You wrote:
>
>I've been reading with interest the announcement of Bob Janes' newly
>published book, _Museums and the Paradox of Change: A Case in Urgent
>Adaptation_, and subsequent comments (some critical, others
supportive)
>about how it was announced and what we might learn from its content.
I'd
>like to add my thoughts to what I think is an important consideration
of
>how change is taking place in museums, and invite Museum-L people to
share
>our experiences through this turbulent period.
>
>I was particularly moved to write by the enthusiastic recommendation
of
>Lynne Teather, professor of Museum Studies at the U of T, for what she
>sees as "ground-breaking work for the museum field in Canada and
>internationally" as well as "testimony to the Glenbow's struggle of
the
>recent five years and their Director's commitment to the theories of
>Learning Organizations."  Although I agree with her that this is an
>important contribution to the discourse of change, I do not agree that
we
>should read it so lightly and accept it so easily.
>
>My own reading took a different path.  As soon as I opened the book
>(which, by the way, looks terrific), I was struck by two things.
First,
>on the inside page are these words:
>        This book is dedicated to all Glenbow staff -
>        those who have left and those who remain.
>
>Teather's reaction to the dedication expresses "hope that other museum
>directors will show as much care and sensitivity to the people who
work in
>their museums as this director as museums face the challenge of
>re-engineering."  My reaction (and the reaction of some of my
colleagues)
>was different, for we could read "those who have left" as "those who
chose
>to leave."  Knowing the painful stories of some of these departures, I
>thought the phrasing unfortunate, even insensitive.
>
>(As a small aside, these two lines of print are placed underneath what
I
>can only describe as a fiendish happy face exploding into lightening
>bolts.  The book's chapter headings all have such interesting
drawings; I
>would have selected another one to share space with the dedication.)
>
>Second, I was also struck by the very first three sentences of the
book
>itself:
>        There is abundant evidence to indicate that organizational
>        change and adaptation occurs with great difficulty in
>        museums.  The most compelling testimony to this is the
>        death threat I received during the most painful of our
>        organizational initiatives - the reduction of 25% of our
>        staff.  There could be no more stark reminder of the impact
>        of these events on individual human beings than such a
>        threat.
>
>What hit me when reading this was that perhaps the author perceives
>himself "victimized," and that attributing violence to staff members
>suggests to readers that the museum was probably better off getting
rid of
>"such" people.  No doubt there are many other readings of these
sentences,
>but for me, Janes quickly established a perspective which I found
>difficult to forget through the rest of the book.
>
>Though there is much of interest and value in the book, most notably
the
>inclusion of ten staff essays, the individuals selected (or willing)
to
>write still remain with the Glenbow (sometimes in better positions).
>Where, I wondered, are the voices of "those who have left"?  This
would
>have been a far richer case study had we been able to read the other
side
>of this "success story."  For if we continue to describe draconian
>organizational change as crusade and change-makers as heroes, and not
>expose the fearful, humiliating, and often nasty side of change, we
>continue to dehumanize not only ourselves but those who are sacrificed
to
>the ideology of restraint.
>
>Kersti Krug
>Museum of Anthropology
>(and interdisciplinary doctoral student)
>The University of British Columbia
>Vancouver, Canada
>                (Opinions expressed are my own.)
>
Well put, but this only points out the true nature of musuems which is
to preserve the past and present cultures as the enriched minority sees
them to be. The death threats relect the intensity of that staff member
who felt that there was another way or method for getting the same
thing done!  Just an observation from someone else in the system.