Changing Museum Culture: Research from the Field

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” – Peter Drucker

A downloadable version of this report can be found here

Introduction

At a cocktail reception at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Museum conference in 2023, in response to a question about my work, I told a fellow attendee that I wanted to think more deeply about organizational culture in museums, and how we might address issues such as high turnover, low employee morale, and burnout. He in turn shared this metaphor: museum directors feel like they are captains of ships that are under attack. While they put out fires and fight off pirates (metaphors for declining attendance and revenue), the staff below decks are crying out, “But you’re not listening to us! We want to be heard and valued!”

This is a perfect image, because it leads to a critical question: why are some employees “below decks”? If there are pirates to be fought off and fires to be put out, shouldn’t everyone be on deck, wielding swords and dousing flames with water?

But they aren’t. Museum directors feel under attack for very real and pressing reasons. They are trying to keep their budgets balanced, make up for significant drops in attendance since 2019, and reinvent themselves amidst concerns, ranging from repatriation to relevance. And meanwhile, staff are crying out for very real and pressing reasons: they are underpaid, under-acknowledged, left out of communication loops, and overworked.

This is an organizational culture problem. But what is organizational culture? In 1985, the social psychologist Edgar Shein identified three layers related to organizational culture – the visible artifacts (such as branding, office design, visible behavior), the stated values (why we say we do what we do), and the underlying assumptions (unconscious patterns determining how people think and feel) as key to understanding and changing organizational culture.¹ More recently, in “What is Organizational Culture, and Why Should We Care?” Michael D. Watkins offers nine different definitions, including “the sum of values and rituals which serve as ‘glue’ to integrate the members of the organization” and “the organization’s immune system.”²[2] The Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) defines organizational culture as “how things get done in the workplace” and “comprised of unwritten rules and values that employees follow to do their jobs…”³

This report is using the following as a definition: Organizational culture is the set of unwritten and often unacknowledged rules, values, assumptions, and norms in a workplace. These directly impact how people do their work, how they interact with each other, and how they feel about their place of employment.

While we often talk very generally about “staff satisfaction” or “burnout” in museums, we do not have a shared literature on the ways in which museums create positive or challenging spaces in which to work. In order to understand organizational culture in museums, I interviewed 14 museum directors between January and June 2024. I asked questions about how they assess organizational culture, the problems that they are identifying, and how they address them. My goal in these interviews was to better understand climates and challenges specific to museums, and to begin to generate a tool kit of solutions. I’m grateful to have spoken with these fourteen museum directors, all of whom care enough about their staff and their organizational culture to have made time and space to think deeply about it, and to share their concerns, experiments, and ideas. I have anonymized all information; general information about the museums included is included as Appendix A. My interviewees included:  

• Jason Illari, Executive Director, Historical Society of Carroll County Maryland
• Paul Kortenaar, CEO, Ontario Science Centre
• Micah Parzen, CEO, Museum of Us
• Carter Polakoff, President and CEO, Port Discovery Children’s Museum
• Stephanie Ratcliffe, Executive Director, Wild Center
• [Director name withheld], Emerald Coast Science Center
• [Executive Director name withheld], Connecticut River Museum
• [CEO and Executive Director name withheld], Lincoln’s Cottage
• [three additional museums, names withheld]

This report is separated into three sections, along with an introduction and a conclusion. The first, brief, section outlines how museum directors assess organizational culture. The second identifies and analyzes the key challenges I heard. And the third shares solutions that these directors have identified, which have supported positive change in their museums.

Assessing Organizational Culture

The very nature of organizational culture is that it is unwritten and often unacknowledged. This makes it very challenging to assess. But because it directly impacts how people do their work, interact with others, and feel about their workplace, it is essential to understand how culture is supporting or undermining positive and productive work, interactions, and feelings.

Large organizations have entire departments dedicated to surveying, understanding, and addressing issues related to organizational culture. Museums tend to have understaffed Human Resources Departments (and sometimes no Human Resources Departments) that play a minimal role in addressing organizational culture — rather, they are focused on operational tasks such as hiring, benefits, and compliance with policies.  Further, approaches such as surveying that work in a company with thousands of employees lack validity in a small workplace with an enormous variety in functions. 

Many museum directors do not have an assessment system, and some do not believe that meaningful assessment is possible. In a small museum, directors may depend on informal feedback such as “The look on people’s faces and feeling in the building,” informal conversations and “really listening to people,” or the tendency of issues to bubble up and reach a director through a “porous” chain of communication. Another director noted that she has a “very vocal team,” which means she knows when people are unhappy with things.

When museums do use more formal strategies to assess organizational culture, these include “walking around,” meetings, surveys, interviews, performance reviews, labor management committees, employee complaints, and keeping an eye on turnover. Notably, these strategies are sometimes used only with full-time staff, not part-time.

Walking Around

A number of museum directors mentioned the importance of walking around and speaking to employees at all levels informally, face to face. The goal of the time spent walking around is to create personal connections with staff, including those a museum director might not formally meet with, and to encourage them to think of the director as a colleague with whom they can share feedback.

Meetings

Some museums make understanding organizational culture a standing agenda item in meetings. This may be a standing agenda item in leadership meetings, a topic raised in regular all-staff meetings or town halls, or a priority for weekly meetings held between staff and their direct supervisors. One director holds open office hours largely for this purpose.

Surveys

While industrial psychologists at large corporations may not feel that museums have sufficient sample sizes for a valid survey, museums still use surveys as one of the limited tools at their disposal. Organizational culture surveys are distributed annually (or sometimes more often) to get a sense of how people feel about their workplace. Two museums reported working with an HR firm to create an organizational culture survey that they could use to collect baseline data, and then distribute regularly to see improvement. Examples of questions on a survey such as this might include (from an interview with a non-museum not-for-profit):

• I know what is expected of me in my daily work.
• I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work correctly.
• In the last thirty days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
• There is someone at work who encourages my development
• I feel that my opinions count.
• The mission/purpose of the organization makes me feel important.
• My co-workers are committed to doing quality work.
• In the last six months, someone has talked to me about my progress.
• Over the last year, I have had opportunities at work to grow and learn.

One museum noted that when they used surveys, they found that this just allowed “people to write nasty things with anonymity” and to share problems that the museum director felt powerless to change. This director found that “giving voice to unhappiness” made things worse.

Another form of survey is the exit survey, which some museums use to understand why people leave. These are even more problematic than organizational culture surveys: the sample size is small, so reasons for leaving show up as individual rather than highlighting trends. In addition, staff who are on their way out the door are often not prepared to share the type of feedback that can be understood as useful for creating productive change.

Interviews

Interviews are sometimes used to understand what makes people leave, or helps them stay. These are generally administered by an outside consultant. One museum hired an outside firm to interview a sample of people who left and people who stayed.  Sometimes museums hire outside firms to hold focus groups with the entire staff. Another museum conducts “Stay interviews” (as distinguished from an exit interview), which they conduct with staff every 18-24 months.

Employee Check-ins and Performance Reviews

Some museums use performance reviews as an opportunity to collect feedback related to organizational culture. 360-Degree reviews provide opportunities for employees to share feedback on their managers. Individuals might be asked to share feedback on their manager such as what they are doing well, what they should change, and what they are not doing that the staff member would like them to do. One museum asks every staff member for feedback on the museum leader. Another has staff share evaluative feedback on their direct manager twice a year.

One museum also conducts a six-month check in with all new employees. Another museum has each manager interview members of their team three times each year to assess team contributions, culture goals, and individual contributions to culture, asking questions to determine what employees are proud of, what professional growth they have experienced, what they would like to focus on moving forward and how the museum can support this growth, and what aspects of museum culture support or impede their work.

Labor Management Committees

Some of the museum directors I spoke with have unionized workforces. One unionized museum mentioned Labor Management Committees as a way to assess and address workforce culture. These committees, which include both members of the Leadership Team and representatives of the Union, meet regularly to address issues, including those related to organizational culture, and to improve communication.

Formal and informal Complaints

Museums use both complaints as a way to understand employee concerns, which are a subset of organizational culture. One museum director noted that they understand informal complaints as a space in which to see what issues are arising. One unionized museum noted that grievances against managers are taken to the union. And one museum categorizes any complaint that is written down or documented beyond an email as a formal complaint, which triggers an investigation; this museum also offers employees a hotline (through an external HR firm) through which they can share concerns.

Turnover

A few museums mentioned low staff turnover as an indicator of a positive organizational culture. As a contrast, one museum director shared that they celebrate when people leave, if it’s because they’ve maxed out their potential at the museum and are ready for a new challenge.

What Are the Problems? Key Challenges in Museums’ Organizational Culture

The biggest challenge from these interviews was not identifying challenges – there are many! – but sorting them into constructive buckets. I am confident that as museum professionals of all levels read through these challenges they will nod in agreement – so many of these are pervasive throughout our field. These challenges include:

• Transparency: What should be shared with everyone?
• Interdepartmental Communication: How can communication be strengthened between departments?
• Management Training: What do managers need to know and do?
• Management Ability: What does meaningful staff support look like?
• Change Management: How does rapid change impact staff?
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: What does real diversity, equity and inclusion look like, and how do museums get there?
• Workload: How do we “right-size” workload?
• Pay: How can we pay enough?
• Personality:  What do you do with a mismatch of individual and museum?

Transparency: What should be shared with everyone?

While leaders know how decisions are made, they are aware that often staff members only see the output – not all of the input, and not the process or discussions that go into large and small decisions. This leaves many directors worried about how and when to communicate things. For example, one museum leader shared that their museum was thinking about changing the schedule of when they are open to the public. Although they asked everyone on the team for their thoughts, this director is aware that they might not follow the recommendations of team members, and that these team members are unlikely to know what else went into making this decision. Another noted that lack of clarity around how a decision is made becomes an issue with their team – if a “pivot” is made and not thought through from all perspectives, staff will say “no one considers us.”

However, sharing information with staff that may not have the context to fully understand this information is also problematic. One museum director noted that transparency about budget challenges has led to fear and demoralization.

Transparency relates directly to a sense of agency. Sometimes staff feel like a decision has been made without their input, which leads to the feeling that they do not have input or agency. The most extreme cases of this related to directives from leadership that staff have no foresight, control, or say about, and which can lead to unrest.

As with information-sharing, supporting staff in feeling that they have agency can lead to concerns about where the boundaries are. In the words of one museum director, “People all want to be in the room where it happens. But not every voice weighs equally.” One director referenced a concern in a former museum, where part-time staff wanted opportunities to influence programming and exhibits, which was outside their job descriptions and scope. Some directors feel that staff want more influence over institutional decision-making, including the scope of their own jobs – what they do and take on. Museum directors struggle with the conflicting impulse to recognize that ideas and contributions come from all levels of a hierarchy, communicate that expertise and role does matter in some decisions, and have clear policies, practices, and roles that are not up for reinvention. 

Internal Communication: How can communication be strengthened between departments?

Museum staff, especially in larger institutions, tend to work in departmental silos. This creates problems in both morale and communication. One museum director shared a very specific and useful example: a member of their marketing team might not learn about a new initiative until it’s on the floor, thus having no advance notice of a project they need to market to the public. This director noted that it’s hard to do a job well and feel satisfaction if you are not part of the development of a project, and that people are protective of their domain within the museum, making a shared, museum-wide culture difficult to achieve. Another director noted that staff don’t fully understand the jobs of members of other departments, and so assume that they and their departments are working harder than others.

For some museums, departmental silos are exacerbated by physical space constraints. A number of the directors I interviewed ran museums that housed staff in multiple buildings, and staff felt fault lines between the groups in each building – administrative vs program staff, or front-line staff vs leadership.

Management Training: What do managers need to know and do?

Staff management is challenging. The book Power to the Middle: Why Managers Hold the Keys to the Future of Work talks at length about the importance of investing in middle managers to ensure a successful organization. The authors argue that this is done through recognizing the importance of managers, ongoing coaching and training, and alignment of purpose.⁴ Jennifer DiPrizio notes twelve characteristics of great leaders, and roots all of them in self-awareness.⁵ One of the directors I interviewed identified three levers of good management: skill set, authenticity (vs platitudes) and empathy. They said, “When something goes awry, one of these levers has gotten wobbly.” All of this is to say – management is a key skill in museums, and one that we historically do not hire or train for, which causes some of the challenges outlined in this section of the report.

One museum director identified the challenge that their museum has not previously invested in managerial training, leaving management staff unprepared for some aspects of their job. Another director echoed this, saying that while leadership is a learned skill, we don’t have many training or learning opportunities around leadership in the non-profit world, and people often gain leadership responsibility without really knowing what that means. In museums, sometimes young staff quickly take on managerial responsibilities: in one museum a staff member who came to the museum having just graduated from college was made a department head within a few years. A third director mentioned the unevenness of management ability and capacity among people in management positions in their museum.

One director noted that in our field, there is a resistance to investing in management training. People ask, what if we train these people and they leave? BUT, this director noted, citing a popular adage, “What if we don’t train these people and they stay?”

Management Ability: What does meaningful staff support look like?

As mentioned earlier, one director described good management as being about skill set, authenticity, and empathy. The need for authenticity and empathy aligns with research on burnout, which notes that burnout is caused in part by insufficient rewards for effort, lack of a supportive community, and lack of fairness.⁶ In speaking with museum directors, I heard about challenges in authentic recognition of staff work, the need to support staff growth, and the challenge of providing the resources staff need to do their work.

Authentic recognition

Recognition takes two forms: tangible and intangible. Tangible recognition often takes a financial form -bonuses or salary increases – something which may feel impossible right now in many museums. One director said, “the best form of recognition is money, but we can’t do this.” Because pay compensation relates more to director-level decisions than to management skills, I will take about that in another section.

Authentic recognition requires ongoing awareness and sincerity. When asked about recognition, a few directors noted that there was no formal mechanism for this, or that it was something that they needed to do a better job in – something which is likely true at many museums. Another director noted that they expend energy in thanking volunteers and forget to do the same with staff.

Support for staff growth

In a large corporation there is often an opportunity to move up the career ladder or try something new. This is not true in museums, where jobs are limited and each position is very different from the next. Some of the directors I interviewed spoke about the limited opportunities within a museum for career growth. One museum director said, “the ceiling comes pretty quickly;” similarly, another director noted that while they were happy to have good longevity at the middle management level, this did not leave room for others to grow. One director noted the challenge of managing the expectations of staff who hope to move into higher level positions, which are either unavailable or not a good match for the skills and experience of the staff members who want to move up. This is a particular problem with entry level or part-time staff who may soon need full-time work or higher compensation.

Providing resources

Museum directors struggle to offer staff the resources they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. One director noted this as a change, saying that the museum used to be able to offer staff all the resources they needed, but that was currently cost prohibitive, so the answer to “do staff have the resources they need to do their job?” would “shift to no in the future.” Others referenced technology limitations and old buildings with windows that leak. One director talked about not being able to offer staff a “sandbox of resources that people can play in, which means they live with uncertainty. For example, they need to plan an exhibit without knowing if there will be funding to create this exhibit.”

Change Management: How does rapid change impact staff?

Museums are in a moment of rapid and almost violent transformation. The mandates for change come from collections issues such as repatriation, diversity, equity, and access issues related to both staff and visitors, new financial constraints, dropping attendance, changes in volunteerism, and more. A number of the museum directors I spoke with mentioned concerns about staff resistance to change, including resistance to new policies and procedures and corrections in the use and display of controversial collections.

DEI: How do we work with staff to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion?

In a 2020 report, Cecilia Garibay and Jeanne Marie Olson wrote, “Despite more than three decades of discussion about DEAI, however, our organizations still wrestle with questions about where to focus, how to gauge success, and how to make changes ‘stick’ so that these efforts endure beyond one person, project, or program. As a field we lack a clear picture of where museums are putting forth effort.”⁷ This work has not gotten any easier in the ensuing four years, and many of the directors I spoke to raised issues that fall into this thorny category.

Some of the issues are in daily interpersonal interactions within a large and diverse staff. One director received complaints from a staff member saying that this staff member was targeted by colleagues because they are a person of color. The director responded by hiring an outside investigator, who found no evidence of racism. Clearly the investigation may be flawed, but directors have limited resources to ameliorate such complaints once they happen. One director shared that the diversity of staff leads to challenges in DEI training, because the staff includes people from high school through retirement, from different cultural backgrounds, there are no shared comfort zones or language to talk about diversity, and they knew that sometimes things said out of ignorance might feel offensive. Another director said that despite ongoing DEI training these differences in insight, knowledge, and age sometimes led to one staff member unintentionally offending another.

One of the bigger challenges in DEI work was articulated by a director who talked about the challenge of toggling between fundraising and DEI work, saying that it is hard to move back and forth because the values jar. While this director may have been articulating a personal challenge, this is an enormous institutional challenge for museums as well. There are real conflicts in a system that depends on wealthy donors and grant income that prioritizes audience experience over staff experience.

Finally, one of the directors I spoke with mentioned recent challenges that I believe fall into the DEI arena: their employees asked the director to take a public stand for Palestinians after the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israeli retaliation. The director responded that this was inappropriate because the museum had nothing to add to this particular issue. While they offered to hold a discussion about issues museums should take a stand on, the employee didn’t follow up. The question of when museums should take a political stance, and who gets to choose when and what stance they take, is a growing concern.

Workload: How do we “right size” workload?

There is no question that museum employees – including directors – are overworked, and many directors noted this in their interviews. Directors grapple with a few challenges in limited workload. A key issue is that “people overbook themselves” and then directors have the challenge of “what to say yes or no to.” In addition, every time there is staff turnover, because jobs are so specific, this at least temporarily creates more work for the one or two other staff members capable of taking on that person’s tasks. As one director noted, “why do we always have to be doing more more more?” Collectively we need to get better at working smarter, not harder.

How can we pay enough?

Almost every museum director I spoke to acknowledged that staff are underpaid. One said, “staff is and feels underpaid;” another noted that some staff members who have been at the museum for 15 years are making barely more than minimum wage.” A third shared that “it is hard for someone on an educator’s salary to buy a house in the area.”

Two complicating factors emerged from these discussions. The first is pay inequity between departments. One director noted that there is a meaningful difference between how much a staff member in Education and a staff member in Development earn, even at the same level within the museum hierarchy. The second is the challenge of benchmarking. The director who shared that some long-time staff make just above minimum wage also noted that minimum wage has increased dramatically over the past few years. Another director shared that their salaries were “not outside the norms of similar museums;” however, since this is a field-wide issue, benchmarks are arguably useless. Some museums talk about paying a living wage; however, the living wage estimates vary depending on where you look (I found estimates ranging from $19 to $27 for Washington, DC).

Personality: What do you do with a mismatch of individual and museum?

Many of the directors I spoke with mentioned that there was an employee who made things harder for staff and management, and the challenges of getting rid of someone who has a perceived negative effect on organizational culture. One said, “Creating a good culture is one thing; holding on to it is another, especially when you have a difficult staff member.” It is impossible in the context of these interviews to sort out the challenges with these specific individuals and what they are responding to, and I want to note that it is possible that some or all of these individuals are responding to challenges in organizational culture in the only way they can access. However, these individuals and related challenges were described vividly by museum directors:

• “Some people find the negative in everything – it’s an attitudinal approach that bogs everyone down”
• Sometimes one staff person can stir up a lot; them leaving helps a lot
• “Long-serving staff with a lot of baggage”
• Some performance issues can’t be solved – people need to move on or change positions
• “People who are tired of their job and just stop doing it well”
• “You can get someone who turns a well-oiled machine toxic quickly”
• “Negative nellies who badmouth everyone; classic pointing fingers for every problem.”

Many of these individuals are long-time staff members who for one reason or another were either underperforming or complaining publicly; directors seemed to feel unable to coach individuals out of the organization.

Where Can We Find Solutions? Ideas for Improvement from Museum Directors

Few of the museum directors I interviewed had created an organizational culture with which they were entirely satisfied, but many of them had experimented and found things that work. This section shares some of the ideas they have developed. One director shared an important note about any efforts to improve organizational culture, which perhaps lies at the core: none of this works until you create a culture of trust, an environment in which people will share their pain points. People start out defensive, and feel threatened. Sometimes you need to do what staff says just to show you are listening, as part of the process of building trust.

I have grouped their ideas and advice into the following categories: clarity; expressing authentic gratitude; allowing staff flexibility and autonomy; investing in staff as individuals; providing resources to help people do their jobs; listening; workload.

Clarity

Clarity is a critical first step to creating a strong and positive organizational culture. This starts with the step, often perceived as mundane, in creating and updating policies, procedures, and handbooks. A much-discussed policy was defining an approach to working from home, but everything needs to be clear.  One director talked about managing expectations and “creating a very different type of employee handbook.”

Another form of clarity was provided through transparency. Two directors talked about radical transparency. One director shares every line of the budget by email, and then meets with each department to allow for questions. Another presents to staff after every board meeting, sharing what was discussed.

DEI work often starts with clarity in policies and procedures. One director talked about developing more equitable hiring practices, starting with research into equitable practices and then creating policies such as stripping names and education off of resumes. One museum conducted a salary audit based on race and gender, and then made adjustments accordingly.

It is also helpful to keep clarity around organizational culture goals and pitfalls in mind at all times. One museum started the strategic planning process by re-articulating organizational values. And one director talked about the importance of addressing things as they come up.

Expressing Authentic Gratitude

A heartfelt “thank you” goes a long way. The best example of this I heard came from a director who took a month off work. Before they left for the month they wrote every staff member, both part-time and full-time, as well as every board member, a personal note and sent it to their home address. The tone, as they described it, included sentiments such as: I love your vibe, I’m so happy that you’re a part of the team, I enjoy watching your growth and development, you’re great at this work.

Another director noted that it is important to “push all credit down to the people who actually did the work. Have to take all blame on yourself. Never allow a staff member to be blamed for anything.”

Other directors talked about celebrating people and their accomplishments at weekly meetings, including sharing positive feedback from visitors and thanking people for specific contributions. One director noted that they open every new exhibit with an internal, full-staff champagne toast.

Money came up in many of the interviews – directors are aware that the best way to thank and recognize good work is monetarily; however, this often feels prohibitive. Two directors talked about bonuses. One noted that they try to give out bonuses whenever possible – for example, when revenue exceeds expectations. One year this director took some of the money earned at a fundraising event and created bonuses for every staff member, based on the number of hours they had worked over the previous year. Another director said that when they returned from parental leave, they gave the staff member acting as interim director a $1000 bonus; this staff member “teared up and gave the director a hug.”

Food sometimes serves as a way of saying thank you. One director buys the entire staff lunch once a month; another director brings in bagels to thank staff. A number of directors mentioned staff gatherings. One described a field trip during which they took the entire staff to a museum in another city, and treated them to lunch. They said this trip was a wonderful learning experience, as well as a great team builder. Other directors talked about the positive feelings that came from opportunities for staff to gather, or off-site team building events.

Flexibility and Autonomy

Creating an environment of flexibility and autonomy took a number of forms. At its most fundamental, some directors created flexible policies and schedules that allowed for time working from home, flexible work schedules, and bringing babies or dogs into work when this was what was needed to make work possible.  

Another form of flexibility was figuring out how to allow staff to present and use their expertise.” One director said, “People aren’t interchangeable – they each have different interests and skills;” the stories this director shared evidenced that they focused on pairing potential projects with staff who might enjoy this area of work. Notably, at this museum the part time staff who teach camps and field trips have full control over these, including curriculum development, supply requests, and evaluation and improvements. These staff members are paid hourly, and every hour they spend creating and improving programs is paid. Another director noted that in the department in which staff members seemed happiest, their manager tried to cultivate their talents. For example, one of these staff members is an artist, and a piece of his is hanging up in the building.”

Accountability

A few directors talked about accountability, and the importance of accountability for good management. The same manager mentioned above who cultivates staff talents was also described as “a real team leader, who works with [staff] on a regular basis, holds them accountable but respects them.” And another held up accountability as a tactic for dealing with staff members who were a mismatch for the organizational culture, saying, “Try to stay the course, listen, hold them accountable. Generally, people find the door one way or another. And they don’t generally feel wronged by the museum because they were treated with dignity and respect, even if in the end they were let go.

Providing Resources

Some directors talked about the tangible resources they provide staff, in order to both help them do their jobs, and to thrive as professionals. One prioritized professional development, encouraging people to ask for the training opportunities they needed and trying to fund as much of this as possible. Another talked about attending to people as individuals to best support them – asking struggling employees to identify their challenges and how leadership could support them.

A key area of support was management training: one director advocated for better management training in the non-profit world, arguing that failing to provide training to people who step up into management roles “does a disservice to new managers.”

Another director talked about providing resources to staff as professionals. They said that, knowing that not everyone can be internally promoted, they would like to do more to support staff in being ready for their next job by investing in their potential and readying them for the next stage in their career.  Another director was actively thinking about this as a component of their internship program – they were working on offering housing and investing in basic interpretive skills, to foster the next generation of museum professionals.

Investing in Staff Members as People

The very title of this section seems obvious – but in many museums, it isn’t. The flexibility and autonomy described above is one way of demonstrating an understanding of staff members as individuals. Directors had a number of examples of other ways they have done this, including:

• Knowing every staff member’s name.
• As a director, understanding a major part of your role as to say, “I know what you do and I see you.”
• “Being there,” in person, to see the work products of individuals first hand (at an exhibit opening, or a program, or a report out), and remarking on it in the moment, is infinitely better than hearing about something second hand and announcing that “so and so did a great job with this.”
• Including front-line staff on projects such as strategic planning.
• Allowing staff to express their individualism by thinking of the museum as a “cast of characters” and celebrating the ways in which staff choose to show and share who they are.

Listening

Like investing in staff members as individuals, the category “listening” seems like it should be obvious, but too often it isn’t. There is a fair amount written about active listening, which involves attending to the full person who is talking (rather than just their words), and “turns a conversation into an active, non-competitive, two-way interaction.”⁸ These articles also share the importance of active listening in how you are perceived by others, as well as the job satisfaction of those who are listened to.⁹ Perhaps more important than active listening, however, is meaningful listening – listening with genuine curiosity and the belief that what someone has to say (no matter who they are or what role in the organization they play) may inform and improve the work you do.

The interviewees did not explicitly talk about active or meaningful listening. They did, however, expose a range of ways to respond, and thus evidence listening and the importance of employee ideas. These are: actively inviting staff to share; evidencing that you have heard; and taking action based on what you hear. Importantly, it is not always appropriate or necessary to take action based on what you heard. It is, however, important to leave open the possibility that you will. One director shared an example of a situation in which staff shared input on a project, but it was too late for this input to be used. The director noted that they are changing the process so that moving forward, staff input can be not only heard, but potentially acted upon.

The directors I interviewed told stories about inviting staff to share in different ways. One talked about using a survey as an opportunity for the staff to be heard. The survey was constructed to invite staff to talk in a productive way about specific issues. Another held open office hours, inviting staff to come and talk about whatever they liked with the director. And a third hosted conversations around external issues that were emotionally impacting staff, such as the Supreme Court 2024 decision overturning Roe v Wade, or the war in Gaza.

Some directors also talked about showing staff that they had been heard. Two directors talked about including staff at all levels in strategic planning. Another said, “People might not agree with a decision or understand all of the competing drivers, but if they have been heard, and feel seen and heard, they respect that process.

Finally, some directors talked about listening to staff, and taking action based on what they heard. One was preparing for a retreat in which all staff members would be invited to share their voice; one of the planned activities was prototyping new ideas. Another talked about gathering information from surveys, and then sitting down with managers to talk about how people were feeling, and what they could do to increase staff satisfaction, with the goal of making changes based on feedback. A third talked about an example when the Board listened – they received complaints from staff about leadership, and started asking questions of the staff to learn more. In this situation the staff felt supported by the Board.

This third form of listening is critical to DEI work. As one director noted, the people with the biggest pain points are understandably BIPOC staff, and you begin to address equity when you address those pain points. One director gave an example of this work. After laying the groundwork by being open about their own personal life, they took the time to get to know staff, and began to hear concerns about the museum’s December holiday party. Both Jehovah’s Witness and Muslim staff disliked the party (for different reasons), and so the director changed the annual gathering from a December evening party to a September picnic. A museum director gave a lovely summary of this work, saying that in order to be prepared to be a more diverse workforce, as an institution they need to build their tolerance for discussion, debate, and inclusive dialogue that brings in the expertise of staff at all levels, rather than centering around people with leadership titles.

Managing Workload

One theme I kept hearing was that museum staff have large workloads in part because individuals and departments grow projects they are interested in. Because they have the autonomy to do this, but no resources for moving previously assigned work off their plates, workloads grow unmanageable. One of the roles that directors might play is to tell people to say no, or to ask, “are you sure you want to do this?” This can also be done in the context of strategic planning. One director made sure that the additional projects staff intended to take on were incorporated into the strategic plan; the entire staff reviews the plan quarterly, and decides what is working, what is not, and what is not working or not worth the time and energy. Another director talked about coaching staff, but needing to be “dictatorial” in ending some projects, because no one wants to give anything up. And one tries to focus on “less is more” for the visitor and “more is more” when it comes to the well-being of the team rather than the other way around.

Some directors problem solve with staff. One has suggested that, when staff has too much work, they find per diem help. Another coaches staff to try to find ways to avoid burnout through collaborative problem solving.

One director talked about setting a model for staff. This director tried hard not to contact people on weekends or vacation unless it was an emergency, preferring to believe in the ability of their team to make good decisions and move things forward in the director’s absence. This director spoke at length about how, if people are working more than 6-8 hours per day, something is off; no one can do good, focused work for more than 8 hours per day. If people are working more than this, than something needs to change within the system or the staffing resources.

Conclusion: What do museums need to do to improve organizational culture?

The work of changing organizational culture starts with assessment.

Museum leadership should explicitly collect data that shows them how staff are feeling about their workplace, their workload, their direct manager, and the barriers they face in doing their job well. As noted earlier, anonymous surveys that work in a company with thousands of employees lack validity in a small workplace with an enormous variety in functions. In museums, assessing culture should include interviews conducted by an outside consultant or firm.

Because museums have limited resources to put toward cultural change, this data should be used to identify spaces for meaningful change. They should answer the question: this moment, what are the biggest challenges we are hearing? Rather than thinking about nebulous “staff satisfaction,” listen for solvable problems, and define success clearly – what does it look like when staff feel “heard” or “valued” or have reasonable workloads? This allows for deliberate, focused experimentation towards addressing these problems, and ways to measure success and make changes as needed.

What does this look like? Here is an example based on the challenges and solutions museum directors shared for this report.

Imagine an audit of your museum’s organizational culture finds that staff feel like they are kept in the dark, with no voice in or knowledge of museum decision-making – a likely result in many museums, but far from the only possibility. I imagine that most museum directors would respond with exasperation: why should non-management staff have a voice in decision-making? In a museum, each person has their job to do, and it is museum leadership’s job to identify strategic directions and decision-making. While this is true, there are a number of reasons for an inclusive approach.

First, DEI work, which museums acknowledge as important, rests on the idea that everyone is important – that museums should be inclusive of a broader range of voices, and that diversity of perspectives makes us better. This isn’t limited to questions about what holidays the staff should gather to celebrate; it is equally true in questions of how to handle repatriation of collection objects, what types of exhibits and programs are meaningful in a specific community, and what to do when contracting funding requires rethinking what a museum can and should do, and how it does it. Second, while museum staff are unionizing for a variety of reasons, a major reason is this issue of voice and decision making. Museum union members have said that unionization is about “appropriately valuing staff expertise and commitment within the system in which we operate, and that “[union members] want to be recognized as having value. Museum workers are trying to figure out how to leverage the union to create new structures [and identify] what power-sharing looks like.”¹⁰ While this might be a change from what 20^th century museum staff needed or asked for, ignoring the demand of staff members to be heard and valued is leading to division and unrest. For most museums, it is worth thinking carefully about this issue in order to maintain a committed and energized staff.

Third, non-leadership staff may well have suggestions that are valuable and helpful. Perhaps one of your part-time educators used to work in corporate marketing or event planning and can both share ideas and work a few additional hours per week in this area. Maybe a coordinator has a brilliant idea for earned revenue. You might find a magnetic security guard who, after meaningful discussion with leadership, is invested in leadership’s vision and helps bring others along. It’s likely that there are staff members with a strong understanding of the community you serve and what would draw them to the museum.

The last point I will mention here is that creating a culture in which all staff feel informed or valued leads to a team that is all working toward the same goal. I started this report with a metaphor imagining museum directors as captains of boats beset by pirates, while staff below decks are complaining. Addressing organizational culture – whether this is about voice, value, workload, or something else – is the work that needs to be done to get the entire team on board, ready to fend off the pirates and help move the boat toward a jointly understood future.

So: your cultural audit found that your staff feel like they are kept in the dark, with no voice in or knowledge of museum decision-making. What do you do?

While this is a big and challenging issue to address, museums address big and challenging issues all the time – for their external audiences. We talk about this as social impact. How does a museum successfully have “social impact”? In a 2023 interview, Johanna Jones, Director of Evaluation and Visitor Insight from the Oakland Museum of California, talked about the work the museum did to identify what their museum could genuinely do, define this carefully, and then evaluate efforts to achieve this goal.¹¹ Think of your staff as your first and most important audience. How do you positively impact them? Using the same tools we use externally: Define your vision. Clarify your goals, and what it looks like if these goals are reached. Create experimental “programs” to achieve your goals. Evaluate success. Pause, reflect, and refine.

The first step for a museum is to define what it looks like when staff are informed (the opposite of being kept in the dark) and have a voice. This might mean that all staff members have access to and knowledge of information. This might mean that staff understand how decisions are made – they know what happens at senior leadership and Board meetings. This might mean that staff have a way to share ideas. This might mean that leadership listens to new ideas and, when it uses an idea shared by non-leadership staff, it shares that. There are many other possibilities, because all museums are different.

Once these specific goals are identified, the experiments begin. What if every staff member can see every line of the budget? What if staff receive the Board packets and minutes, and minutes from senior leadership meetings? What if each member of senior leadership has open office hours one afternoon a month? What if the museum identifies a challenging issue – declining attendance, a café that is losing money, the challenge of identifying exhibits that bring in local visitors – and creates a mechanism for bringing all voices into discussion to this issue? Some of these ideas might make no sense for your museum; some might fit perfectly. Again, every museum is different.

But this is the process for changing organizational culture. Figure out how staff are really feeling, and what the barriers are to feeling included and doing their work well. Get specific about an area you can make change in. Experiment with ways to make real, meaningful change that make sense for your museum. Assess the impact of these initiatives, refine, and keep going.

To return to the framing metaphor: Together, a captain and their team can not just fight off pirates and put out the fires, but build a better boat and sail somewhere beautiful.

---

1. Michael D. Watkins, “What Is Organizational Culture? And Why Should We Care?,” last modified May 15, 2013, https://hbr.org/2013/05/what-is-organizational-culture. ↩︎
2. Meredith Somers, “5 Enduring Management Ideas from MIT Sloan’s Edgar Schein,” last modified February 9, 2023, https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/5-enduring-management-ideas-mit-sloans-edgar-schein. ↩︎
3. Organizational Culture, Society of Human Resource Management, accessed August 8, 2024, https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/topics/organizational-culture#sortCriteria=relevancy%2C%40ytlikecount%20descending&f-topicfiltertag=Workplace%20Culture. ↩︎
4. Bill Schaninger, Bryan Power and Emily Field. Power to the Middle. (Boston: Harvard Business Review, 2023) ↩︎
5. Jennifer DePrizio, “Why Is Self-Awareness an Essential Leadership Skill?” July 8, 2024, https://museumquestions.com/2024/07/08/why-is-self-awareness-an-essential-leadership-skill/ ↩︎
6. Christina Maslach. Burnout: The Cost of Caring. (Cambridge, MA, Malor Books, 2003) ↩︎
7. Cecilia Garibay and Jeanne Marie Olson, CCLI National Landscape Study: The State of DEAI Practices in Museums. Accessed on August 8, 2024 at file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Consulting/Changing%20Museum%20Culture%20Project/Models%20and%20resources/CCLI_National_Landscape_Study-DEAI_Practices_in_Museums_2020.pdf,  p 4 ↩︎
8. Amy Gallo, “What is Active Listening?” Harvard Business Review, January 2, 2024, https://hbr.org/2024/01/what-is-active-listening ↩︎
9. Ibid ↩︎
10. Rebecca Shulman, “What Can Working with Unions Teach Us About Productive Workplace Structures?” August 21, 2024, https://museumquestions.com/2024/08/21/what-can-working-with-unions-teach-us-about-productive-workplace-structures/.   ↩︎
11. Rebecca Shulman, “How Can Museums Measure Social impact? Interview with Johanna Jones,” November 30, 2023, https://museumquestions.com/2023/11/30/how-can-museums-measure-social-impact-interview-with-johanna-jones/. ↩︎

A downloadable version of this report can be found here

Rebecca Shulman is the Principal of Museum Questions Consulting, which delivers a range of services that motivate leaders at all levels to think deeply and carefully about goals and systems, so that they can plan effectively. She has over 20 years of experience as a museum professional, working both within museums and as a consultant. Most recently she served as Founding Director of the Peoria PlayHouse Children’s Museum, in Peoria, Illinois. Her current focus is on helping museums with both strategic planning and organizational culture work.