FLEXIBILITY IS KEY TO CULTURE CHANGE
A Distillation of Research by Robert F. Dennehy, Sandra Morgan, and Karen Lehrburger
When an art museum in a western U.S. city introduced major changes, its staff found they needed
motivation and cooperation, as well as Organizational Development (OD) models, to accomplish
the transition to a new culture.
Management Professors Robert F. Dennehy (Lubin), Sandra Morgan (Barney School of Business,
University of Hartford), and Karen J. Lehrburger (Lubin) collaborated on a case study of how docents at
an art museum reacted to a move to another location and to the resulting increase in visitors and in
requests for docent-led tours. Their research was published in Organizational Behavior and Management
(Portugal), vol. 10, no. 1, 2004.
The museum is located in a metropolitan area that has a population of about 900,000 and is a destination
for tourists. In 1994, the museum began a multistep process to reinvent itself. There was a new focus for
both the art collection and the teaching program. A strategic plan was devised that resulted in national
accreditation in 1997. A fundraising campaign brought the museum's endowment to $5.6 million.
In addition, a combined county and state effort to move the museum from a residential community to an
area accessible to more people succeeded when the new 45,000 square-foot museum of art was located
in a ninety-acre county park designed to feature a botanical garden and a historic village as well.
Under the guidance of an experienced executive director, the museum’s organizational culture shifted;
positions and staff members changed. The museum now emphasized service to a broader, more
economically and ethnically diverse population. The former friendly, familial culture gave way to a more
professional, sophisticated environment.
The shift in organizational culture keenly affected the docents, who were volunteers and provided
museum tours as well as other kinds of community art education. During the transformation, Lehrburger
worked with the museum’s curator of education and the curator’s assistant. Together the trio comprised
“the executive group.” They helped integrate the established docents with the new docents—no small
challenge.
The twelve experienced docents were women, mostly in their late sixties. The group was cohesive, with
values similar to those of the museum staff. Most had been trained by a scholarly curator who had high
standards for art research, formal analysis, and historical references. In contrast, thirty-five new docents
recruited for a year-long training program were a decade or more younger than the practiced docents,
included men, and held a more relaxed view of their assignment. It was revealing that the older docents
did not think humor had a legitimate place in a museum tour, while the new docents viewed it as an
effective teaching tool.
Through a few modest social events, the museum made superficial and largely unsuccessful efforts to
blend the two groups of docents. To remedy the situation, the executive group then pinpointed differences
between the two docent groups. Next they developed a list of assumptions and behaviors that had
emerged from interviews with the senior docents and with many of the incoming ones. Then they
identified what would be expected of both groups of docents and developed assessment measures,
creating an action research model derived from OD—but modified to meet their own particular
circumstances. They used OD theory as a springboard to a solution.
Action Research Model1
Museum Time Line
Steps in the Model
1
11/1999
12/19991/2000
2/20003/2000
4/20005/2000
5/2000
6/2000
8/2000
Ongoing
1. Key executive's recognition of conflict between established
and newly recruited docents
2. Data gathering, analysis, and diagnosis
3. Joint-action planning with client group based on data
4. Action
5. Data gathering after action (reassessment of system)
6. Feedback to key client or group
7. New action plan
8. Recurring loop between steps 4 and 7
Their model connected data gathering with action and evaluation in order to produce new policy. For
instance, while the museum continues to recognize docent length of service, new awards have been
added such as a Spirit Award and a peer-evaluated Best Tour Giver. These awards address both attitude
and effort, two previously unrecognized contributions. Now all the docents have an opportunity to win
acknowledgment.
As time passed, it became apparent that the action research model was working. This was confirmed in a
class of docents when, after several people had contributed, a longtime docent said, "Collectively, we
know a lot!" And a new docent responded, "Collectively, we can all learn a lot from each other!"
The researchers conclude that art museums can benefit from best practices benchmarking to broaden
both the thinking and the practices of their docents. Moreover, continued learning can keep all the
docents invigorated.
Typically successful change begins with one or two individuals, expands to a small group, and then
spreads throughout the organization. To encourage individuals within the organization to alter course,
appropriate concepts, vocabulary, and mental models should be in place to help people connect with
each other. A high point of Lehrburger’s docent experience occurred when both established and entrylevel docents stopped saying "This is how it should be done…" and said "This is what I see…." The
transformation was highly significant because it made discussions between the two groups possible.
Dennehy, Morgan, and Lehrburger conclude that discovering the appropriate change process for any
specific organization requires an open mind; close observation; and an understanding of human values,
attitudes, behavior, and social dynamics. OD theories and tools can help, but the people responsible for
facilitating change must be flexible enough to change their approach.
By Hawley Roddick
_______________
Model adapted from French, W. L. (1969). Organization development objectives, assumptions, and
strategies.
California Management Review, 12, 23-24.
2