Category: MPOW

General Disclaimer: My soon-to-be FPOW is by no means unique when it comes to academic libraries. After talking, and sometimes grumping, with librarians from many different academic libraries, I have come to the conclusion that MPOW is the middle of the pack when it comes to both good and bad organizational themes. It is not my institution that drives me insane at times, but they way academic libraries work in general. For many of these problems, it is simply the size of the organization that works against it. These observations are based on my experiences in my academic library. Your experiences may vary.

I have written this post so many times in my head that when I finally was able to write it, I could not articulate the words. I have always wanted to be more transparent about MPOW in this space, but I never felt like that was an option. I am leaving my library now and I no longer have to play the politics that keeps up outward appearances above all else. I do not see this post as bridge burning by any means. I think it is honest, fair, and I hope the administration accepts it in that spirit.

The introduction leads me right into the first issue: lack of transparency. One of the most frustrating things about this issue was that my administration was usually under the impression they were being transparent. As long as things looked ok from the top they must be ok. The problem was often a communication breakdown somewhere on the totem pole and the people on the bottom are rarely asked if everything is actually going OK. When you have an organization of any kind that is large, transparency is hard simply because it must travel through level after level of employees. We did receive meeting minutes from all the managerial type meetings, but they were bulleted lists of decisions and explained nothing about the why. I am not asking for a tome, but if the decision effects my work or me, I want to know why certain things were decided, not just the outcome.

Transparency can be a hit or miss affair. Sometimes things were handled fabulously. I think our original Strategic Directions process was very transparent with information coming out in many different formats and with many opportunities for participation from the library. However, I am sure there are differing opinions about it from someone who was displeased with the flow of information. Transparency is sometimes about perspective.

Transparency was even more complex when it involved a mistake or something was not going quite right. Then everyone was talking about it, except all the managers, and we peons were all left wondering why no one would just own up. The first step is admitting you have a problem. The second is actually addressing the issue.

Academic libraries want to be innovative, they think they are, but processes keep them from ever doing anything remotely cutting edge. In order start a new, innovative project you have to, at the very least, complete the following steps more or less in this order:

You have a brilliant idea, X, and you tell your boss about it.

Boss tells you to research X to see if anyone else has successfully done X because you need proof of concept and ROI first. (This immediately assures you that X is not a new idea since what you are conducting is a literature review of research articles.)

You present findings to managers/admin and argue for X being implemented.

Your managers/admin decide it might be worth trying so they create a Task Force to investigate the idea and write a report.

The Task Force does the research and writes a report.

The report goes to admin and they approve it.

Admin creates an Implementation Committee.

Implementation Committee goes over report, does more research, makes more plans, and writes their own report.

Report goes to admin.

Admin approves of monies to spend.

Implementation Committee starts the process of actually implementing X.

All these process often take a year at the very least. By that point, anything you wanted to do is so past being new that everyone is already doing it – except academic libraries. We make committees for everything and the committees are rarely efficient. It is also hard to have transparency when so much of the work of the organization is spread out in countless committees. Sounds a lot like ALA, yes?

Academic libraries are very inflexible when it comes to traditional roles of librarians or allowing librarians to grow into different jobs. Once you get hired to do a job, that is your job. You may get work duties added to your position, but you will rarely get to recreate yourself, even if it meets an expressed need at YPOW. If you grow as a professional, the only way to move into a new position is to move up, often into management. There is no way to move sideways, to become more expert at something and be compensated or promoted in the same fashion as if you were moving up the ladder of the organization. Not everyone wants to or should be a manager.

My work situation is a perfect example of this. I was hired as a Social Studies Librarian. I was hired to do collection development, reference, and instruction, but over time I became more interested in technology and training. There was no one on staff to do troubleshooting, exploration, and training of staff in regards to technology. We had a Systems Department, but that was not their job nor did they have time to train people. At first I did the extra stuff because I loved it and I argued that we needed a full time person to do this job. Training was added to my current job, for which I was compensated, but I still had regular duties to do. I was doing, in my opinion, two full-time jobs and eventually, I was doing neither well. I was only one person, after all. I declined a renewal of the training duties so that I could focus on my core job responsibilities. I told my managers that I was unable to do what I considered two full time jobs with limited time in a respectable manner. It was my way of telling them, I would be a band-aid for this problem no longer.

There is still no one doing technology training at MPOW, nor will there be any time soon though the need is most definitely there. It is just not a priority. In my previous post, I said that there was always money in the bank and there was, for things. There was never money for people. We could always buy books, furniture, and shelving, but rarely new people. In my opinion, we need the people more and they are more important than things. Unfortunately, budgets do not work the way we would like and thus, no new positions. If my admin had moved me into a different position, they would have had to hire someone to replace me in my old position. I am assuming that there was just not money for everything and admin made a hard choice.

In the end, I just do not think my personality and big bureaucracies are a good fit. I am continually frustrated by the red tape, the sacred cows, the lack of transparency, lack of flexibility, and the politics. My library was great for me because it allowed me to find something I love, technology and teaching. With monetary support to go to conferences with infinite networking opportunities, I was able to make enough contacts to enable me to seek my own career path. I will be eternally grateful to my first professional job for the fostering I received. I have outgrown my position and so it was time for me to move on. Baby or not, I have been considering my options for a long time.

–Jane, needed a little more room to fly

Last week at MPOW, we had two leadership training days with Maureen Sullivan (who is a great facilitator). Most librarians under a certain age or a certain level in the organization were included in the sessions. It was interesting, frustrating, and medicinal. It was frustrating because a lot of the organizational culture issues we were talking about last year and the year before that are still crippling issues. It was medicinal because there was some laundry airing that felt good. None of the things we discussed are unique to my library.

Much of the discussion, however, was very interesting. The conversations that made me ponder most my place in this library and this profession was the generational discussion. We had everything from Boomers to Millenials in the room. Our ideas of what should be were so different that it was again brought home to me that I may not have the patience to wait for my library to change.

One of the conversations was about “paying one’s dues.” I said that my weakness was maintaining a patience level that would pace me with my organization. I stated that I wanted things to start changing now, I wanted flexibility, and I wanted to be more effective in my efforts. One of my older colleagues replied that I had to wait 10 years until I am in management to effect my idea of The Library. I retorted that I did not want to wait 10 years! I am here now!

At the time I was angry and frustrated, but the more I thought about his response, I knew this was the difference that holds many of us who want change now back. There is a strong divide between the “pay your dues crowd” and those of us that think we should have the opportunity and power to effect change RIGHT NOW. This small, but heated, conversation was the perfect example of generational differences.

I do not want to wait. Gone are the days when the majority of us will stay at the same library for years on end, retiring after a long service to the same organization. The reality is that I will mostly likely only be at my current library for a small number of years before I move on. I want to make this library better NOW, not after I leave. I want MPOW to be fabulous, I want to think big and be able to do something with those dreams, and I want to do it now. There is only so much subterfuge and subversion that can go on before you must gain official permission for things and all that dealing is exhausting.

A friend and co-worker pointed me to a new blog and this post in particular. Penelope Trunk is talking about the changing idea’s of paying one’s dues. There are some other good themes, like the amount of family time that must be sacrificed to achieve the pinnacle of most careers, but the majority of the post is about people who are succeeding well because they are hopping up and around the ladder of success. The climb no longer has to be drudgery and serfdom. The climb to success can vary immensely because there are so many more options available to us. Organizations that plan for this new model will be the one’s that succeed. Ones that do not will continue to drop by the wayside, waiting for a Good Samaritan to take pity and haul them out of their ditch.

The question most administrators should be asking themselves is how can they provide a flexible working environment for staff, especially younger or driven staff, that can and will choose to move in a different direction to attain the flexibility they want and need?

The question for librarians gazing at the top of the ladder from the bottom is thus: Do you want to go straight up, waiting your turn for others to vacate the upper rungs, or would you rather forgo the ladder and try the rope or the stairs?

–Jane, looks around for a rope