Why Should We Care?: The Perception of a Caring Staff

We’ve been talking a lot lately about the fact that the vast majority of Core Visitors do not feel that museum staff members care about them.  As we noted in a recent posting, only 8 to 16% of respondents to our surveys of visitors to science museums, children’s museums, outdoor history museums, and Connecticut cultural organizations indicated that they felt that “the staff really cares about me and my family.” Ouch.

 

What is going on here?  And what difference does it make how much visitors feel like staff care about them?  A detailed review of the results from the Connecticut Cultural Consumers survey (funded by the Connecticut Humanities Council), corroborated with the results from our other studies of museum visitors, provides a lot of insight into who among our visitors feels that our staff cares—and the ramifications of their perceptions.

 

First, who are the visitors who feel staff members do care about them?  In the Connecticut study, only 12% of respondents indicated that they felt that the staff really cares.  When we look at Museum Advocates, those among our Core Visitors who enjoy going to museums in their leisure time, the percentage only increases to 15%, not a huge increase.

 

Demographically speaking, the members of this group pretty much represented the topline averages of the Connecticut survey - and Core Visitors in general.  That is, they are mostly over the age of 50, female, affluent, and overwhelmingly Caucasian.  We obviously have some work to do among all audience segments to convince them that we care about them, even among the segments with whom we are most popular.

 

But get this:  when asked, “Is there anything where this organization falls short in meeting your needs (and your family’s)?” only 2% of respondents indicated that they “wished the staff cared more.”  Two percent!  What this tells us is that our Core Visitors don’t walk in the door expecting that museum staff members should care about them.

 

So, given this result, how much should we care?  How hard should we work to change these perceptions?  The survey results tell us that any efforts we make will pay off in spades. 

 

Across the board, Connecticut survey respondents who feel that the staff cares about them are considerably more positive about the museum whose survey they responded to.  They are:

 

• Significantly more likely to be members (81% vs. 59% topline)
• More than 2x as likely to say the organization brings the community together
• 2x as likely to say the organization engages all ages
• Almost 2x as likely to praise the convenience of programs and events
• 1.5x as likely to praise the facility/amenities
• Almost 1.5x as likely to say organization meets their needs extremely well
• More likely to visit more than once a month
• Also more likely to praise exhibits, programs, and events

 

Additionally, those who feel the staff cares are more engaged with their community.  They are more likely to value diverse populations, a sense of place, and community organizations of all kinds, and they are more motivated to join or give for philanthropic reasons. 

 

Wow.   When you consider that each of our other museum visitor surveys produced similar results, what we have here is a powerful statement about the significance of the perception that museum staff members genuinely care about their visitors.  Improving that perception will likely reap significant results, not the least in repeat visitation, membership, financial support, and positive reputation in the community.

 

We will leave you with the following comment written by a Core Visitor in Connecticut in response to a different question in our survey: “If you could do whatever you wanted at a historic house museum, with no restrictions, what would you do?”  He or she stated, “I would get rid of the majority of the staff and replace them with energetic, well-informed individuals with an open creative mind and the ability to focus on the needs of the customer (the general public) and its changing face.”  In other words, this visitor’s main museum fantasy is a caring staff. 

 

We would love to hear your thoughts and questions about these topics.  To share or ask questions, simply click on “comments” below.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)

Comments

[Leslie]

"Improving [the perception that museum staff members genuinely care about their visitors] will likely reap significant results, not the least in repeat visitation, membership, financial support, and positive reputation in the community."
I'd like to see this happen and I hope you're right, but the devil's advocate in me wants to probe the seeming suggestion of a cause and effect relationship behind this correlation. Isn't it possible that this is simply a subset of visitors that sees the world through rose-colored glasses? That they have an inherent bent towards interpreting things in a positive light? Hence they believe the staff cares about them, the facility looks good to them, they're pleased with their experience at the programs, they see the museum as benefiting the community, etc.
Perhaps I missed something in reading too quickly, but do you have any evidence that these values not only correlate at a baseline level, but also adjust in tandem when one of the values changes?

[Ken Bubp]

>>>“If you could do whatever you wanted at a historic house museum, with no restrictions, what would you do?” He or she stated, “I would get rid of the majority of the staff and replace them with energetic, well-informed individuals with an open creative mind and the ability to focus on the needs of the customer (the general public) and its changing face.” In other words, this visitor’s main museum fantasy is a caring staff.<<<

Wow. That comment alone is enough to force me into some introspection.

It appears that, as museums collectively, we have set an incredibly low bar--if this comment and the 8-16% responses are representative, which they seem to be.

Let's go out and raise that bar!

[RTKrill]

Thanks as always for a thought-provoking post!

You mentioned a question about the ways in which a visitor perceived the institution as meeting his/her needs and the needs of the family. You mentioned that only 2% of respondents indicated a desire for a more caring attitude on the part of staff. Could you tell us more about this question, about the suggested answers, and about how visitors answered this question?

And, although it is probably beyond the scope of your study, do we know anything about what our visitors consider to be indicators of a caring staff? What behaviors are markers for a caring staff? Those of us who are museum staff could probably come up with our own lists of positive behaviors, and I wonder if staff lists would mimic visitors' lists.

Thanks again!

[Erica Donnis]

Thanks for these insightful comments! First, in response to the last comment:

The 2% response rate comes from those survey takers who selected "I wish the staff cared more" in response to the question, "Is there anything where this organization falls short in meeting your needs (and your family's)?” Following are the other options respondents could select, along with the topline response rates:

• No, they meet our needs extremely well (53%)
• I would like to see better exhibits (9%)
• I would like to see better programs and events (7%)
• I would like to see more convenient programs and events (9%)
• I would like to see more for children (7%)
• I would like to see more for adults (5%)
• It is too expensive (6%)
• Other (20%)

Among the most popular written-in responses to “other” were desires to see more plentiful and frequent exhibits, programs, and/or events; more programming for families, schools, and youths (there was some redundancy here with the provided option, above); and parking improvements.

We do have some indication of what visitors consider to be indicators of a caring staff from written-in responses to our surveys. They are looking for a staff that is engaging, accessible, initiates and facilitates 1:1 connections, welcoming to all community members (including minorities, newcomers, and those who are not part of the old guard), and radiates enthusiasm about the organization, the job they perform, and the stories they tell. Additionally, our respondents tell us that it is really important to them that ALL members of the staff, not just the front-end employees, act in this manner. We saw quite a few comments about museum directors being inaccessible, or only interested in getting to know high-level donors. In short, a caring staff plays a large role in making visitors feel comfortable, valued, excited to be there, and engaged with the content presented by the museum.
--Erica

[Chris]

Hmmm. 53% positive isn't bad, although we get a higher rating in our surveys locally. It would really help to know, as asked above, what the 2% who thot we should be more caring meant. Does that mean saying hello when we pass you on the side walk, reflect on something we're doing or not doing in your tour of tha museum, or what?

[Susie Wilkening]

Hi Chris -

You make a good point about comparing two of the different statistics. 53% say their needs are met, while only 12% feel the staff cares about them.

So let's back up and look at the statistic on staff caring. The question asks respondents what does the museum do well, with a choice of responses from good exhibits to good facility. Included in that was staff caring. Only 12% felt this was something that the museum did well.

In contrast, meeting needs implies a different standard. Not one of excelling, but meeting. It is the difference between being treated efficiently (needs are met) and being treated efficiently and warmly (needs are met and they are really glad to visitors came).

The reasons why I say that is because when we run the data to examine engagement levels, how people did, or did not answer these questions affects their engagement. That is:

** those who did not feel needs were met and who did not feel the staff cared were the LEAST engaged

** those who felt needs were met and but did not feel the staff cared were somewhat more engaged

** those who felt needs were met AND the staff cared were the MOST engaged

You ask a good question about what the 2% wish the staff were doing. Generally, written-in comments that address this tend to say things about staff or volunteers not being good with children, staff being aloof, or guided tours being canned.

I hope this helps! Thanks for the comment.

Susie

[Aviva Luria, Yale Center for British Art]

I will be participating in the telephone discussion on this topic later today (and look forward to it). If possible, I would like the participants to address ways to institute training of front-line staff in cost-effective ways. Also helpful would be tips on "selling" the need for such training to various departments within an institution (such as security). And that leads to another question: Any thoughts on promoting a stronger focus on visitor services from the top down, especially in insitutions, like my own, that are free to the public and therefore not dependent on revenue from ticket sales?