The ‘Maison Model’:

Toward a Culture of Innovation and Brand Building in Museums

María López-Puigdollers

A Thesis in the Field of Museum Studies

for the degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies

Harvard University

May 2017

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

The Necessity of a Reinvented Museum Model that Pursues Continuous Innovation ................... 8

Navigating in The Age of Uncertainty: Striving Towards Accountability and Sustained

Reconfiguration........................................................................................................................... 8

The Case for an Intentional Museum Organizational Culture .................................................. 17

The Different Levels of Culture: The Necessity of Comprehensive Integration ................... 17

Redesigning the Organization: The Role of Leadership ....................................................... 21

Avoiding the Schumpeterian Fate: Leading a Continual Internal Creative Destruction Through

Organizational Culture .............................................................................................................. 27

The ‘Maison’ Model: What It Is and How It Can Be Implemented in Museums ........................ 30

Behind the Scenes: The LVMH Inspiration.............................................................................. 30

LVMH and the Art Museum: Convergences and Divergences ................................................ 32

The ‘Maison’ Model ................................................................................................................. 35

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 42

Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 45

1

Introduction

Amidst the dire competition they face for time, resources and relevancy, museums have

to ponder with a spirit of honesty why they deserve the public’s attention, the loyalty of

members, and the funds and support from organizations and individuals. As any other

organization, whether for-profit or nonprofit, if they are to earn the recognition of the local and

international community, museums need to create value. This is defined by the Business

Dictionary as “the worth from all the benefits and rights arising from ownership,” a goal which

can be regarded as “the raison d’être of collaborative customer-supplier relationships,” following

Professor at the J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management in Northwestern University

James C. Anderson (348). In other words, the public has to be better off as a result of the

museum’s existence, by virtue of the products and services that it offers, and vice versa: the

museum ought to be enriched by the relationship it cultivates with the public.

A new organizational model that looks at the museum critically from an institutional

perspective and incorporates key business concepts is necessary if museums aspire to advance

their mission and remain relevant in today’s exceptionally competitive world. The proposed

‘maison’ model, which spotlights a culture of comprehensive integration, aspires to bolster

creativity and innovation with a defined purpose: the museum’s organizational success through

value creation.

As Harvard Business School Professor Michael E. Porter and business strategist Mark R.

Kramer argue, “[t]he solution lies the principle of shared value, which involves creating

economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and

challenges (4). This means that organizations, in this case, museums, must reconcile their own

organizational success with society’s advancement. Mission and performance, both in terms of

2

process and output, must go hand in hand. This notion of shared value, although a priori heretical

in a nonprofit context, is conveniently linked to yet another controversial principle, that of

competitive advantage, described by business strategy scholars Ghemawat and Rivkin as

“finding an integrated set of choices that distinguishes a firm from its rivals,” so to widen the

wedge between willingness to pay and cost incurred, positioning itself to earn superior profits

within the industry (3).

In a museum setting, this translates into creating a strong museum brand that bridges the

museum’s hefty expenses with the public’s willingness to visit, pay admission, use/spend time

with its resources, participate in the special events, and purchase added benefits, whether at the

gift shop or at the dining locations, all of which add to one unique enriching experience. That is,

the museum has to be able to create an “added value,” or “the value that would be lost to the

world if the firm [museum] disappeared” (Ghemawat and Rivkin 6), which is what justifies its

existence and differentiates it from countless other museums with similar resources.

While the notion of value tends to be associated with profit, this interpretation is much

too narrow. The initiative the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam started in partnership with Etsy, for

instance, illustrates how museums can create value without having a monetary goal in mind. The

museum made its collections available in high quality resolution through the retail platform so

users could employ them for their unique creations and sell them to the public:

https://www.etsy.com/search?q=rijksmuseum. As project manager at the National Museum of

History of the Netherlands Jasper Visser comments,

From a money-perspective this hardly makes sense: why allow people to use your

stuff to make money? From a value-perspective however, it’s brilliant: the

Rijksmuseum adds tons of value to the lives of creatives, who themselves add

3

value to the collection. This will get them more (virtual) visitors, more reach,

more impact, more of anything. (10)

Traditionally, museums have derived their sense of purpose from their collections, or

their role as custodians of valuable artworks and artifacts, patrimony of humanity. Today, as

President of museum consulting firm Gail Anderson & Associates, Gail Anderson indicates, they

have shifted their mission toward public education, setting values as “guideposts for operating

responsibly and as tools for communicating what matters to stakeholders and constituents” (5).

Yet, all too often, mission statements and museum-field conversations fail to be more than

beguiling rhetoric, as the values they claim to embody are not demonstrated through actions.

This is exemplified in the way some museums proclaim they believe in inclusion, yet fail to

make the physical space accessible for everyone; that they embrace integration, but do not invite

other voices to aid interpret artworks and artifacts; that they want to engage the younger

generations, but are not present in the platforms they spend time at; that they embrace the future,

yet are not investing in new approaches and technologies. Therein resides their inability to spark

passion and loyalty through their service.

This is due to the fact that, even if there is a genuine desire to do so, changing the status

quo appears incredibly daunting. As Elizabeth Merritt, founding director of the Center for the

Future of Museums, an initiative of the American Alliance of Museums recounts in her blog,

A reporter recently asked me to name the biggest barrier standing in the way of

museums adapting to the forces shaping the future. My reply was “ourselves—the

funding and organizational structures that tether us to outdated models and failed

strategies.” However unsuccessful these models are, sometimes the barrier that

keeps us from discarding outdated ways of operating is simply too high to scale.

4

Nonetheless, just as for-profit organizations are measured by results and not intentions, so

museums should also vindicate their continuation by the products and effects of their activity,

rather than the resources they possess or their weighty ideals. The query is then: how can

museums effectively create “added value”?

Much of the literature regarding firm performance and organizational culture suggests

these two are highly interrelated. Gleaning from these and other sources, it is postulated that

establishing a unique museum culture that captures the hearts and minds of the museum’s

personnel can attain superior results for the organization, both from a qualitative and quantitative

standpoint. Professor Jay B. Barney, expert in resource-based theory and competitive advantage,

argues that organizational culture, given it possesses the required attributes, can aid the

organization in obtaining a sustained superior financial performance, a necessary, albeit

inconvenient, goal for a museum that strives to endure.

The three necessary conditions of this culture, which the proposed model adaptively

incorporates, are: value, rareness, and imperfect imitability. That is, the culture needs to enable

the organization to operate in ways that add financial value, it must have attributes that are

uncommon in other organizations, and it must be difficult for other organizations to imitate this

culture, due to its reputation, experience, or other factors (Barney 658). The results are two-fold.

For instance, “[f]irms that are successful at obtaining productivity through their people generally

have an organizational culture that supports and values the worth of the employee,” and this, in

turn, has “positive economic consequences” (660). In the case of the museum, these economic

improvements can be in the form of better fund-allocation, streamlined operations, cost

reduction, and exploitation of new or existing revenue streams.

5

The focus on employee fulfillment and empowerment, rather than other cultural

attributes, is not accidental. As Arts Administration Professor at the University of Kentucky,

Lexington, Yuha Jung points out, what happens within the walls of the institution is reflected in

the output: the quality of the programs, exhibits and other services that are offered to the public,

and which this can distinguish (159). Hence, if museums aim to offer a distinctive service

visitors can recognize and appreciate, it is crucial they cultivate a working environment that first

engages their core audience: their staff. Wharton School Professor at the University of

Pennsylvania Adam Grant notes that while position, function and remuneration are important to

employees, the workplace’s culture is just as consequential, for it ultimately determines

satisfaction and performance.

A culture that incorporates play, which studies conducted at the National Institute of Play

have shown, lights up the human brain, is essential in keeping the staff passionate about their

jobs. As Dr. Stuart Brown, founder of the Institute, points out in a TED talk, “the opposite of

play is not work, it's depression (…) the thing that's so unique about our species is that we're

really designed to play through our whole lifetime” (13:07). Play is key in a working

environment because, as he argues in his course “From Play to Innovation,” taught at Stanford’s

Design School, the human state of play is strongly linked to creative thinking and innovation.

By focusing on the workplace culture and the working relationships, the museum can

better incorporate the values they ought to –and in many instances, wish to– represent. Following

Gail Anderson, these values are those of the “reinvented” museum, most prominently: mission-

driven, inclusive, forward-looking, entrepreneurial and multidimensional (3-4). In a nutshell, the

challenge lies in establishing an organizational museum culture that fosters innovation,

welcoming the chaos associated with creativity and staff engagement, yet remains holistic,

6

keeping all efforts aligned with the organization’s goals and standards, including financial ones.

It is by creating this distinct culture that the museum can better create added value and attain a

competitive advantage that situates it above other organizations when it comes to serving

visitors.

The proposed cultural and structural organizational model, taken after renowned French

haute couture houses within luxury goods conglomerate Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (LVMH),

embodies the best traits of the successful group: ample creative autonomy and vision, mission-

oriented leadership with a tight grip on quality and financial control. Thus, drawing from the

research stating the importance of play for adults while infusing it with a sense of purpose, the

main concept of the proposed organizational/cultural model is to create a flexible organization

composed of several ‘maisons’. The ‘maison’ concept differs from the regular division into

departments in that its organizational structure is more decentralized, each ‘maison’ with enough

autonomy to incorporate a sense of play and make creative decisions, yet all working under the

same vision of excellence, service and guest satisfaction. Staff members are thus empowered to

think in innovative ways, while being driven by a desire to see their ideas a commercial and

educational success, as the LVMH case proves.

This transformation, however, requires direction. As Dr. John P. Kotter, Konosuke

Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus, at the Harvard Business School, points out,

“change, by definition, requires creating a new system, which in turn always demands

leadership” (3). The leader has to understand the need for a major change and communicate it

effectively to the rest of the organization, so “to make the status quo seem more dangerous than

launching into the unknown,” as former Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Sir John

7

Harvey-Jones said. A shared vision is then critical, both during the transformation process and

after the change has taken place.

By carrying all operations in an efficient, excellent manner, the museum can obtain a

more meaningful social impact, which in turn, may increase its funding. This is where an inside-

out approach, focused on the notion of organizational culture, gets intertwined with an outside-in

one, in the form of brand-building. Creating an identifiable brand, understood as “the promise of

the bundles of attributes that someone buys and provide satisfaction (…) be real or illusory,

rational or emotional, tangible or invisible” (Ambler 1992), is crucial in this endeavor of creating

value for visitors, as it serves as the cohesive nexus to all museum efforts. By better

understanding people’s perceptions and attitudes towards the organization, denominated brand

image in the marketing literature, as well as their level of attachment–or loyalty to it, the

museum can better evolve and adapt to meet the visitors’ expectations in a way that is consistent

with its principles and beliefs.

In addition, as professor of marketing at Sheffield Hallam University Lisa Wood notes,

the “natural long-term outcome” of adopting brand value as a performance measure “should be

increased profitability” (668). The result is a direct correlation between the museum’s mission

and its performance. In the light of the museum’s institutional nature, what constitutes the mark

of its success.

8

The Necessity of a Reinvented Museum Model that Pursues Continuous Innovation

Navigating in The Age of Uncertainty: Striving Towards Accountability and Sustained

Reconfiguration

One of museology’s secret syllogisms, as Scholar Emeritus in the Smithsonian Institution’s

Center for Education and Museum Studies Stephen Weil puts forward, is that “all museums are

good per se. My institution is undeniably a museum. Ergo, my institution is undeniably good”

(57). Yet this “abstract cloak” with which museums “protectively wrap themselves,” (57) along

with the assumption that any judgement about a museum’s overall merit is contingent on

subjectivity, gives leeway to poor management, as well as forlorn exhibits and programs,

perpetually out of tune with the public. This is due to the fact that, as long as change is deemed

futile or unnecessary, no effort is put into making the museum more efficient or more attractive

and intelligible for visitors, whether present or potential. The end result is a waste of time and

resources on an organization that, if it were to disappear, no value would be lost to the world, to

use the notion of added value.

The plight lies, oftentimes, in the confusion between resources –in the form of

collections, archives and others– and the museum itself. In actual fact, institutions do not

inherently possess value; they need to create it. Any masterpieces they may own, albeit valuable

in their own right, do not give museums immediate relevancy. Rather, this is dependent on the

success of the institution’s effort to communicate their value. In the words of Peter F. Drucker,

management consultant and father of the modern business corporation, “non-profit institutions

exist for the sake of their mission. They exist to make a difference in society and the life of the

individual. They exist for the sake of their mission, and this must never be forgotten” (45). The

mission’s fulfillment ought to be the yardstick by which museums are evaluated.

9

Weil argues that it is not only necessary to determine whether museums are good or bad,

as there are, in fact, “bad” museums, but also if a museum is good right now. He notes that the

good museum “is one that is operated with a clearly formulated purpose, describable in terms of

the particular and positive outcomes that it hopes and expects to achieve” (62), and that remains

accountable in terms of its “intended,” rather than “unintended,” outcomes. Museums have then

to demonstrate their meaningfulness through reasonably objective measures of performance,

which necessarily calls for a more business-like approach in the museum field.

It is true that nonprofits differ from for-profits in their financial dependence on different

sources, such as charitable donations, fees, government funding, investment income, and in-kind

gifts that are converted to cash. This, in turn, impedes them from distributing any surplus that

may result from their activity. As a result, museums do not have to respond to shareholders for

the way they have handled the contributed capital nor pay out dividends, a cash return on the

investment. However, they are still liable. While as of now museums are held accountable

through their required transparency, given they have to disclose their finances and activities

through the IRS 990 form; ultimately, they need to prove their responsibility through their

performance. As Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Georgia State University Dennis

R. Young insists, they need to “justify assistance beyond their abilities to survive in the

marketplace” (14). The museum’s mission may be valuable and call for philanthropic and

government support, but once this has been obtained, the museum ought to allocate these

resources to deliver on it in a tangible, real way. Gail Anderson equally stresses the importance

of public scrutiny, saying,

There must be a need to fulfill, and services must be delivered in an effective

manner to a receptive audience or customer. In exchange for earning and retaining

10

the organizational designation of nonprofit, the public and the government expect

honorable and useful service from nonprofit organizations. (12)

Hence, museums are subject to expectations similar to for-profit organizations relative to

output and process: to present attractive products and services that leave the public better off, and

to remain financially viable, that is, to carry a modus operandi capable of rendering results with

the attainable –given or potential– resources. Especially in view of the scarcity and limitation of

the funds, these need to be creatively and appropriately allocated. Dr. Sherene Suchy, educator

and consultant in change management in Global Interface and International Consultants Centre

argues that,

Entrepreneurship is one of the characteristics necessary for art museum leadership

(…) due to radical cuts in government funding for cultural institutions

internationally. Directors who share this passion have been actively shaping and

reinventing themselves as leaders of business enterprises, rather than museums.

(461)

El Prado, Spain’s most prominent museum, is such an example. The eve and wake of the

2008-09 financial crisis led to steep state funding cuts that threatened its existence. What

preserved the historic institution, as it is recounted on the Prado’s official website, was the

autonomy it gained from the government in 2003, which it has wisely used to diversify its

sources of revenue. The Economist reports in the 25-31 March 2017 issue that presently, about

seventy percent of its income comes from ticket sales, merchandising, fees from foreign

exhibitions and sponsorship (44). Most importantly, the organizational reinvention it has

undergone through its last two directors have catapulted it to relevancy. The Prado’s approach to

curatorship and exhibition, which takes advantage of the museum’s unique collections to

11

differentiate itself from other cultural institutions, as well as its investment in making the space

more appealing for visitors, including youngsters, have radically increased its visitors, which

now peak at three million per year. As The Economist remarks, “The Prado’s lesson for post-

crisis Spain is that professionalism, entrepreneurial drive and internationalization brings

rewards” (“Exhibitionism” 44).

It is undoubtable, however, that yielding a meaningful, discernible social impact along

with a sound economic performance appears incredibly daunting in today’s fast-paced, ‘liquid’

society, as notable theorist in postmodernism Zygmunt Bauman characterized our ever-changing,

ambivalent, when not downright uncertain present-day world. This is why remaining at the brink

of innovation is as critical as ever. The prevalent view from business leaders and scholars is that

organizations cannot afford to be complacent, as the growing competition, local and abroad, the

public’s constantly evolving preferences and the new convergence of industries make it nearly

impossible to retain a lasting advantage. Professor Kotter’s tale of Antarctic penguins, which

experience a meltdown of their natural habitat, serves as a compelling warning: those who fail to

adapt to the transforming environment, sink and die (Our Iceberg Is Melting, 2005).

Museums are not immune to this trend. Nonetheless, some recent initiatives prove they

also can circumvent it. In 2013, Il Palazzo Madama launched its first crowdfunding campaign

through social media, principally via Pinterest, to acquire a unique Meissen porcelain. It

managed to raise 100,000 euro, twenty thousand more than they had initially aimed for, as they

proudly recount in their blog. In the process, they were able to connect with more than 1,500

people, who proved their commitment to the museum and its mission when this successfully

made it matter. In the crafting of the initiative, Il Palazzo Madama proved it had understood the

12

guiding principles of success in the twenty-first century: value, community, engagement and

digital presence.

Yet leading change once, that is, merely guiding the colony to another iceberg, is not

sufficient. In order to survive, organizations ought to overcome their sedentary tendencies to

become nomads. That is, they ought to spur continuous change. Columbia Business School

Professor Rita Gunther McGrath contends that if they are to stay ahead, organizations “need to

constantly start new strategic initiatives, building and exploiting many transient competitive

advantages at once” (4). Those that have realized this have already “abandoned the assumption

that stability in business is the norm. They don’t even think it should be a goal. Instead, they

work to spark continuous change, avoiding dangerous rigidity” (4).

However, in order to remain in synchronization with the environment and fulfill their

long-term mission, museums necessitate a supportive ‘change’ structure, an organizational

design that breaks with a deeply ingrained modus vivendi, or way of living, and fosters constant

reinvention. Stephen Mezias, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise at INSEAD

and Mary Ann Glynn, Professor of Management and Organization at Boston College highlight

the necessity of corporate renewal, associated with the process of innovation and “defined as

non-routine, significant, and discontinuous organizational change” (78). Innovation, however,

should be differentiated from incremental change, as the former “produces fundamental changes

in the activities of an organization and represent clear departures from existing practices,” while

the latter presents “little departure from existing practices” (78).

Harvard Business School Professor Michael L. Tushman and Stanford Graduate School

of Business professor Charles A. O’Reilly III maintain that, in order to “win through innovation”

organizations need their “organizational building blocks”–critical tasks and workflows, formal

13

organizational arrangements, people and culture–aligned with their vision and strategy (2). The

model they propose (Figure 1) stresses the interrelation of these four organizational components,

which warrants organizational congruence throughout. Once the organization achieves clarity

and intention regarding its mission and vision, it can define the key tasks and workflows to

accomplish it, which in turn, will determine the structure, culture and skills required to succeed

(6).

Figure 1. Organizational Architecture: A Congruence Model of Organizations. “Managerial Problem Solving: A Congruence Approach.” Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2002, p. 3.

In the case of museums, considering the necessity of an internal model that pursues

continuous innovation and delivers measurable results to the extent possible, this congruence

model appears relevant. In particular, the latter two elements, people and culture, which are

tightly intertwined, are of great interest, and will remain the focus of this paper. The underlying

14

premise is that the people that constitute the organization, their nature, behavior, skills and

motivation, while all too often overlooked in museum literature, are, in point of fact, at the core

of all operations. While many authors offer sound guidelines to improve both input and output in

an organization, they fail to realize that, in order for these efforts to be worthwhile, the people

that compose it, that is, the ‘hidden’ element responsible for implementing the changes, need to

be soberly considered. No matter how excellent and well supported by research a new

methodology may be, if the people that work at the organization do not see the need for it,

success will most surely remain beyond grasp, regardless of how closely steps are followed.

Personnel, therefore, prevails as the key root cause for organizational success, which is

ultimately the goal of any organization, including museums. The failure of Kodak, as recounted

by Kotter International in Forbes Magazine, clearly illustrates this point, providing a powerful

lesson against complacency in the context of continuous reinvention within an organization:

It’s these people – those excited about new ideas within your own organization -

who keep your company moving ahead instead of falling behind. One key to

avoiding complacency is to ensure these innovators have a voice with enough

volume to be heard (and listened to) at the top. It’s these voices that can continue

to keep a sense of urgency in your organization. If they are given the power to

lead, they will continue to innovate, help keep a culture of urgency and affect

change. (“Barriers”)

Yet this passage assumes that such people already exist in the organization. While that

might be the case in some institutions, in others, it may not. Further, it can be argued that either

way, the challenge remains the same: to have a museum team wholly composed of innovators, to

a lesser or greater extent. The hurdles in this endeavor, however, are unavoidable, given human

15

disposition toward routine. Economic research shows that routines, albeit highly useful in many

occasions, tend to stand as a standing block for innovation, whether due to inertia or variation

apprehensiveness. As Professor of Economics at Columbia University Richard R. Nelson and

Professor emeritus at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Sydney G. Winter

explain,

High competence is often achievable where skills and routines can be learned and

perfected through practice. For individuals and organizations (not to speak of

animals), learning guided by clear short-term feedback can be remarkably

powerful, even in addressing complex challenges. But that sort of learning does

little to enable sophisticated foresight, logically structured deliberation and/or the

improvisation of novel action patterns—and situations that demand these are

rarely handled well. (“Theorizing” 29)

The natural ensuing question is then: how can museums build a team of passionate,

creative people, able to improvise novel action patterns and sustain organizational change,

keeping the organization afloat? The answer lies in establishing a culture of play. Dr. Stuart

Brown argues in his book, Play, that play is an integral part to adults’ brain health and

development, which aids improved social skills, adaptability, creativity, and ability to problem

solve, among others (5-7). In times of fast-paced change and uncertainty, with influential

educators such as Sir Ken Robinson also pushing for educating children in creativity so they can

tackle tomorrow’s unknown challenges (“Schools”), acquiring a flexible mind, along with the

capacity to remain on the brink of innovation, is as crucial as ever, both to present and future

adults.

16

Play can be a compelling tool to achieve sustained reconfiguration, as it can also move

people in powerful ways and create strong connections between individuals, as Bowen F. White,

M.D., former colleague of physician Patch Adams, notes. To put it simply, following Tim

Brown, CEO of the “innovation and design” company IDEO, playfulness makes sense from a

pragmatic standpoint, as it “helps us get to better creative solutions, helps us do our jobs

better, and helps us feel better when we do them” (“Play Is More”). Incorporating emotive

experience–or playfulness–along with conscientious professionalism is therefore crucial in

creating an attractive–and fun–place to work that leads to engaged, and ultimately innovative,

staff members. This, in turn, propels the organization forward, allowing it to better fulfill its

mission while obtaining a more sustainable competitive advantage.

Yet, for all its stated benefits, bolstering play within a formal organization is not a

painless task. As previously pointed out, numerous people are resistant to change, largely due to

the established routines. Mr. Brown points out that adults often fear the judgement of their peers,

which causes them to be more conservative in their thinking. Although creativity is about open

possibilities, as people get older, he asserts, they tend to think less in this manner. Rather, they

“self-edit” as they come with ideas. Therefore, the ability to explore many different variations of

something, which is a form of play kids do extraordinarily well and opens the door to truly

creative solutions, has to be relearned (“Play Is More”).

Mr. Brown emphasizes the necessity of creating safe work spaces where people can take

risks and share bold new ideas, aiding staff members relearn how to be playful. In order to do so,

the working space needs to establish play rules to help people break with old ways of thinking

and establish play as the norm, rather than the exception (“Play Is More”). Returning to the

congruence model presented by Tushman and O’Reilly, the organization ought to institute a

17

culture of play that reinforces playful behavior and aligns it with the museum’s mission. Culture,

therefore, ought to aid people in acquiring the necessary skills and mindset to thrive.

The Case for an Intentional Museum Organizational Culture

The Different Levels of Culture: The Necessity of Comprehensive Integration

Organizational culture is a powerful tool to align different individuals’ perspectives and beliefs

towards a shared purpose and action. While its precise definition remains elusive, understanding

it is key to creating a robust organization. Harvard Business School Professor and expert on

disruptive innovation, Clayton M. Christensen, based on varying scholarly definitions, lists the

elements integrated in the notion of corporate culture as the,

observed behavioral regularities that occur when people interact, the norms that

evolve in close working groups, the dominant values espoused by an organization,

the philosophy that guides an organization’s policy toward employees and

customers, the rules for getting along with other people in the organization, and

the feeling or climate of a particular organization. (“What”)

Michael D. Watkins, Professor of Leadership and Organizational Change at the

International Institute for Management Development, in Switzerland, argues that culture is a

“carrier of meaning,” as it provides a narrative for “what is” and why that brings members

together; a “story” that is underpinned by the core values and rituals of the organization. Lisa

Rohrer, Professor of Organizational Behavior at Harvard University, further insists that these

shared values, reflected in the cultural artifacts, or outward manifestations, for instance, dress

18

codes, working hours, communication styles and identity symbols, unify people across divisions

and locations, orienting them towards a common goal.

As deduced by these remarks, culture is comprised of several echelons, starting from the

organization’s espoused values, the most intangible aspect, and culminating with the cultural

artifacts, the most visible one. Hence, culture integrates the members of an organization both

through implicit and manifest expressions, acting as an instrument of social control. As Watkins

puts it, “the focus is the role of culture in promoting and reinforcing “right” thinking and

behaving, and sanctioning “wrong” thinking and behaving.” In other words, culture shapes

behavior. This reason lies in its origin, or, as Mr. Christensen puts it, its “essence,” which

constitutes the first level of culture (“What”). MIT Professor Edgar Schein, expert in

organizational culture, posits that organizational culture is the learned result of a group

experience, which leads to a shared view of the world.

“Culture” [is] a pattern of basic assumptions –invented, discovered, or developed

by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and

internal integration– that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,

therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and

feel in relation to those problems. (9)

These learned patterns are at the basis of routines, which lay as one of the foundations of

behavioral continuity, according to Nelson and Winter (“Theorizing” 30). The authors equate

routines to genes, for “[f]irms [or employees] may be expected to behave in the future according

to the routines they have employed in the past” (“Change” 134). These systems of behavior,

based on the discussed set of underlying assumptions, are then overtly manifested and organized

19

through cultural artifacts, which constitute the second level of culture. Clayton M. Christensen

describes them “as…”

the visible manifestations of culture are the physical and social environment of the

organization—both tangible and intangible. These observable characteristics can

include physical space, the technological output of a group, artistic productions,

the way people dress, the hours and patterns of work schedules, the fringe

benefits, the end-of- quarter beer busts, or the overt behavior of its members.

(“What”)

The more intangible artifacts of culture are directly related to the “story” of the

organization, such as symbols, organization tales, folklore and heroes, that play a pivotal role in

maintaining alive the narrative and the values that derive from it. These, in turn, affect more

concrete artifacts, such as ceremonies or rituals in the form of retreats, award ceremonies, casual

hangouts, lunches, parties and daily meetings. Lastly, the organizational culture is reinforced

through the power structure and the communication style, oftentimes in strict correlation with

each other. Within the spectrum, the organizational structure constitutes the most objective

artifact of culture, as is usually a fixed, factually verifiable element, commonly the result of

intentional organizational design. It is also what probably conditions the most the reward and

punishment system, as it determines who is in charge, to what degree, and what is expected of

each member within the organizational apparatus.

The different layers that compose the culture of an organization and their tight

interrelation call for comprehensive integration on the part of the museum. To wit, the intent to

incorporate all the cultural elements in a way that is consistent across all levels of the

organization. As the congruent model by Tushman and O’Reilly makes clear, organizational

20

alignment is what ensures organizational success. If the museum is to fulfill its mission and

vision while attaining a competitive advantage, purposeful organizational design remains a

particularly important aspect.

Conscious planning is what ensures that the varying organizational components reflect

the values the museum pledges to embody, specifically, by establishing a structure and other

fixed constituents –which determine the organization’s modus operandi– that facilitates that

reciprocity between asserted values and de facto culture. Furthermore, business consultant Ron

Carucci, co-founder and managing partner at consulting firm Navalent, maintains that intentional

design can increase the organization’s efficiency, improve decision-making, and empower staff

members by offering motivation to perform in a way that moves the organization forward. On

that account, organizational design and organizational culture ought to be engaged in an open-

ended dialogue.

As it happens, the nature of organizational culture helps explain some of its wider effects

when used intentionally. Management Professor at Syracuse University Michelle L. Kaarst-

Brown and her team have reviewed some of the most relevant literature in the topic to conclude

that “organizational culture is a strategic resource that has value in ensuring the continuing

existence and success of organizations,” a statement “supported by various studies that have

linked organizational culture to broad strategic outcomes such as an organization’s ability to

manage knowledge (…), innovation capability (…), and strategic management of information

technology” (33).

These outcomes, characteristic of a congruent organizational culture, that which

manifests no disconnect between the values expressed by the leaders and those embodied by the

staff, aid in making the case for museums to adopt a distinctive, consistent culture. Further, from

21

a financial standpoint, adopting a unique organizational culture also appears sensible, as Jay B.

Barney asserts it can provide the organization with a sustained superior financial performance.

He explains that an organization’s core values, in themselves sparkers of innovation and

flexibility, can improve its financial performance when combined with strong management

control (656). To his thesis, it may be added that while the organization’s endorsed values stand

autonomously, they are also comprised within an organizational culture that is consistent

throughout.

Culture can then support the museum in creating an environment that fosters innovation,

cooperation, fulfillment, and a superior financial performance. Most importantly, it can help staff

members break with entrenched mental frameworks that prevent them from adopting a playful

mindset at the workplace that leads to better products and services. Thus, culture can help in

carrying on an innovative approach that also keeps them passionately engaged with the

organization. In order to institute a strong museum culture, however, visionary leadership is

necessary.

Redesigning the Organization: The Role of Leadership

Although there is no question about the benefits of cultural change, especially if it is to align the

mission with the organization’s way of operating, this does not present, by any means, an easy

task. John P. Kotter notes that “most major change initiatives –whether intended to boost quality,

improve culture, or reverse a corporate death spiral– generate only lukewarm results. Many fail

miserably (“Leading”). A McKinsey study conducted by Steven Aronowitz and his team in 2015

found that less than a quarter of organizational redesign efforts succeed, although a staggering

22

eighty-five percent of respondents reported having undergone a redesign within the past three

years or more (99). Why is failure so prevalent?

The root cause lays at the incredible complexity of organizational systems, which evolve

in incremental steps. Nelson and Winter posit that competency, complex and effective actions, is

acquired by routinized behavior, which persists in part due to the fact that it economizes on

learning-related costs and reduces frictions caused by unanticipated experimentation or novel

behavior (“Theorizing” 29-30). Harvard Economics Professor Robert Wayland explains that “the

conundrum with routines is that, although they reflect and preserve the successful adaptations

made by a firm over time and economize on learning, they introduce a sort of rigidity and

resistance to change that may inhibit future adaptation” (“Uncertainty”).

Therefore, following Edgar Schein’s definition of culture, in order to break with well-

established routines, which have created a certain work culture, and institute new values, such as

constant reinvention, the leadership needs to lead a cultural change in the organization. Schein

argues that leadership and culture “are fundamentally intertwined,” for leaders are “the architects

of culture,” and, once established, culture itself determines the type of leadership allowed in the

organization (xi). Given people’s natural resistance to change, strong, visionary leadership is

crucial in this endeavor. As Machiavelli observed in The Prince,

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carryout, nor more

doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of

things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and

only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this

lukewarmness arising partly (…) from the incredulity of mankind, who do not

truly believe in anything new until they have had the actual experience of it. (21)

23

Therefore, first and foremost, the leadership ought to be persuaded of the value of the

change, so to set an example and remain indefatigable throughout the strenuous process.

Psychologist and expert in emotional intelligence Daniel Goleman acutely observes that

“managers often fail to appreciate how profoundly the organizational climate can influence (…)

results,” and organizational climate, in turn, is influenced by leadership style–by the way that

managers motivate direct reports, gather and use information, make decisions, manage change

initiatives, and handle crisis” (1). Genuine passion in a vision, communicated effectively in an

ongoing basis, motivate people to shatter their unerring habit of resisting change.

Secondly, the leadership has to focus on the practicalities of the new culture, the aspects

that involve the actual doing or experience of these fresh values. Building upon Schein’s

analysis, leadership can achieve a cultural change by finding a new set of problems for the staff

to confront repeatedly, which requires embracing a different skillset and approach. As Tim

Brown advanced, establishing guidelines or directions, in this case, to situate play at the

cornerstone, can aid people in overcoming their old mindset. Staff members can then see the

value of the novel modus vivendi and incorporate it organically into their working style. As it

happens, in some instances people may be won over about change, but they need an intentional

nudge that guides them through the process in order to free themselves from l’immobilisme, or

paralysis.

As Professor Kotter reminds, renewal is not achieved in one day. In fact, the accounted

failed attempts to bring about change respond, in many occasions, to a lack of understanding of

the processual, stage-based nature of a transformation. He argues that by understanding each one

of the eight stages he puts forward (Figure 2), and following them in the presented order,

24

organizations can achieve a true lasting change and, as a result, a sustained competitive

advantage.

Figure 2. The Eight Stages of Change. “Leading Change. Why Transformation Efforts Fail.” Harvard Business Review, Jan. 2007.

25

The first four steps are encompassed in the first statement: the necessity of a powerful,

visionary leadership coalition, convinced of the virtues of the change that wants to be achieved,

and successful in communicating it to the rest of the organization. The other four refer to the

second statement, which is directed to action: allowing staff members to understand the inner

workings of the new approach by doing, so they can also realize its value on their own. The last

stage of the process, which is to institutionalize the new approaches once the system has been

consolidated, remains the most delicate.

Considering that the proposed culture is one of continuous reinvention, avoiding the

tempting pitfall of believing the end has been reached is paramount. Looking back on Nelson and

Winter, ironically, success in institutionalizing change can stifle the very values that wanted to

be established in the first place. The reason lies in the dichotomy between the competence

exhibited in routinized actions and the poor performance observed in novel situations or cases

where complex logical analysis is called for, what they refer to as “the competence puzzle”

(“Theorizing” 29). Creativity and innovation are, beyond this stage, in danger of becoming

“inherited strategies,” using the authors’ terminology, losing their essence to become routinized

behavior (“Theorizing” 33).

This is where a culture of play that is bona fide, rather than a set of learned ‘creativity’

exercises, becomes critical in avoiding the dangers of complacency and its associated numbness.

Leadership is thus crucial in developing an organizational culture that is authentic, in other

words, that builds real consensus around the museum mission, makes a work group into a real

team, and nurtures long-term relationships with employees, sponsors and the public that

engender loyalty and retention. At the heart, organizational culture stands as a vehicle to

establish genuine connections with people. Cofounders of international training firm The Ariel

26

Group Linda Halpern and Kathy Lubar observe that “the ability to connect authentically with the

thoughts and feelings of others,” (8) what they call “leadership presence,” is the key to motivate

and truly inspire people in order to move them toward the desired result. As museum scholar

Yuha Jung insists, the museum’s internal interpersonal relationships affect the culture of the

organization and ultimately, the quality of the exhibits and programs, “which can be discerned by

visitors” (159).

In a nutshell, museums that aspire to bring about real, lasting change that results in better

service toward visitors necessitate leaders that, as Halpern and Lubar put it, are present, reach out

with empathy, express themselves effectively and are self-knowing to convey authenticity (9).

This, in turn, means they develop their ability to adapt their behavior to each particular situation.

Dr. Daniel Goleman, co-founder of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional

Learning, originally at the Yale Child Studies Center and now at the University of Illinois at

Chicago, states the need to master all different leadership styles, so to adopt the one that is

needed for a particular situation, demonstrating their self-awareness, empathy and social skill in

the process. When effectively combined, the six basic styles (briefly described as coercive,

authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching) create the optimum,

performance-bolstering organizational environment. As with all human-related activity,

relationships lay at the core of the matter, ultimately determining the failure or success of the

endeavor.

27

Avoiding the Schumpeterian Fate: Leading a Continual Internal Creative Destruction Through

Organizational Culture

In many instances, talent and innovation are deterred by a blocked organizational system. In

order to break away, organizations ought to go through the convulsions of abrupt change, which

empirical evidence, most notably through history and economics literature, has demonstrated it

can bring forward the necessary forces for renewal. Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950)

coined the famous phrase “a perennial gale of creative destruction” to express the importance of

new combinations of resources introduced by entrepreneurs, those who make decisions under

uncertainty, here the equivalent of leaders. In an ever-changing world marked by

unpredictability, adaptation becomes an act of survival. Schumpeter saw disequilibrium as

central to growth, given how people and organizations modify their behavior in response to

changes in the environment and the actions of others, which allowed learning and innovation to

regain their deserved importance.

Inspired by Schumpeter’s notions, Jim Collins, Professor at Stanford Graduate School of

Business and leadership expert, advocates for practicing a form of internal creative destruction

and innovation to avoid being overrun by the startling future. This idea is consistent with John P.

Kotter’s concept of continuous adaptation, conducting change from within in order to counteract

the environment’s treacherous adoption. While perfect adaptation is beyond grasp, as it would

require unprecedented foresight, avoiding the atrophy of complacency can be achievable through

the powerful apparatus of organizational culture. The museum is thus in need of an

organizational culture that takes into account the changing landscape and incorporates the

different levels of culture in a way that is consistent, consensual and brings intensity, so to

continue fulfilling its mission with excellency in years to come. This requires that the leadership

28

become conscious of the interrelating nature of the endeavor throughout the process, so to ensure

all elements of the culture are aligned with the espoused values, which are to coincide with those

stated in the museum’s mission statement.

Building on previous analysis, establishing a culture of innovation requires setting an

organizational structure that supports this culture. Making use of Tushman and O’Reilly’s

terminology, the different organizational blocks ought to support and reinforce each other. This

includes the shared principles and beliefs, the artifacts of culture related to the narrative of the

organization, the ceremonies and rituals, the organizational structure, and the communication

style. To this end, inspired, insightful and persevering leadership is crucial. Even Schumpeter,

who was always mindful of the uncertainty that accompanies the future, had the vision, as The

Economist business columnist Adrian Wooldridge explains, “of the businessperson as hero–the

Übermensch who dreams up a new world and brings it into being through force of intellect and

will” (“Schumpeter” 88). A visionary leader, who by definition makes decisions under

uncertainty, is capable of bringing about a new order of things if he sets his mind and willpower

to it, regardless of how ominous the task appears. As Patrick McCaughy, director of the Yale

Center for British Art in New Haven commented in an interview,

Museums tend to fragment without good direction as they are volatile

organisations. You have to have people with imagination in an art museum and

that has volatility. People with imagination believe in the rightness of their

intuition. But passion does not equal the rational! Feelings are volatile and

unstable. A successful museum depends on the interaction of the many, e.g.,

community, audience, staff. It is about relationships and how they are managed.

29

Leaders are the ones in charge of creating the culture and establishing the necessary

organizational pillars to sustain it, an extraordinary feat given the system’s complexity, which is

why they ought to be first-class. Fortunately, however, many of the skills that characterize good

leaders can be learned and acquired, as Halpern and Lubar argue throughout their book, which

can be mainly comprised in emotional intelligence and passion.

This organizational, top-down effort, in turn, has to be embraced, and later reinforced, by

the members of the organization, including senior managers and board members. When the

transformation takes place only at one of these ends, either at the individual or at the

organizational, the chances of success are slim. For instance, when employees are persuaded of

the benefits of creative thinking, yet the rigid, hierarchical structure of the organization impedes

it, or when the leadership launches a new organizational design of which employees are highly

skeptical and even hostile towards, attaining real lasting change remains unfeasible. Hence, a

culture of innovation should permeate both the individual and the organizational level. Staff

members must be persuaded of the blessings of creativity and be supported by the organization–

through its culture and structure–to pursue it.

The necessity of mutual reinforcement or reciprocity across different organizational

levels alludes to the high interconnectedness of elements in a complex organizational

environment. Clive Gray, from the Centre for the Study of Cultural Policy at Warwick

University, explains that this complexity is created by the “dynamic interplay between individual

and systemic factors” (4), which “can lead to both ambiguous and self-contradictory expectations

being placed upon organisational members, as well as straight-forward and coherently inter-

connected ones” (3). Therefore, in order to avoid the inconsistencies that naturally emerge in an

organization, every action and proposition that takes place at the museum ought to be imbued of

30

the mission, the clear, holistic message underlying every aspect of the culture. Ultimately, this

coherence is what allows the organization to be subject to constant reinvention and achieve the

competitive advantage necessary to create added value, the unique contribution visitors can

appreciate in generations to come.

The ‘Maison’ Model: What It Is and How It Can Be Implemented in Museums

Behind the Scenes: The LVMH Inspiration

The inspiration for the proposed ‘maison’ model is drawn from French haute couture houses

such as Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Céline, Givenchy and Loewe, which pertain to giant

luxury goods conglomerate Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (LVMH), composed of more than

sixty luxury brands. As the official website explains, the group is committed to its mission of

heritage, expertise and long-term development, which is why each ‘maison’ or house looks

boldly into the future without foregoing its history. Rather, they build on their specialty legacy to

put forward fashion that feels contemporary yet stays true to their roots. The maisons are also

committed to quality, incorporating the latest technology in the process and design while

maintaining the pieces’ timeless look.

Bernard Arnault, the chairman, chief executive and controlling shareholder of LVMH, is

responsible for creating the world’s largest and most profitable luxury group, as The New York

Times reports. Maisons such as Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior have gone from nearly defunct

retail companies to highly coveted, thriving brands under his visionary yet business-oriented

strategy. The Economist puts Mr. Arnault on a level with Louis XIV, known for making

Versailles an empire of desire through its patronage of luxury goods artisans (“Empire of

31

Desire”). The group’s success is largely due to its organizational culture, which reflects Mr.

Arnault’s belief in radical innovation, described by business journalist Suzy Wetlaufer as “an

unpredictable, messy, highly emotional activity that the company [LVMH] wholly endorses.”

Mr. Arnault explains in this interview with Wetlaufer that the designers are given complete

freedom to experiment and are not troubled by financial matters so they can put forward their

best work. As he also commented in another interview with The New York Times a propos the

newly inaugurated contemporary art museum Fondation Louis Vuitton, “We don’t speak of

numbers when we speak of a dream.”

Yet this creativity and well established sense of play is balanced by a strong focus on

profitability: the products ought to be an equilibrium of tradition and modernity in order to sell.

Customers have to want to wear the garments and accessories, and perceive a justification for the

hefty price tag, in this case, superb cut and quality. LVMH’s manufacturing process, for

instance, is extremely meticulous, improvisation leaving way to careful planning and control, as

reported by Wetlaufer. This is where Mr. Arnault stays true to his nickname “the wolf in the

cashmere coat,” as The Independent reports he is known (“Wolf in Cashmere”). While he values

art and the chaos that comes with it, he does not fail to remember what the ultimate goal is: to

create beautiful items that are not only coveted, but also indispensable for a certain segment of

the population.

The way this is achieved is through a forceful management team, which unifies and

coordinates the artistic efforts of the siloed structure, where each maison operates independently

from the others, towards a common goal. As indicated on the group’s official website, each

maison has enough autonomy to retain its distinctiveness and facilitate operations, yet

governance is centralized, as the maisons share investors, financial goals – with unified financial

32

statements and stock price– and vision. As a result, the performance of each maison dramatically

adds or subtracts to the value of the LVMH group as a whole.

LVMH and the Art Museum: Convergences and Divergences

The maison model applied to the museum field takes the essence of LVMH and tailors it to the

necessities of an industry that, albeit different, shares some of its characteristics. Although

nonprofits, and museums and particular, are not preoccupied with producing goods and services

that are appealing in order to make a profit, which is the basic unit of success of a for-profit

organization, they still need to create goods and services that take into account the public’s

preferences and demands so to create willingness to pay, whether be with time, or monetary or

non-monetary contributions, thus allowing the institution to survive.

Yet just as for-profits have moved beyond the traditional constraints of offering one or

several products or services similar in nature to embrace the concept of experience, which

dramatically expands an organizational proposal, nonprofits can equally, and arguably with more

grounds, as it will be contended, adopt this frameset to achieve a more durable competitive

advantage. The Harry Potter universe, for instance, offers an impressive example of a brand

committed to creating a rich, well-worth experience for customers, to the point they forego this

label to consider themselves participants. The wide display of products and services available:

books, films, traveling exhibits, interactive website and blog, videogames and board games,

apparel and toys, theme park and other touristic attractions, among others, attest not only to the

richness of the source material, but also to the benefits of delivering consistent content in

multiple formats to create more value. That is, they sell, more than tangible goods, a story or an

33

idea people can be part of. As a result, customer satisfaction augments in tandem with profits and

resources, prolonging the life of the brand or institution.

In a similar fashion, LMVH also sells customers, more than products, a unique lifestyle:

by acquiring their luxurious clothing, accessories, perfume, beauty products and jewelry, they

become part of an exclusive class of people that exude taste, beauty, confidence and success.

This exclusivity and distinctiveness, or their ability to differentiate themselves from other luxury

brands that offer similar products, become part of the brand’s allure, creating customer loyalty.

That is, LVMH is strategic in its use of resources, marketing and vision, building the brand and

creating value for people in order to increase revenues and profits.

Yet if museums ought to conduct operations with a business-like approach in order to

endure institutionally, just as LVMH does, they also hold another measure of institutional

success, which is their mission. In truth, it is in this end goal where the paths of the for-profit and

non-profit organization diverge. The mission statement, the focused vision or description of a

museum’s raison d’être, provides the foundation for all present and future operations, which

explains its importance. A major pillar of the museum’s mission is to educate both the mind and

the taste of the public, to deepen their understanding and appreciation, which aids to their

meaning-making process. In many regards, this mission resembles that of the historian. As

filmmaker Alan Berliner expresses in his insightful documentary about family history and

memory, Nobody’s Business, “we are strangers with a common story.” Part of the task of the art

museum is to tell that story. A story not merely for entertainment and economical purposes, but

to heighten people’s understanding of the world and themselves, given the way the past shapes

the present, hence one’s identity. According to Gabrielle M. Spiegel, Krieger-Eisenhower

Professor of History at The John Hopkins University, today

34

[t]he historian’s task becomes, therefore, what Hofmannsthal defined as that of ‘reading

what was never written.’ It is in this moment that the past is saved, ‘not in being returned

to what once existed, but instead, precisely in being transformed into something that

never was, in being ‘read as what was never written.’ From that perspective, the principal

relation of the historian to the past is an engagement with absence. (4)

The historian’s charge is then to reconstruct the shrouded events of yesteryear to facilitate

people’s comprehension of the nature of humanity. Events and characters that may appear

unreachable in its entirety due to space and time restraints, as well as those posed by subjectivity,

but that remain, nonetheless, accessible in part. History, as well as the art museum, provides an

engagement with absence from the presence of the present. Thus, historians, as well as museums,

are bridge-builders, for they bring two realities together. They connect the people of today with

the people of the past, bringing them to a universal truth, which, in many occasions is conveyed

through beauty, whether or not aesthetically pleasing. In the case of the contemporary art

museum, the past may be changed for the present, but its purpose remains the same: to convey a

deeper understanding of society, with its trends, its strengths, and its flaws.

It is by putting this central mission–expressed in one way or another in the mission

statement–at the base of all operations that the museum can successfully integrate business

concepts that a priori appear alien to its nature and purpose. In point of fact, there need be no

conflict between heightening visitors’ understanding and adopting a concept of experience

initially exploited by for-profit organizations when the end goal, along with the ethical limits, are

clearly envisioned and defined. The method selected is then merely an instrument that can be

tailored to the necessities of the particular institution so to better achieve that goal. Contrary to

what it may appear, there is no discredit in educating through creating a memorable experience

35

for the public, when not downright entertaining them, so they want to continue visiting, become

members, make generous contributions, and enthusiastically stop by the museum’s shop and café

for gifts and leisure time. In truth, this should be every museum’s aspiration. The same can be

argued for creating a memorable workplace for museum staff members. It is when these two

objectives coincide–to make the museum an enjoyable place for all people involved, whether

visitors or workers–that this can truly thrive as an institution.

The ‘Maison’ Model

The proposed maison model foregoes the traditional management structure, usually organized by

departments –Development, Curation, Archives, Education, and Communication– to adopt a

more flexible and free-standing structure. The intent is for each maison within the museum to

have enough independence to be effective and to not hinder creativity, as well as possess a

unique vision within the larger museum vision that creates a sense of belonging and positive

exclusiveness. Although a culture of play is to permeate the organization as a whole, each

maison is to showcase its idiosyncrasy through unique rules, rituals and other artifacts of culture.

The division by maisons also intends to ensconce a more organic modus operandi, so it better

reflects the use of the museum’s physical space.

The blueprint model here presented, which can be later tailored to meet the specific

characteristics and requirements of each museum, features an archetype art museum. Each

maison within this model museum is composed of a collection’s team. A collection may be

organized by theme, period, geographic location, ethnicity, or other, depending on its size and

relevancy, although the selected division, typical of large art museums, is by cultures, which tend

to be linked to continents. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, for instance, is organized into

36

five main wings: Art of Europe, Art of the Americas, Art of the Ancient World, Art of Asia,

Oceania and Africa, and Contemporary Art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the

Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris, and the British Museum in London, just to name

a few, share a similar organization. In the maison model, each one of these differentiated

collections, along with the staff team in charge of it, stands as a maison (Figure 3).

The maison team is composed of several levels and functions. Firstly, it integrates a chief

curator, the manager of the particular collection and overseer of the team. This figure acts as the

maison leader, coordinating and organizing the efforts so to ensure they conform to the

museum’s vision and its quality standards without compromising creativity and innovation.

Given the importance of play to produce fresh ideas that resonate with the public and advance

the museum as an institution, the chief curator is key in advocating the maison’s projects while

working in close collaboration with the director and the finance cross-collaboration team to

verify their feasibility and their congruence with those of other maisons.

Each maison team is also composed of assistant curators, to help the chief curator fulfill

his mission through administrative, technical and quality support, art museum technicians, in

charge of the installation of exhibitions, museum archivists, responsible for the archival

collections, a museum educator, to designs tours, programs and community outreach events

tailored to the particular collection, and a museum researcher, to conduct research for specific

projects related to the collection. The actual size of the staff, for instance, the number of

assistants needed, if any, will be dependent upon the particular museum; nevertheless, the

described team represents the core team of the maison.

It should be noted, however, that some museums may be too small to incorporate a

museum educator and researcher in each maison, for example. Although ideal, the above

37

distribution may have to undergo some changes depending on the size, budget and aspirations of

the institution. A possible solution in this scenario could be to organize education and research as

a cross-collaboration team.

Figure 3. The 'Maison' Model. Organizational Structure

The cross-collaboration teams are composed of museum workers that do not pertain to

one particular maison, but rather, assist them all as needed. This is the case of the technical

support staff, marketing and communications, in charge of the museum’s promotion, sales,

sponsorship and marketing campaigns and the relationship with the press, development, at the

38

helm of fundraising, cultivating relationships with private and corporate donors, handling, those

responsible for unloading, loading, storing, moving, and installing artworks, and conservation,

employees who repair or prevent damage to artworks. One of the most prominent cross-

collaboration teams, considering the weight placed on efficiency and thoughtful resource-

allocation, is finance.

This team sees to it that the output offsets the input, so the museum remains a viable

institution. Although most museums, as nonprofit organizations, customarily aim at breaking

even, the finance team of this model is to seek profit-making opportunities within the proposed

projects that create value without jeopardizing the mission. It also oversees the proposed budgets

for the different maisons’ initiatives and grants their approval in tandem with the director,

ensuring they conform to the general budget, whether given or potentially expandable through

debt, fundraising, or other activities, if deemed appropriate.

The concept of cross-collaboration teams has been implemented successfully in several

museums, including the Oakland Museum of California, which went under an organizational

redesign in 2013. The museum worked closely with Gail Anderson to create a new

organizational chart that better reflected the values of the twenty-first century museum, as it

recounts at the Center for the Future of Museums’ blog. While the cross-collaboration teams

featured in Gail Anderson’s work are not as clearly defined, and so differ in function, their end

goal remains similar: to allow for more collaboration along with improved processes and

systems.

In the maison model, each specialist within the maison contributes his unique expertise

while building his intellectual curiosity, creativity and problem-solving skills through a culture

of play. The result is a team that boasts a combination of viewpoints and fresh ideas to improve

39

upon the collection’s management and its communication to the public. Therefore, by forming

teams that incorporate individuals with different skills and directing them toward a shared,

concrete task, the maison model complies with one of the four pillars of economics, established

with Adam Smith in his pivotal 1776 book The Wealth of Nations: the division of labor, or

specialization, is a primary source of wealth, as it increases productivity and value created.

The efforts of the maison team are directed at generating value from their particular

collection, rather than the museum as a whole, which stands as a more abstract and subjective

goal. Thus, by narrowing down the performing task, the attainable efficiency and quality of the

output increases. Furthermore, as each maison acts rationally in its own self-interest, that is, their

own success, the aggregate effect is an overall increase in value for the museum as a whole,

satisfying yet another of the four pillars of economics, commonly referred as ‘the beneficial

power of self-interest.’ However, a distinction with the pure exercise of the timeless maxim is

that this model expressly incorporates cooperation as well.

The autonomy each maison possesses to brainstorm and implement novel initiatives

linked to their particular cultural collection is to ensure rapport among team members, so to fuel

innovation and loyalty to the maison and the museum. In addition, their relationship to the cross-

collaboration teams is to bolster collaboration and friendly competition with the other maisons,

with which they may also collaborate on joint projects and special programs. This siloed modus

operandi is to be counterbalanced with a strong sense of purpose and accountability to the larger

organization, so each maison feels part of, and therefore responsible, for the organization’s

overall success. It is in this regard that a strong organizational culture that reflects the shared

mission and vision of the museum becomes critical.

40

Yet the organizational structure, as previously discussed, also needs to support this

maison liability. In this regard, following once more a key economic principle, instituted with

economists Armen Alchian and Harold Demsetz in 1972, the need for management arises from

the need to direct and coordinate teams of specialized workers within the organization, which toil

jointly towards a common goal, in this case, the survival and success of the museum. This

explains why the museum director and his team of executives, if applicable, oversee the maisons’

performance in close collaboration with the finance team. Together, the leadership team ensures

that each maison’s vision and projects are aligned with the institutional vision, that it performs

adequately and it also makes good use of the granted resources. The board of trustees, although

not as involved in the daily operations of the institution, makes certain, through its executive

committee, that the museum fulfills its overarching mission.

The proposed organizational model blends characteristics of two a priori conflicting

organizational museum models identified by Yuha Jung, the scientific/mechanical, with its

emphasis on results, and the organic/human-relational (160), which places the attention on

interpersonal relationships. The focus, nonetheless, rests on the latter, given the tight

correspondence between input, namely, the people that conform the organization, and output, the

quality of the museum services. The organic/human-relational model is represented in the

different maisons, while the importance of outcome and resource allocation is reflected in the

import of the cross-collaboration teams, who work in tandem with the maisons and the executive

team regarding resource acquisition and allocation, quality control, and logistical assistance to

improve operations and guarantee the success of the institution. Thus, this model, through key

leadership, is able to effectively combine the best traits of a siloes and a centralized structure,

41

providing direction, quality and financial control while licensing creativity and continuous

innovation.

Although this model could be potentially implemented in many museums with the

necessary tweaks and adjustments, making it a general template, it also incorporates the three de

rigueur conditions of a successful organizational culture, which are value, rareness, and

imperfect imitability (Barney 658). The reason that explains by what means two museums

sharing this structure would remain unique is precisely this culture of play and creativity, which

takes into account the distinct characteristics of a collection to exploit it in potentially infinite

ways. That is, the implemented organizational culture, through the conscious organizational

design proposed, should enable the museum to operate in ways that add financial value, as well

as to identify the uncommon set of attributes that set them apart from other cultural organizations

and make imitation difficult, thus creating a solid museum brand.

The tangible result, from the visitors’ perspective, should be holistic exhibitions that

incorporate different mediums of expression and technologies seamlessly, so they can better

illustrate, educate, and spark their curiosity. Also, products and services–such as gifts, cuisine,

tours, workshops, performances, and special events–that remain a congruent extension of the

collections and they are willing, if not eager, to acquire and attend. The increase in quality and

overall consistency of the museum’s output, due to the exploitation of its potentially high

idiosyncratic nature through creativity, innovation and attention to detail, should boost its

relevancy and reputation, establishing it as a worthwhile institution the public can enjoy, learn

from, and get inspired by.

42

Conclusion

Interpersonal relationships remain at the cornerstone of professional success. If cultural

institutions are to make a meaningful social impact, they first need to invest in quality leadership

and an organizational structure focused on the human aspect. An organizational culture and

design that emphasizes play, teamwork and continuous innovation is essential in keeping staff

members focused and motivated, so they can better accomplish their ambitious goal in public

education. While it is tempting to equate play with mere lightheartedness, or making work more

enjoyable for staff members, in actuality, a culture of play promotes creativity for a clear

purpose: to create value. In today’s world, characterized by rapid technological change and

continuingly evolving needs and sensibilities, the models of the past are indisputably becoming

outdated for museums to achieve their institutional mission. As museum consultants and

practitioners John H. Falk and Beverly K. Sheppard note,

The public of this new century has changing needs and expectations, and most

museums are woefully ill-prepared to meet these. Although museums should be

among the resource-rich leaders in this expanding era of learning, they are in

danger of residing on the sidelines or quietly disappearing –unless they can

reexamine old assumptions and make dramatic changes in practice. (ix)

Therefore, if museums aspire to thrive and make a meaningful difference in the twenty-

first century, an organizational culture that spurs continuous innovation is not just desirable, but

essential. Change starts from within and with people, which is why the museum staff should be

placed under the spotlight. Passionate employees that have a comprehensible goal are more

appropriately enabled to create impactful work, which, in turn, can transform the public.

Nonetheless, while quality output is undoubtedly crucial, principally given its connection to the

43

museum mission, it needs to go hand in hand with sound management and financial control. A

museum is not, as it may appear at times gleaning from some museum literature, a black box that

happens to possess valuable artworks and artifacts that the public may want to have knowledge

of. It is, first and foremost, an institution, and as such, it needs to fulfill certain economic

responsibilities.

Gary Hamel, Professor at the London Business School, wisely argues that, while

institutional death is not inevitable, as theoretically an organization can be everlasting, there are

many organizations that deserve to die, which means policymakers should leave them to their

fate (“What” 116). Making the museum an innovation hub, while a noble pursuit, should not be

the end goal. Rather, it should be just another step into achieving institutional success. That

means fulfilling the mission in an efficient, purposeful manner, so to make the best use of the

given resources. The museum should excel at creating value for visitors, building its reputation

as an institution that offers a distinctive experience, presenting their collections in novel,

illuminating ways, while becoming an attractive workplace talented graduates may consider. In

summary, the museum, as an institution, must be able to perpetuate itself in time not by cronyism

or an unhealthy dependency to public or private funds, but by outstanding work and results. This

way, resources most probably will flow willingly, rather than reluctantly.

The maison model, with its emphasis on leadership, organizational culture, staff

engagement and results, appears as a good fit for museums, given the unique demands and

constraints they face as cultural, mainly nonprofit organizations. This project aspires to present a

more flexible working model that, with the proper adjustments, can be implemented in different

types of museums, so they can better tackle today’s challenges. It also aims to ignite a

conversation within the museum community about state-of-the-art approaches that elevate their

44

most valuable assets –the human– to their utmost potential. The survival of the museum, along

with its lofty ideals, fittingly incarnated in the mission statement, remains at the heart of these

efforts.

45

Works Cited

Alchian, Armen, and Harold Demsetz. “Production, Information Costs, and Economic

Organization.” American Economic Review, vol. 62, 1972, pp. 777-795.

Anderson, Gail. Museum Mission Statements: Building a Distinct Identity. 2nd ed.,

American Association of Museums, 2000, pp. 12-24.

---. “A Framework: Reinventing the Museum.” Reinventing the Museum: The Evolving

Conversation on the Paradigm Shift, edited by Gail Anderson, 2nd ed., Altamira Press,

2012, pp. 1-10.

Anderson, James C. “Relationships in Business Markets: Exchange Episodes, Value Creation

and Their Empirical Assessment.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 23,

no. 4, 1995, pp. 346-350.

Aronowitz, Steven, et al. “Getting Organizational Redesign Right.” McKinsey Quarterly, no. 3,

2015, pp. 98-109.

Barnet, Jay B. “Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive

Advantage?” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 11, no. 3, Jul. 1986, pp. 656-

665.

Berliner, Alan, dir. Nobody’s Business. PBS: Public Broadcasting Service, 3 Jun. 1997.

Brown, Stuart. Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul.

Penguin Group, 2009.

---. “Play Is More Than Just Fun.” TED Conferences LLC, May 2008,

http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital?languag

e=en.

---. Engineering ENGR-280 From Play to Innovation, Stanford Design School, Stanford

46

University, Spring 2011.

Brown, Tim. “Tales of Creativity and Play.” TED Conferences LLC, May 2008,

https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play?language=en.

Carucci, Ron. “Most Reorgs Aren’t Ambitious Enough.” Harvard Business Review, Feb.

2017, https://hbr.org/2017/02/most-reorgs-arent-ambitious-

enough?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social.

Chesters, Laura. ‘Wolf in Cashmere’ Bernard Arnault Calls Off the Hunt for Shares in Rivals.”

The Independent, 3 Sep. 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-

and-features/wolf-in-cashmere-bernard-arnault-calls-off-the-hunt-for-shares-in-rivals-

9710274.html.

Christensen, Clayton, M. “What Is an Organization’s Culture?” Harvard Business School case

for class discussion. Harvard Business School Publishing, 2 Aug. 2006.

“Crowdfunding per il Servizio d’Azeglio: Appunti Sulla Strategia per le Reti Sociali.” Palazzo

Madama Torino, 8 Jul. 2013, http://www.palazzomadamatorino.it/it/blog/luglio-

2013/crowdfunding-il-servizio-d%E2%80%99azeglio-appunti-sulla-strategia-le-reti-

sociali.

Davies, Sue M., et al. “The museum values framework: a framework for understanding

organisational culture in museums.” Museum Management and Curatorship, vol. 28, no.

4, 2013, pp. 345-361, doi: 10.1080/09647775.2013.831247.

Drucker, Peter F. Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices.

HarperCollins, 1990.

“Enciclopedia: Zugaza Miranda, Miguel.” Museo del Prado, 2015-17,

47

https://www.museodelprado.es/aprende/enciclopedia/voz/zugaza-miranda-

miguel/10a61886-8953-48ac-bafb-dd815a9f837d.

“Exhibitionism. The Prado’s Renaissance.” The Economist, 25-31 Mar. 2017.

Falk, John H., and Beverly K. Sheppard. Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models

for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Altamira Press, 2006.

Friedman, Vanessa. “For the Wolf of Luxury, a Chance to Be a Lamb. A Cultural Gift to Paris

Could Redesign LVMH’s Image.” The New York Times, 4 Oct. 2014,

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/business/international/a-cultural-gift-to-paris-

could-redesign-lvmhs-image.html?_r=0.

Ghemawat, Panjak, and Jan W. Rivkin. “Creating Competitive Advantage.” Harvard Business

School, 25 Feb. 2006.

Goleman, Daniel. “Leadership That Gets Results.” Harvard Business Review, Mar.-Apr.

2000.

Gray, Clive. “Museums and the Management of Complexity.” Paper to the Annual Conference

of the Political Studies Association, Manchester, Apr. 2014.

Gunther McGrath, Rita. “Transient Advantage.” Harvard Business Review, June 2013.

Halpern, Linda, and Kathy Lubar. Leadership Presence. Dramatic Techniques to Reach Out,

Motivate, and Inspire. Penguin Group, 2003.

Hamel, Gary. What Matters Now: How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious

Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation. Jossey-Bass, 2012.

Jung, Yuha. “Micro Examination of Museum Workplace Culture: How Institutional Changes

Influence the Culture of a Real-World Art Museum.” Museum Management and

Curatorship, vol. 31, no. 2, 2015, pp. 159-177, doi: 10.1080/09647775.2015.1117393.

48

Kaarst-Brown, Michelle L., et al. “Organizational Cultures of Libraries as a Strategic Resource.”

Library Trends, Summer 2004, pp. 33-53.

Kotter, John P. “Leading Change. Why Transformation Efforts Fail.” Harvard Business Review,

Jan. 2007.

---. Our Iceberg Is Melting: Changing and Succeeding Under Any Conditions. Penguin Random

House, 2005.

Kotter International. “Barriers to Change: The Real Reason Behind the Kodak Downfall.”

Forbes, 2 May 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2012/05/02/barriers-to-

change-the-real-reason-behind-the-kodak-downfall/#363a48553698.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince and The Discourses. 1513. The Modern Library, Random

House, 1950.

McCaughy, Patrick. Interview with Patrick McCaughy, Director of the Yale Center for British

Art, in New Haven, 15 Apr. 1996. Suchy, Sherene. “Emotional Intelligence, Passion and

Museum Leadership.” Reinventing the Museum: The Evolving Conversation on the

Paradigm Shift, edited by Gail Anderson, Altamira Press, 2012, pp. 451-467.

Merritt, Elizabeth. “Flower Power: A Story of Organizational Re-Blossoming.” Center for the

Future of Museums, 13 Aug. 2013,

http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2013/08/flower-power-story-of-organizational-

re.html.

Mezias, Stephen J., and Mary Ann Glynn. “The Three Faces of Corporate Renewal: Institution,

Revolution and Evolution.” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 77-101.

Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney G. Winter. “Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics.” The

Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 16, no. 2, Spring 2002, pp. 23-46.

49

---. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard UP, 1982.

Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. “Creating Shared Value: How to Reinvent Capitalism–

And Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth.” Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb.

2011.

Robinson, Ken. “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” TED Conferences LLC, February 2006,

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en.

Rohrer, Lisa. “Organizational Culture.” Management E-4000 Organizational Behavior, Harvard

Extension School, Harvard University, 28 Nov. 2016.

Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, 1985.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Caufes of The Wealth of Nations. London, 1776.

Spiegel, Gabrielle M. “The Task of the Historian.” American Historical Review, vol. 114, no. 1,

Feb. 2009, pp. 1-15.

Suchy, Sherene. “Emotional Intelligence, Passion and Museum Leadership.”

Reinventing the Museum: The Evolving Conversation on the Paradigm Shift, edited by

Gail Anderson, Altamira Press, 2012, pp. 451-467.

“The Empire of Desire. What the biggest luxury group will do next.” The Economist, 2 Jun.

2012, http://www.economist.com/node/21556270.

“The LVMH Model.” LVMH, 2015-17,

https://www.lvmh.com/group/about-lvmh/the-lvmh-model/.

Tushman, Michael L., and Charles A. O’Reilly III. “Managerial Problem Solving: A Congruence

Approach.” Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational

Change and Renewal. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2002.

Watkins, Michael D. “What Is Organizational Culture? And Why Should We Care?” Harvard

50

Business Review, 15 May 2013, https://hbr.org/2013/05/what-is-organizational-

culture?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ecom_12mobuyers&utm_campaign=topic_or

ganizational_culture&referral=03721&spMailingID=16140111&spUserID=MzI5MDYw

NTk1MTM4S0&spJobID=921483860&spReportId=OTIxNDgzODYwS0.

Wayland, Robert. “Uncertainty, Evolutionary Economics, and Firm Selection and Survival.”

Economics E-1600 Economics of Business, Harvard Extension School, Harvard

University, 7 Feb. 2017.

Weil, Stephen. “Museums: Can and Do They Make a Difference?” Making Museums Matter.

1st ed., Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002, pp. 55-74.

Wetlaufer, Suzy. “The Perfect Paradox of Star Brands: An Interview with Bernard Arnault of

LVMH.” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2001.

White, Bowen F. Why Normal Isn't Healthy: How to Find Heart, Meaning Passion & Humor on

the Road Most Traveled. Hazelden, 2000.

Wood, Lisa. "Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and Management". Management Decision,

vol. 38, no. 9, pp.662 – 669.

Wooldridge, Adrian. “Schumpeter. Capitalism and Society.” The Economist, 24 Dec. 2016- 6

Jan. 2017, p.88.

Young, Dennis R. “Why Study Nonprofit Finance?” Financing Nonprofits: Putting Theory Into

Practice. Edited by Dennis Young, Altamira Press, 2007, pp. 3-17.