You won’t get everyone to think about their work in terms of outcomes. Any time you try to reframe how people work, some people will resist. Outcomes aren’t special in that way. The problem is our expectation that pockets of reluctance or resistance indicate a deficiency in the proposed solution itself. We overindex on the fraction of people who resist change and hope for an alternative that will be more palatable to everyone. Then we grow old and retire.
That isn’t to say that resistance is somehow a good sign in itself. But it’s worth noticing this tendency, which I think is common in all of us, to harbor an unreasonable expectation that not only must the medicine work, it must also taste good and everyone must want to take it.
If we agree that cultural institutions must provide value to the communities they support, then it’s hard to argue that aligning around visitor outcomes — which describe the actual things communities value about museum experiences — isn’t relevant to all staff. This feels non-controversial, but that doesn’t make it intuitive for everyone you work with.
To help people connect their work to user outcomes, look at your mission statement. Look for a verb or a transition like “so that …” or “in order to…”. These often point to outcomes that matter to people outside the museum. Examples:
…cultivate curiosity and foster a more inclusive, empathetic, and informed society
encourage curiosity, questioning, and exploration; enhance a sense of personal achievement in learning; respect individual interest, background, and abilities; promote life-long learning and informed and active-citizenship
welcoming all people to explore and experience art, creativity, and our shared humanity
You can say, “Outcomes are what operationalize our mission. No one wakes up hoping to explore their shared humanity, but people do want to build connections with each other. Outcomes turn abstract platitudes into decisions.”
Now, why mission statements need this kind of translation is a topic for another day. Suffice to say that we’re not doing ourselves any favors by cloaking work in vague statements that are often interchangeable from one institution to the next.
For now, we live in a world where it seems normal for people to suggest their work has no relationship to community goals or user outcomes. But not so for mission — it’s hard for people to argue that their work doesn’t support the institution’s mission. Close the gap between the two.
But, admittedly, some mission statements are harder than others. Here are some examples that would be more difficult to view through this lens:
to discover, interpret, and disseminate … knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe.
enrich the lives of present and future generations through the acquisition, presentation, and preservation of works of art.
preserving the written, oral, and physical legacy … by maintaining physical collections and promoting the study, appreciation, and interpretation of local and regional history
These statements don’t have as clear a connection between the organization’s purpose and user outcomes. They are more topic- or activity-oriented. So, this exercise isn’t one-size-fits-all. It’s possible, though, that even statements resistant to outcomes translation can spark value-focused conversations. Why does knowledge of human cultures matter? What sort of person benefits from that knowledge — or, better, when does a person benefit from that? How do we know when the acquisition and presentation of art is enriching someone’s life? What observable things would indicate that is happening? Who cares most about preserving local and regional history? Is it mostly people like us (i.e., cultural professionals)?
So, if you’re struggling to bring some of your colleagues around to embracing user outcomes, two things:
Try tying outcomes to mission: Is anyone in collections or HR or finance or any other department going to argue that the mission isn’t relevant to their work? I hope not.
Understand that not everyone will get on board — better yet, remember that there’s never been a time when everyone in the museum was on board or in agreement with strategic direction. It’s just that, until you started trying to communicate in terms of outcomes, the misalignment was accepted as ‘normal’.
If you’ve found some ways to bring others along in difficult, strategic conversations, let me know in a reply to today’s letter. I’ll be happy to hear from you.
Have a good weekend,