to seventy percent of Total Quality Management (TQM) and reengineering programs in U.S. businesses add no value to their organizations. This failure rate occurs despite monthly investments of $100,000 to $500,000 for several years in expert training and expert consulting fees. Why does this happen? The new program gets all the attention and the transition process is not addressed.

Investing in the transition process takes discernment and courage. Why? First, internal transitions manifest subtly. Unlike a new building, exhibit, or curriculum, transition reads soft, touchy-feely, not tough or tangible. Don't be fooled. Failure to manage the transition process undermines more than two thirds of all large business mergers. Second, few practitioners have competence and most leaders are unfamiliar with process consulting. Most consultants are expert, not process consultants. Third, transition management operates in an arena of ambiguity and creativity, not a place of hierarchy and control that usually flourishes in American foundations, nonprofits and businesses.

How Foundations Undermine Museums

With every grant we get, the hole of unfunded expenses gets deeper.

Most museums (and most businesses) do not really know how to estimate the true project cost. Even when a museum receives a grant for full funding of a new program, the grant rarely covers all the costs. The cost of preparing the grant application, communicating with the foundation, and additional accounting requirements rarely factors into the budget. The programs are often predicated on optimistic and inaccurate guesstimates. Thus, every time a museum accepts a grant, its unfunded costs increase. Accept enough grants and your problems may get worsenot enough staff, not enough money, and not enough time.

Foundations leverage their awards by providing fractional grants grants which support only a part of the total project cost. This strategy can undermine a museum in several ways. First, mission creep. Consciously or unconsciously the museum can choose to design programs that respond to foundation guidelines. This defocuses the museum from core work. Mission creep can occur without anyone noticing, undermining strategic thinking and strategic focus. The museum tries to do too much with too little and an uncontrolled downward spiral can occur.

Second, the museum must figure out how to fund the balance of the new program. Fund-raising efforts planned for core programs are redirected to the new project. Too often infrastructure cutbacks fund the new program. Every director knows where to make the cuts that may not show up for years or even decades.

Finally, when the funding runs out, the museum must find even more money or cancel the program. If they cancel the program, the costs don't zero out. Staff, or space, or inventory, or artifacts linger on and add cost every day.

How Can Foundations Help?

Foundations can positively affect the internal transition process by:

1. Establishing proposal criteria, which include a focus on how the museum proposes to grapple with the process of transition. How will it change the organizational culture and values better to support and nurture the proposed program over the long haul?

2. Establishing guidelines that favor museum boards that undertake self-assessment1 and show actions taken to improve the nature of governance.

3. Providing small grants to museums for board self-accessment, for creating a process-improvement agenda, and for follow-up progress monitoring. They could pay these grants (or they could offer a bonus) upon submission of evidence of completing the assessment, improvement plan, follow-up design, and monitoring procedures.

4. Funding regional executive round tables of museum executives committed to in-depth analysis and ongoing support of change efforts. Round tables meet three times a year, chaired by a skilled process facilitator who focuses on decision making, critical thinking, and problem solving skills.