The Kunsthaus Zug, a prominent cultural institution in Switzerland, is undergoing a major strategic overhaul following declining visitor numbers, high staff turnover, and workplace stress. President Silvia Graemiger is spearheading the transformation, but controversy continues to surround the departure of former director Matthias Haldemann, with critics arguing that the board has failed to adequately reflect on its own role in the conflict.
A comprehensive external report by Munich-based consulting firm Metrum has recommended fundamental changes to get the museum back on track. The consultants suggest stronger audience orientation, better visibility of the collections, and significant adjustments to operational management, including distributing leadership responsibilities among more people. According to Johannes von Hülsen, a consultant specializing in cultural institutions, the essential adjustments can be made within a year, with further changes only necessary when the museum expands with its planned extension building.
Despite the clear path forward, Haldemann's departure remains highly contentious, as revealed in email correspondence obtained by media outlets. Two members of the Zug Art Society, Armin Jans and Laurent Burst, have demanded clarification regarding the dismissal. They argue that numerous supporters and friends feel morally and emotionally alienated by the manner in which the departure was handled. The members describe experiencing Haldemann as someone who dedicated himself fully to the service of art and artists.
Jans and Burst specifically criticized the lack of recognition for Haldemann's 35 years of foundational work, which included numerous widely acclaimed exhibitions. They are demanding greater transparency about the background of the dismissal and want to know how the new leadership plans to prevent the threatened loss of significance and repair damaged relationships with the Kamm Collection. Additionally, they are calling for more participation by members in decision-making processes.
In her response, President Graemiger referenced the Metrum report to justify the changes. She explained that the museum had not been sufficiently audience-oriented, which was reflected in steadily declining visitor numbers. She also noted that there had been a lack of modern structure between the board, friends, and collection, causing processes to often be unclear and contradictory. The organizational setup and procedures were dysfunctional, leading to extremely high staff turnover.
The Metrum report confirms these assessments with brutal honesty. It found that governance, decision-making processes, structures, tasks, responsibilities, and procedures were inadequately regulated. There were no clear boundaries between operational and strategic responsibility or between supervisory and performance accountability. Information flows frequently occurred informally through personal contacts, while Haldemann was active in multiple governing bodies, which lengthened decision-making processes and increased conflict potential.
The leadership structure was heavily tailored to Director Matthias Haldemann personally. Collaborative division of labor regarding responsibilities, which is common in modern structures with complex tasks, was largely absent. The museum maintained high standards for curatorial work, focusing on an internationally networked, intellectually demanding profile and curating all special exhibitions in-house. The institution showed its three annual exhibitions exclusively in its own space, never sending them on tour to other venues, nor did it engage in bringing externally curated exhibitions to the museum.
This approach created an ivory tower structure where scientific and curatorial standards often overshadowed public appeal. While the educational program for visitors reached a narrower art circle, it failed to truly engage the broader public. Even with the collections, there was a gap between ambition and reality, as limited exhibition space meant only partial displays were possible due to space constraints.
The personnel and financial framework conditions were also challenging. High staff turnover limited continuity and knowledge transfer within the team. Additionally, there were insufficiently diversified internal and external funding sources, along with outdated infrastructure and limited storage space. Combined with ambitious curation, this led to overworked staff, limited public impact, and a low degree of self-financing.
From both the consulting firm's perspective and Silvia Graemiger's viewpoint, this makes it clear that a fresh start under Haldemann, under whom these structures had developed, would hardly have been possible. However, while there are clear reasons for the separation, critics are seeking a clear sign of self-reflection and assumption of responsibility from the board. A conceivable approach would be an admission that the separation was unavoidable because the future of the museum could only be secured with a radical new beginning, but that the implementation could have been handled more humanely.
Such signals would simultaneously be a strong gesture toward members and partners like the Kamm Collection, whose support for the institution and especially their financial and moral backing for the planned extension building is an indispensable piece of the puzzle for the success of the Zug Art Museum. The city and canton of Zug are only willing to co-finance the extension if it can be funded to a large extent from the museum's own resources. While all signs point to a new beginning, there remains an expectation that the board will settle the still-open emotional accounts.
