Posts Tagged ‘Intentional Planning’

Much of Intentional Practice work is about process, and a significant part of process work requires that we talk with each other.  I realize that humans exchange ideas verbally all the time, although given we live in the screen age (computers, phones, and pads), perhaps people are conversing face-to-face less and less.  And perhaps, as well, we need practice convening and having productive conversations.  This third principle of the seven principles of Intentional Practice is staff using inquiry and active listening to understand and appreciate varying viewpoints; it is about having productive conversations that support the work of your museum.  It is a principle because open, productive conversations among staff are necessary if a museum is to achieve impact.

#3: Staff use inquiry and active listening to understand and appreciate varying viewpoints.

RK&A uses inquiry (e.g., ask open-ended questions) for several reasons:  1) inquiry, with a few ground rules, creates a neutralizing and democratizing atmosphere that invites and welcomes all viewpoints; 2) inquiry promotes others to ask questions, and it is through conversation and dialogue that social, professional, and personal learning emerges; and 3) inquiry allows staff to come to their own understanding about an issue or topic; and 4) asking well-articulated and purposeful questions allows everyone to explore their thoughts, come to know their perspectives and the perspectives of others in their group, and reach a collective appreciation for all ways of knowing.  I realize that my view of inquiry and active listening may sound Pollyannaish, but because I have seen such conversations reach useful and invigorating ends, I believe fully in the principle.  I realize, as well, that the four points above are complicated and deserve their own individual blog post, if not a chapter in a book (which is forthcoming by the way—in about 18 months if all goes as planned), but, for today’s post, I have chosen to focus on the ground rules, as without rules of engagement, conversations easily can go awry. 

Ground rule #1: Participate with authenticity
First, in workshops we invite and encourage all workshop participants to contribute with authenticity.  We ask all participants to respect all others in the gathering as well as the purpose of the gathering; authentic and genuine participation is essential to a successful planning process.  We want to hear everyone’s genuine thoughts about the ideas under discussion.

Ground rule #2:  Listen to first understand, then respond
Second, while we encourage everyone to be themselves, we also request that everyone be respectful as the conversation ensues.  To that end, we encourage listening to understand—not to respond, at least not right away.  We recommend allowing ample time to process and understand before responding, so as to avoid knee-jerk reactions to potentially unpopular positions.  We respect what all individuals bring to a situation, and we recognize that all bring a unique and valuable intellect, commitment, passion, and experience to the group conversation.  If someone does not fully understand what someone is saying, we support asking additional questions to clarify a point that may not have been clearly expressed initially.

Ground rule #3: Realize process work is an art and science

Finally, the Cycle of Intentional Practice work is iterative and process-oriented.  Process work can be messy, and it also can be uncomfortable for some.  While most of the gatherings (e.g., workshops) may have a defined agenda, framework, and theory to support the work, we cannot anticipate exactly what will unfold throughout the course of the workshop; if we knew, we would be dismissing the uniqueness of the institution and individuals’ contributions.  The art emerges as we all respond to each other’s thoughts and we end up in an unexpected place of understanding; the art also emerges, with a little bit of science, in how we ask the questions, ensuring that we and others are asking balanced, non-leading, and unbiased questions.

 

Read Full Post »

As you may recall, for the next several months I will be highlighting the seven principles of Intentional Practice.  Last month I wrote about the principle #1: The organization wants to achieve something greater than itself (e.g., impact) among the audiences it serves, and this month I discuss the importance of collaboration to Intentional Practice.

#2: Staff work collaboratively across the organization.

Not too long ago in museum history, exhibitions were developed by a lone curator.  The idea to use interdisciplinary teams to develop exhibitions was instigated at the Field Museum in the early 1980s, and the rest, as they say, is history.  Although some museums still struggle to implement and maintain what has become known as “the team approach” to exhibition development, significant progress has been made in the last 30 years.  Initially, this shift in practice was in response to the national trend that was taking hold whereby museums were starting to embrace the public dimension of their work, recognizing that successful communication of complex ideas might require more than a subject matter specialist.

My belief in the necessity of collaboration grew from my experience conducting hundreds of evaluations over the last 30-plus years.  For an exhibition to be successful, for example, all the following stars would need to be aligned: the exhibition team would have a thesis (e.g., a one-sentence big idea), identify a few messages that support the thesis, have coherent interpretive text that communicates the thesis and messages, have tested interpretive elements (e.g., interactives, text) to ensure they communicate the thesis and messages, have adequate resources (time and dollars) to actualize the exhibition as intended, and have the right combination of expertise and skills to execute the exhibition as intended.  Hard, complicated, and messy work, indeed.

Puzzle graphic created by Davo Sime from the Noun Project

Applying my evaluation experience to intentionality, I realized that if a museum was to achieve a discernible impact among audiences, the entire museum would need to participate.  Achieving impact, which in the case of Intentional Practice means making a positive difference in the quality of people’s lives, might not happen if one person or one department bears all the responsibility; instead, achieving impact should be the collective effort of all staff working together towards an agreed-upon end.  To capitalize on the benefits of collaboration, we request our clients create working groups comprised of individuals from different departments when we facilitate Intentional Practice workshops; we seek interdisciplinary collaboration because we want people to problem solve with those whom they might not normally choose to work.  What is the result of people thinking alongside colleagues from other departments?  Increased appreciation for the unique perspectives and skills their colleagues offer!  They slowly recognize that their collective brain power and actions are stronger than any one individual’s work.

Cover of Forces for Good, by Leslie R. Crutchfield

Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant demonstrate the benefits of collaboration in their well-researched book Forces for Good.  They studied 12 high-impact nonprofits to understand what made these nonprofits successful, and yes, high-impact nonprofits collaborate with other nonprofits that have shared goals.  Their updated research appears in the 2012 edition of the book and in this article called “Local Forces for Good.”  They make the point that no one can or should do the work alone, and I agree.

As anyone who has experienced the team approach to exhibition development will know, process work can feel disorganized.  Museum leaders can mitigate confusion by clearly communicating who does what and modeling patience and trust.  From an Intentional Practice perspective, all staff are apt to benefit from working collaboratively, as collaboration increases the chance for an individual’s professional and personal learning.

Read Full Post »

In keeping with this year’s blog series about how my Intentional Practice has evolved over the last 10 years, I will be using the next seven months to present the seven principles of Intentional Practice.  The emergence of these principles was organic; I did not set out to identify these principles prior to embarking on this work—the list just came to me one day last summer.  In fact, I had forgotten that I had even written the list until I was cleaning up my Intentional Practice folder on my computer last week.  To my surprise and delight, there it was!  Suffice it to say, over the next seven months I will mull over the principles, which may shift or change as I clarify my thinking.  For that reason, I will share one per month.

#1: The organization wants to achieve something greater than itself (e.g., impact) among the audiences it serves.

 

The first principle is a prerequisite for Intentional Planning; and a museum cannot move forward in Intentional Practice if it isn’t interested in working for the common good.  Clarifying intended impact isn’t about the museum benefiting; it is about the public—the recipient of the museum’s work—benefiting.  Even the statement, “People become life-long museum visitors” doesn’t place the benefit solely on the museum visitor, as repeated visitation is a means to a greater end—for the visitor.  Achieving impact is about making a difference in people’s lives, which requires the full force of the museum behind it.  A museum that is insular, self-serving, or arrogant may not be able to pursue Intentional Planning.  Likewise, a museum with a relentless focus on the bottom line may thwart Intentional Practice work, not because it wants to but rather, persistent attention on the bottom line has a funny way of interfering with integrity and ingenuity.  People may inadvertently revert to traditional ways, which for some museums may mean looking inward rather than outward.  Fear might overtake confidence, risk-taking might disappear, and working on behalf of the bottom line might seem like the only survival strategy available on the horizon.  While organizations can balance bottom-line concerns with achieving something greater than themselves, more times than not, organizations create an either/or situation rather than an “and” situation.

rk-blog-post-1

The New Museum by John Cotton Dana

The idea of a museum thinking outside of itself for the common good is an age-old idea in museums that holds value and importance today.  A century ago, John Cotton Dana said, “A museum is good only insofar it is of use”—a statement that is often quoted today by museum staff who want their museums to be viewed as convening places where people can gather to have important conversations about contemporary issues.  Dana’s many important writings are compiled in a book called The New Museum (1999) published by the Newark Museum, and they are worth reading.

Stephen Weil

Stephen Weil

And, in Making Museums Matter (2002), noted scholar and museum director Stephen Weil writes in the chapter “Can and do they make a difference” that: “If our museums are not being operated with the ultimate goal of improving people’s lives, on what alternative basis might we possibly ask for public support?”  In this piece and several others, Weil makes a case for museums to do their work to “make a positive difference in the quality of people’s lives,” which is how all of us at RK&A define impact.

In 1996, Harold Skramstad, former director of Henry Ford and Greenfield Village in Dearborn, MI, in a presentation during the 150th celebration of the Smithsonian, noted that mission statements, which museums like to use to demonstrate their purpose, do not answer the “so what?” question.  Museums spend a lot of time agonizing over their mission and visions statements (both of which are about the museum), when it might make more sense to use some of that time thinking about the impact they want to achieve on audiences.

The “so what” question is a running theme, at least implicitly, in Emlyn Koster’s writings; Emlyn, Executive Director of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, writes about “relevance” as the necessary element that museums in today’s world must boldly embrace.  For me, relevance is connected to the concept of achieving impact, as audiences will benefit from a museum that is relevant to their lives.  I suggest reading these two pieces by Koster, neither of which are available digitally for free: “In search of relevance: Science centers as innovators in the evolution of museums” in Daedalus, 1999; and “The Relevant Museum: A reflection on Sustainability” in Museum News, 2006. Both make a case for relevance as a necessary requirement for today’s museums. Emlyn also makes the point that sustainability of our planet is the relevant topic for science museums.  I believe he is right.

Relevance also is a viable approach to organizational sustainability for any museum, as maintaining the relevance of what your organization does for its audiences will keep your museum fresh, contemporary, and most important—purposeful and meaningful to your audiences.

Read Full Post »