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.)