At my previous place of work, we had weekly “council meetings” which was basically all of the professional librarians meeting to discuss issues, make big decisions about the library and manage the budget. It was a great experience to be involved in high-level discussions straight out of library school and really nice to feel in-the-loop about what was in the works at our library. Because I was in-the-loop it took me a while to realize that many other people at the library were not in-the-loop. Like our entire non-professional staff. There were no minutes taken for these meetings and although our library was small, communication still often did not filter down after the Council meetings. And I don’t think anyone purposely didn’t include staff in these conversations; like me, it’s hard for people to see what it’s like to be out-of-the-loop when you’re in-the-loop.
While I have no problem with degreed librarians being in charge of things, I do take issue with a system where staff do not feel like they have a voice or are not communicated with about possible changes in advance. If someone is just told “this is how it’s going to be” instead of being asked “what do you think of this idea?” how can you expect their buy-in? Even if things don’t go the way they wanted them to go, at least they got to share their opinion before a decision was made.
Library staff are often extremely knowledgeable about the library. Our Evening Circulation Supervisor at my previous job saw patterns in student library use that we simply didn’t see during the day. The insights I got from him during my evening reference shifts were vitally useful. As I said, I have no problem with professional librarians or administrators making the final decisions on things, but I think that soliciting the input of staff is vitally important as they likely have insights into their areas that no one else does.
In May, our Interim University Librarian announced that she’d be taking a job at another institution at the end of June. In faculty meetings we discussed potential replacements, met with the Provost, and heard about meetings with a potential candidate for the position (who is starting next week as our IUL). It didn’t occur to me until our “all staff meeting,” on the day of our current IUL’s going away party that this was the first time the staff were hearing about any of this (I’m assuming that faculty talked with their staff before this informally, but this was the first formal communication). While it was a time of uncertainty for library faculty, I can only imagine what it was like for staff, some of whom may have heard nothing about potential replacements, the direction the Provost wanted to go, etc. And again, I don’t think anyone was purposely keeping staff in the dark; I’m sure if a decision had actually been made before that time, it would have been communicated to everyone at the library. But I can imagine if I had no idea what was going on that I’d be a lot more anxious than if I at least knew how things were progressing.
Are library staff less committed to our profession? Plenty of non-degreed library staff are deeply invested in their work. They might see this as much as a career or a calling as someone who got an MLS does. I was always blown away by the dedication of our ILL technician at my previous job to the students and to ensuring that they got what they needed (even if it meant bending the rules a bit). I’ve seen degreed librarians with less dedication than she had.
I don’t know what the answer to these divisions in our libraries is, really. I have no problem with “Council Meetings” or “Administrative Meetings” where the big decisions are made (at least here at PSU, minutes are taken at the administrative meetings so I still feel in-the-loop even though I’m not involved). I take no issue with the MLS being a requirement for certain things. But I think sometimes we degreed librarians, we faculty librarians, etc. do sometimes forget to communicate with and solicit feedback from our staff. And I’ve been guilty of it too in the past and I’ll probably unthinkingly do it again (which is ironic since I was once a non-degreed library staff member who felt like I didn’t have a voice). It seems almost endemic in our profession; we bemoan it, but we unconsciously perpetuate it. Are there libraries where this is not an issue? How do you structure discussions, decision-making and communication? I’m sure I’m not the only one who’d like to know.
Happy employees = good work. No one wants to feel like a cog in the work machine, and the best way to prevent that is by giving every employee a voice in workplace matters.
Similar to your council meeting, we have a twice monthly meeting chaired by the Deputy Director. It’s the primary information sharing/decision making forum. The required attendees are a mix of faculty librarians and paraprofessionals so that we have appropriate representation from throughout the library. Agendas are sent out ahead of time and everyone in the library is welcome to attend. In our recent strategic planning review cycle, we started with an all-day library wide session to do the overall environmental scan. Then a team of a dozen, which included paraprofessionals, spent a day revising the vision, mission and goals based on that. We’re going through the process of revising those goals and developing action plans during those twice-monthly meetings mentioned above. All of our various project groups include faculty librarians and paraprofessionals. As a director, my philosophy is that I should make as few decisions as possible (just the really difficult, ugly ones) and that most operational decisions should be made by those who are most closely involved with the issue at hand. This means that in many cases the paraprofessionals are making the decisions are contributing equally to the decision-making. The library faculty meet as a group four times a year, but that is only to discuss specific faculty issues.
Thanks for your post. I am a non-professional staff member at my university’s library, and I feel like you have accurately described the faculty-to-staff communication situation here. We have an “all-staff meeting” once a year, and that is usually the only time we find out about major changes being made to the library. There is a weekly newsletter detailing job openings, library events, and new hires; however, in terms of major changes that might have a negative impact on the non-professional staff, such as budget reductions, changing of library hours, or restructuring of departments, we are out of the loop and certainly never asked for feedback or ideas. I don’t think that staff should take over budget distribution or anything like that, but to at least be able to contribute to the discussion would be beneficial for everyone.
Great post on a sensitive topic. At my previous place of work (I was an asst. dir. at a public library) I held weekly meetings with the middle managers (on Tuesday afternoons) and then weekly meetings with the staff (Sunday at lunch – everyone ate together). The sessions were for questions, information sharing, venting and discussion of issues. I always shared the same initial set of information at both meetings (if there was any news to share) but things progressed on their own from there.
My boss (the Director) held monthly meetings with his staff and another with the middle managers for the same purpose.
My boss and I both felt that regular interaction (even if it wasn’t for a very long time) was the key to making people feel comfortable. It also ensured that we weren’t able to “forget” certain levels of staff when decisions had to be made.
It sounds as if your library needs to be reorganized to build communication. We did that a few years ago, and now the staff have the same knowledge of what’s going on as the librarians. Or, in other words, none. (“I got a new supervisor? When? Two months ago?”)
My former place of employment had monthly meetings that included librarians, department heads and the admin asst. After each meeting minutes were emailed. I incorrectly assumed that these minutes went to everyone but it turns out they were only sent to attendees. Eventually one of my coworkers let me know in the rudest way possible that she had no clue what went on at these meetings. While her methods were questionable and I was hardly the appropriate target for her anger, she did have a point. After that I began forwarding the meeting minutes to her and another coworker in my department.
Given that there were only about 25 people total working in the library that weren’t students we could have easily included everyone in the meetings minus a few people to cover the desk or evening workers. The policy of not inviting everyone to the meetings and not sending the minutes to everyone just created a divisive and hostile work environment.
Excellent post. We have twice a month meetings of the coordinators here and once a month all staff meetings. I have done my best to inform the people I supervise about what gets discussed in coordinators’ meetings, and to bring their ideas to those meetings, but I know there are sometimes things I forget. I absolutely agree, though, that decisions need to be made — as much as possible — by the people doing the actual work. I do my best to make it possible for that to happen.
One of my favorite things about working at UTC is that all meetings are public…any faculty or staff can sit in, ask questions, etc. That includes Faculty meetings, committee meetings, etc.
I just remember how disjointed my last place of employment was. News trickled down from the FT librarian’s weekly meeting to the rest of the staff, since there was a clear division between pro vs staff.
Of course there are many many institutions where communication is not as fluid as it should be and there should never be uncertainty that will adversely affect the functioning of the library and the service provided. Yes, everyone wants to feel involved and valued but taking everyone’s opinion about every decision being made, even all the librarians, is inefficient and a waste of everyone’s time. Decisions should not necessarily be made by the one’s doing the work, otherwise what’s the purpose of managers, coordinators, directors, etc.? “Are library staff less committed to our profession?” Sure there are some technicians/clerks/AAs/etc that are more committed than some librarians but those are exceptions from what I’ve seen. It’s almost by definition: if you’ve spent a decent amount of money, time and effort into working in libraries, i.e. getting your MLS, then you will be more invested in the library’s well-being.
Don’t invite everyone to meetings. Don’t send minutes to everyone. Don’t even ask everyone for feedback on every possible option. Make them available in a common space to the interested so that if someone has a contribution that is unforeseen, then there’s the possibility that it can be accepted. But most of the time, universal involvement only serves to prolong and dilute the process. Committees don’t get more efficient the bigger they are.
And don’t pull us into the idea that we’re all the same. It’s not a value statement but a functional one. We all have different strengths and different roles. Librarians can and should do things that technicians can’t and shouldn’t. And vice versa. And it’s true for every other subgroup you can think of. Labels are usually applied for a reason. It’s a little too post-modern to think otherwise.
Woah… I’ve written a book here! I’ll shut up now. lol
[…] Meredith Farkas writes about the importance of making sure others have a voice […]