Public Library Directors: Hierarchical Roles and Proximity to Power

THISARTICLE EXAMINES THE CURRENT experience and trends in the roles, functions, and activities of today’s directors of large libraries or library systems. Directors assume an extensive range of complex responsibilities in their unique positions, foremost of which is accountability for internal organization, operations, and management. A shift in roles, functions, and activities is occurring, however, from predominantly internal affairs to an increasing emphasis on external concerns. These include technological, economic, and political issues. INTRODUCTION Directing a large American library today is not what this author expected it would be thirty years ago. New information technologies and scholarly communication systems, the Internet, access issues, and intellectual property rights have made the library landscape more complex. Rising prices for scholarly journals, coupled with the sheer volume of published information, have caused major economic problems. Budget cutbacks and rising costs for human resources and facilities exacerbate the problems. Leadership expectations, external politics, demands for accountability and the compelling need for strong public relations, all belie the three decades-old foresight. Keith M. Cottam, University of Wyoming Libraries, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070 LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 43, No. 1, Summer 1994, pp. 15-33 @ 1994 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois 16 LIBRARY TRENDWSUMMER 1994 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY In 1963, the author had just entered library school at Pratt Institute with an internship in the Brooklyn Public Library. Libraries then were still largely worlds of books and other printed material. Technology was just beginning to make an appearance. There were photocopy machines-the kind that used rolls of slick paper and cost 25 cents per copy-and photo-based circulation systems but not much else. Bush’s (1945) visionary “memex” was still an intriguing, creative idea for dealing with the information explosion. Automated techniques were receiving increasing attention, but practical applications were yet to come; the machine-readable records pilot project (MARC) at the Library of Congress would not begin until 1966 (Avram, 1975). Holley (1972) had not written about the changes he detected in the “organization and administration of urban university libraries” (p. 175); McAnally and Downs (1973) had not produced their classic essay on the pressures affecting the roles of directors of university libraries. Libraries were then only on the threshold of a series of transitional periods which continue today, each with a shorter life-span than the last. But nearly fifteen years would pass before many writers would begin to seriously examine the changing and unique roles of directors in large libraries caused by changes in organization, management, technology, costs, and external politics. Lee (1977) was one of the first to examine the pressures on academic library directors and the effect the pressures had on their administrative roles. A few years later, Metz (1979) looked at descriptive data to understand the actual roles of library directors, particularly external relationships. He concluded that internal library matters demanded more time and energy than external affairs. Baughman (1980) inquired into the roles of metropolitan library directors, noting that more and more of their time was being required outside the demands of day-to-day operations and management. Moskowitz (1986) and Mech (1989, 1990) used Mintzberg’s managerial role model in three different studies of the external and internal managerial roles of library directors. In keeping with Metz’s conclusion, but somewhat contrary to Baughman’s observations, Moskowitz and Mech concluded that library directors in both public and academic libraries were emphasizing their internal managerial roles over external environmental matters. The work of Euster (1987), most notably her investigation of the role of academic library leaders, provides an important new role model. The model defines the roles of academic library directors in terms of influencing both the library’s internal organization and its external environment. COTTAM/DIRECTORS OF LARGE LIBRARIES 17 The author’s personal experience has followed a career path from a full-time entry-level professional position in 1965, through a department headship, to the directorship of a large undergraduate library, and then to senior line and staff positions. Library directorships at a private Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member and the University of Wyoming (UW), a land-grant institution, have placed the author in the mainstream of library transition and change. For example, the University of Wyoming has moved from the affluence of the late 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s into an era of resource constraints and greater public scrutiny and accountability. The University of Wyoming Libraries have become highly visible and attract significant public attention in both the state and the region. Increasingly difficult questions are being asked about library cost effectiveness, organizational efficiency, collections and access, the quality of services provided, the adequacy of facilities, the availability of new information technologies, the role of cooperation and resource sharing, and library leadership. The UW experience, however, particularly in view of the institution’s relatively recent commitment to build and develop a large academic research library, may not be easily generalized to other large libraries. This article, therefore, is based on additional experience from across the country. It reflects a selective contemporary look at the roles of directors in other large libraries and library systems. The nature of the inquiry for the study required an exploratory qualitative approach which describes the personal experience of library directors; i t is self-selecting and situational, but the responses reflect roles which are probably common to most directors. The work is based on inquiries to ninety-one directors who have headed large libraries or library systems for at least five years. The directors surveyed were selected from the author’s personal acquaintances within the ARL, the American Library Association (ALA), the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries (CARL), and the Greater Midwest Research Libraries Consortium (GMRLC); and participation in the ARL Office of Management Services Consultant Training Program and the University of California, Los Angeles/Council on Library Resources (UCLA/CLR) Senior Fellows program. Thirty directors responded, including public (eight), government (one), and academic (twentyone).l Another six responded that their demanding roles and responsibilities precluded the time required to develop an adequate response to the inquiry. The survey was focused on present positions and how they contrast with roles and responsibilities from five to ten years ago. Six questions were posed: 1. What are the functions and activities which command the majority of your time? 18 LIBRARY T R E N D S B U M M E R 1994 2. What factors determine the priorities on your time? 3. What managerial roles and activities internal to your library do you emphasize as a matter of priority and time commitment? 4. What external environmental factors (e.g., economic factors, institutional politics, technological changes, and so on) do you emphasize as a matter of priority and time commitment? 5. What functions and activities do you delegate to others? 6. How do your answers to these five questions compare with what you were doing five to ten years ago-i.e., what are you doing today that is different from what you were doing five to ten years ago? ASSUMPTIONS The survey explored the general supposition that the roles of directors of large libraries or library systems are changinglhave changed. The survey also looked at several supporting assumptions in view of the experience of the author and the respondents. These assumptions were: Roles have changed over the past five to ten years; shifts in priorities on functions and activities are occurring. Traditional managerial roles are still prevalent (situational internal library managerial functions and activities), but both internal library circumstances and external environmental factors are causing directors to spend more time now than in the past on matters external to day-to-day library organizational and operational responsibilities. The focus on external matters may include strategic planning correlated with broad environmental trends and events, interinstitutional cooperation and resource sharing, communication within consortiums and alliances, fund-raising and development, and professional association leadership. Directors spend more time today than they did five to ten years ago responding to societal shifts (e.g., lifelong learning trends, diversity issues, economic pressures, technological changes, increasing scrutiny of public institutions) and less time on local library-specific issues. Directors also spend more time attempting to envision, design, and deliver (speaking, writing, negotiating, and so on) strategic responses to the external environment. Directors spend more time today than they did five to ten years ago teaching and influencing staff and constituency regarding values, purpose, and direction of the library enterprisecommunicating, delegating, building trust and confidence-and less time with hands-on program management matters. What emerged from an analysis of the survey, completed fall 1993, was a collective point-of-view which generally validates the COTTAM/DIRECTORS OF LARGE LIBRARIES 19 author’s personal experience and assumptions. The underlying general assumption was upheld: A shift in roles, functions, and activities is occurring from primarily internal managerial and organizational matters to increasing emphasis on external environmental concerns. While the subjectivity of this conclusion may be questioned, the real-life, context-sensitive experience of most of the directors who responded gives credibility to the assumptions. FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES COMMANDING THE MAJORITY OF A DIRECTOR’S TIME The roles of directors of large libraries at any given time are characteristically driven by time-sensitive circumstances, such as personnel issues, organizational and operational demands, budget planning timetables, fund-raising initiatives, and new building construction. Being attentive to the needs of a well-oiled and functional organization is an essential role. The sentiment expressed by Kent Hendrickson at the University of Nebraska is shared by everyone else in the survey: “I will put coordination of library functions and organization at the top of my list,” although he notes that senior officers run most of the day-to-day activities. While directors may not be in daily contact with staff members, staying in touch was cited as a central role-almost as a cardinal rule. They described the responsibility variously as communicating, team building, and staff relations. Charles Robinson (Baltimore County Public Library) gave a unique response regarding the timeconsuming role of communicating with staff, describing it as “internal consulting.” The consultation role is essential in order for him to exercise his judgment as director: Staff members who have ideas, projects, or crises which they determine (by experience) should come to my attention, discuss them with me. I say yes, no, let’s do this instead, think about it, etc. It takes a lot of time, but that’s what I’m primarily paid for: judgment. The range of matters on which directors focus their attention, and most certainly on which they must use judgment, is extensive and complex. Sound judgment is critical since they hold ultimate responsibility for their libraries. The matters on which judgment is required include strategic planning and decision making-where to go with the organization; policy-guidelines for action; management-how to achieve strategic goals and objectives; directing-getting effective and efficient performance from the staff; budgeting-accoun ting and control; governance-dealing with the stakeholder, power relationships in and out of the library; facilities20 LIBRARY TRENDVSUMMER 1994 obtaining and maintaining adequate resources; personneldeveloping, encouraging, and treating them fairly; and communicating and reporting-represen ting the library through formal reports, newsletters, and speeches. In dealing with these and other matters, directors appear to have shaped their management roles, and their abilities to respond to the complex mix of responsibilities, on the basis of “what works for me.” The several schools of management thought (scientific, human relations, and decision theory), however, are reflected in the experience of the respondents. And several directors mentioned the influence of Total Quality Management (TQM) and “management by walking around” (MBWA) on their organization and management practices. Another common role sentiment regarding internal operation matters came from Barbara Smith (Smithsonian Institution Library). Her comment is notable for its emphasis on the importance of effective delegation and the efficient use of communications technology: The bulk of my time is spent responding to the pile of paper that comes across my desk daily. This involves reading, assigning to other staff to deal with, or responding myself. The “pile” now includes e-mail activity which keeps me informed and in contact with my immediate staff in ways that are more efficient than in the past. E-mail is now indispensable to an effective library operation. E-mail is a new medium, however, and many directors are learning how to deal with it more effectively. Unlike written correspondence, with which directors have much experience and skill in managing, e-mail is not yet comfortable for everyone. The lament from Joanne Euster (University of California, Irvine) is typical of many directors: “So far I haven’t found a good way of dealing with e-mail, where everything seems to be of equal urgency.” The role of participating in meetings of all kinds is reported as both essential and an annoyance. Behind the need to fulfill meeting obligations is a significant drain on time and energy. Nevertheless, directors reported significant opportunities to represent the library to constituents; articulate and communicate the library’s programs; work cooperatively with library staff, citizens, students, and faculty; build confidence, trust, and cooperation for the director’s vision and leadership; solve problems and develop consensus; influence planning and budgeting; coordinate staff delegated to specific tasks; and provide mentoring, counseling, and evaluation. Even as directors attend to internal matters because of local circumstances, the impact of larger environmental factors (such as economics, politics, technology, and demographics)z on local library matters is causing directors to divert more and more attention to COTTAM/DIRECTORS OF LARGE LIBRARIES 21 external concerns. Time-sensitive internal library situations continue to command a high level of attention from most directors, but, with few exceptions, they reported that more time and energy is being invested away from running the day-to-day internal affairs of the library. The most striking diversion of time and energy reported stems from increasing economic pressures. Directors are spending more time coping with declining budgets by reassessing priorities and working to complement traditional funding with other sources of financial support. They are constantly looking for ways to attract external funding, and they indicate that successful fund-raising programs require their attention, leadership, and direct participation. Edward Johnson (Oklahoma State University) concluded: “Perhaps as much as 20%of my time is devoted to fund raising and, as a result, I have to delegate more of the routine, daily administrative activities.” Rick Ashton (Denver Public Library) listed “fund-raising strategy, volunteer cultivation, and major related tasks” second only to his current management of a major $73 million building project. Joan Chambers (Colorado State University) said: “I am much more involved in fund raising and cooperative/consortial relationships.” Robert Croneberger (Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh) ranked “fund raising, fund-fighting, for money” after “coordination of staff delegated to tackle problems” and “long-range planning.” Euster defined “external affairs, mostly fund raising or activities that might lead that way,” as one of three categories which commands the majority of her time. Hendrickson reported, “I spend more and more of my time on development, including our Friends group ....” David Hennington (Houston Public Library) reported a list of activities which command the majority of his time: “planning, community relations, governmental relations, finance, fund raising, communication with managers under my direct supervision, and grievance disposition.” Gary Pitkin (Northern Colorado University) cited “fund-raising activities, including grant writing and establishing formal contacts with foundations, corporations and individuals,” after his top priority of dealing with academic governance issues. Frank Rodgers (University of Miami) reported that “more and more (of my time) relates to fund-raising activities.” Pat Woodrum (Tulsa City County Library) cited fund-raising following “planning” and “representing the Library locally, statewide and nationally.” A second major external role is defined variously as community relations, public relations, or “external presence,” as Brice Hobrock (Kansas State University) calls it. While staff frequently do not understand the importance of these external activities, and may even 22 LIBRARY TRENDWSUMMER 1994 criticize the absence of the director or the way some responsibilities are delegated, directors reported the increasing importance of these external relations, functions, and activities. According to Hobrock: All academic library directors must “represent” the interests of hidher library at multiple levels. We generally report to the Vice President or Provost, sit on the Council of Deans, and participate in a wide variety of campus and community activities that maintain the “presence” of our libraries-so we don’t get left out when things are discussed or when the pie is divided. If we are not “out there,” our libraries get dismissed as not being “players.” The Rotary Club, the Wildcat Club, the President’s Club, the Chamber of Commerce, the Country Club, are all things that we must do in various combinations in order to “represent” the best interests of our libraries. The external presence is increasingly necessary outside one’s own university because of the growing need to borrow and share materials. Within one’s own university system in a state, or in any regional grouping or national organization, it is necessary for directors to be a presence and, hopefully, to exert some leadership. Directors of public libraries report similar sentiments. Annie Linnemeyer (Springfield-Greene County Library in Missouri), who also serves on a number of community boards and advisory groups,