Certainly they do not attend first and foremost to money or prepare complicated plans, restructure , downsize or get new ideas mainly by bringing in people from outside every three to five years. In general, museums pay insufficient attention to leadership. People follow leaders because they want to, because they not only believe in the vision but can see a place for themselves in the sun, because they receive genuine support. Leadership isn't declaring all the positions in a certain part of the enterprise vacant, offering voluntary redundancies to almost anyone , announcing a grand new vision on day one without clearly understanding the environment of the enterprise or the forces that shape it. And it is seldom achieved without support from above and below.
Boards are unclear about their role.
In Britain, Canada and Australia, this is mainly the responsibility of governments. Boards are there to see that things are done. They have the unique role of carefully sifting through differing views of strategy, ensuring appropriate recognition is given to those who may contribute moral and financial support, and heading off plain silliness. And they have to be there when really needed, like all genuine supporters at times of crisis and celebration. Yet board members go on trying to make aesthetic or scientific judgments, carp about no-one knowing of the museum, push personal views on their favourite candidate for the top position.