Developing the Leadership Within

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS' 2009 Emerging Museum Professionals survey gives us a sense of how the museum field is meeting the needs of its future leaders. The survey rates the importance of nine professional development resources to this group and its related satisfaction with access to each of them. The resulting "gap" between importance and satisfaction thus becomes the point of the story.

The biggest gap is the ability of young professionals to access leadership opportunities within their own institutions. It's a gap that has grown significantly from the time the last survey was done just two years ago. Back in 2007, 55% of survey respondents ranked finding leadership within one's institution as very/somewhat important. That stands at 73% today.

But as far as these folks are concerned, they simply aren't being given the opportunities to challenge their leadership abilities. Why is that, especially when most museums are understaffed (and becoming more so)?

I think there are at least two factors at work. The first is that there is a long-standing general lack of really meaningful professional development planning in museums, large and small, that helps individuals set professional goals by working with supervisors (and others across the institution) to build capacity. The annual "evaluation" that so many of us have been involved with is more often about containment than it is about development.

The second factor is, I think, a mindset that talent development requires heaps of money and time. And when institutional leaders aren't getting the professional development they need, they're most likely not going to turn around and offer opportunities to younger or subordinate staff. But, in the context of this survey, we're not talking about sending folks off to conferences, workshops and seminars; we're talking about in-house skill-building.

So, that leaves time. And making time to develop in-house leadership opportunities for all staff who want those opportunities does require a special institutional commitment that may require a radical shift in how people work or a few relatively simple tweaks that can open doors to new learning. The cross-functional team is a perfect example. Combining staff from various parts of an institution to work together on a project is not only an opportunity to cross-pollinate ideas, it's an opportunity to cross-train. Shadowing staff is another tried and true learning experience. Attending leadership or board meetings is another. And these just scratch the surface.

Developing leadership within the institution has its best chance of success when commitment to it flows from the top, but it can certainly bubble up in any number of ways at all levels. There are thousands of people who want to be challenged in their work; let's not turn a deaf ear to them.

Photo: office worker from bolandrotor

What Would Make You Turn Down an Invitation to Join a Board?

THERE'S SO MUCH WRITTEN ABOUT RECRUITING BOARD TALENT, I thought I'd spend a little time thinking about it from the prospect's point of view. Clearly, there are boards where the line is long to get on them. But what would make you turn down an invitation? Here's a short list to get the conversation started: 1. You've had no prior exposure to the organization. Your immediate reaction is "did you pull my name out of a hat?" (Is that lady in the picture the head of the Nominating Committee?) Seems as though there must be a hidden agenda at work (like you're rich and once you become a board member you'll pour all your resources into the organization) or the organization is simply looking for any warm body to fill a seat. 2. The organization doesn't have a good reputation. There's something to be said for street cred. An organization that's floundering may be strengthened by your participation or you may find yourself sucked into...

What to Do With Dead Wood on Your Board?

MY POLL ASKED WHAT ONE BOARD DYNAMIC YOU would change this year and the top response was "remove dead wood". For my first post on this topic I'd like to start with two obvious facts: 1) most boards have some non-performing or under-performing board members AND 2) most boards already have mechanisms in place for removing dead wood...or at least the non-attending dead wood. Those mechanisms are found in the Bylaws and perhaps in a board job description. Few boards, it seems, invoke these mechanisms, mostly out of fear of offending the offender. We end up side-stepping the dead wood, dancing around it, ignoring it, wishing mightily it would go away. Oh, and complaining about it. So, even though the dead wood isn't doing much, it's sapping the energy and focus of many others. (There must be a Law of Physics about this!) Where to start and how to implement? While removing dead wood is not the most pleasant of responsibilities, it does not need to be -- and s...

Change for Your Board in 2010: A Polling Update

WE'RE A DAY INTO MY LAST POLL (SEE RIGHT) AND the responses are clustering in two areas: 1) removing dead wood from the board and 2) using better/different tools to make decisions/evaluate performance. There are still six days left for your colleagues to cast their vote! In the meantime, those of you who are in need of tools for decision-making might want to check my posts on taking stock here , here and here .

Leading by Design

Search This Blog