As part of a series of features looking at different ways in to the ‘Fragile to flourishing’ research, Ben Tucker of AIM Conference Gold sponsors Minerva shares their initial reflections.
In the last months, two particularly interesting documents have come out that have pertinence to the role of governance in independent museums. One is the AIM led research on Museum Operating Models, and the other the Arts Council’s Good Practice Guide on Chair/CEO relationships.
Without doubt both are extremely useful documents. The first recognises not only that governance needs to evolve to ensure it is contributing as effectively as possible as the museum itself develops – what works at one stage might not at the next. Moreover it recognises that sticking too rigidly to traditional governance approaches in the current times of financial constraint will likely impede innovation, taking measured risk and generating income. It makes the case for a flexible, “visionary” approach to governance. The second is an incredibly thoughtful and practical piece that sets out a blueprint for a functional Chair/CEO relationship, recommending a wide range of measures that could be put in place to maximise effectiveness. And we all know how bad it is when that relationship is not right.
But when I think about some of my clients in the sector, I wonder what they will draw from these documents. They both provide ideal pictures of how things could be, but how they map on to the reality of the situation for a lot of independent museums I am less sure.
Both documents work best in contexts where there is quite a lot of scale. Talking about visionary governance makes most sense when you have a large executive team, and a well-resourced and highly capable volunteer board, but for many in the sector, there needs to be a much more pragmatic approach.
One of the strengths of the independent museums sector is its diversity and just thinking back over the past year I’ve seen a wide array of different models in play, many of which seemed to be working effectively for their context. In one I saw a museum being well run by volunteer trustees who gave a huge amount of time and energy to their responsibilities, with some real success. Their resources didn’t allow them to escape a sense of pushing against the odds, but they were making real progress within the parameters available. Another had one and a half full time members of staff, and a high calibre board. In this case the energy and talent of the Museum Director palpably drove forward the development of the museum and in effect provided for the board all of the vision it needed. And in another, a tight – and smaller than average – group of very engaged trustees who had been involved for many years worked robustly and collaboratively with their museum director to carry things forward.
If I think about where these museums sit in relation to the operating model – from fragile to flourishing – I could argue that they were completely at both ends of the spectrum. On paper they would definitely seem fragile – running to very tight budgets, and with no idea how much funding might decline once their key sponsors went through their next budgeting round. But in behaviour they were doing many things relevant to the flourishing museum. From a governance point of view, I saw huge amounts of collaborative working and flexibility – doing what needs to be done as opposed to rigidly following procedures. And embracing appropriate risk and openness to new approaches that will diversify income. More than visionary governance, I would say it is pragmatic governance that is carrying them through.
And the bit missing for me – although it is a much larger topic – in the Chair/CEO document is around the importance of aesthetic alignment between the two characters in terms of key strategic questions such as risk, innovation and partnerships, all of which might fundamentally change the nature of the organisation whilst attaining sustainability and serving the community.
These two documents provide excellent and thoughtful models which can help guide and structure governance where possible. But are they models that many of our most interesting and different museums might never fit?
Like football managers are fond of saying, “you have to work with the cards you’re dealt”, and we should celebrate the diversity of organisations and approaches the emerge from this.
Ben Tucker, Minerva
Minerva are Gold sponsors of AIM Conference, drop into the Expo to meet Ben and the team.
Click here to visit the Minerva website (opens in a new tab)Other news
A simple way to sense check your museum’s brand
This free tool from AIM Associate Supplier Osch helps museums get a clear sense of how strong their
New resource hub for sharing climate guidance
AIM and the National Museum Directors’ Council, supported with input from museum and heritage sector bodies, user groups and sustainability experts, have developed the Museum Climate Hub.
Amendment to AIM’s Articles
Two amendments to AIM’s articles form part of the papers going forward to the Annual General Meeting taking place on 10 June at Ushaw Historic House, Chapels and Gardens.