I can't help but respond to Kersti Krug's thoughtful analysis of Bob Janes'
new book.  My response stems not from reading the book, but from having
heard an oral (and persuasive) presentation last year as a part of a two day
seminar on "museum futures."  Following this I had the opportunity of having
several more hours informal conversation with him, although partly on other
matters.

Another reason for my response stems from having recently been one of those
"who have left," but almost at the same time "chose to leave."  The personal
is always a factor, for as was brought out by Kersti, fear and humiliation
can all too often be a symptom of the general disease.

In any case, although I can't quarrel with the basic points that Kersti
discusses, I see them in from a somewhat different perspective.  I offer
these comments as complementary, not contradictory.

Assuming that change is inevitable and desireable, the issue is how it is
managed from a human perspective.  My perception of Bob Janes is that he
takes it seriously and analytically, but approach and equations which do try
to include some of the human factors.  Remembering that a manager is seldom
given much choice over what must be done, a serious attempt to deal with
whatever situation presents itself certainly does not earn the medal of a
hero, but it does reflect professionalism.

In my own case, I lived the storyline without it even being analyzed, at
least in the terms outlined by Bob Janes.

And the general disease?  That is a different discussion, but I doubt that
it is possible to cut 25% of an organization without some degree of painful
emotion.  We hire managers to manage transitions.  Having more of a role in
defining those transitions is something museums have not yet achieved.





>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.)
>
>
Joe Nagel (KUSTOS Inc.)
2961 Semiahmoo Trail
Surrey, B.C.  V4P 1H4
604-531-6879, 604-594-2628 (FAX)