February 29, 2012

The High Performing Library

The majority of libraries are not excellent libraries in terms of being able to exceed all standards, all employees having a positive attitude, providing excellent services, being customer focused, being an integral part of the community, and achieving their full potential. Despite the many reasons why this situation exists, the goal of virtually every library is to be the best possible library that they can be. The problem becomes how to achieve excellence from your current library situation by first recognizing where you are as an organization, and then deciding what type of organization you want to be.

The High Performance Programming (HPP) model was created by Linda Nelson and Frank Burns (Organization Transformation, 1983) and offers a perspective to assess what kind of organization you are – what kind of library organization you are:
• Reactive
• Responsive
• Proactive, or
• High Performing.

The High Performance Programming model illustrates a way of thinking about the process and strategies that can assist in transforming an organization into a high performing one. The structure of the model provides a nested framework for diagnosing current levels of performance, as well as for understanding the potential for performance at the highest levels. The term “programming” is used to emphasize the fact that an organization’s present performance level is a function of past implicit and explicit operating actions.

In the same manner, future performance will be determined by how the organization’s culture is being shaped now. This critical issue is the key to unlocking the performance potential of an organization. Leadership is the key to shaping the organization’s culture.

This graphic representation shows three frames of reference that make up the body of the HPP model, plus the REACTIVE frame of reference.

Each of these four states represents a distinct operating frame of reference. With the exception of the REACTIVE frame, these frames are nested one inside the next to reflect a basic concept of the model that each larger frame builds upon and provides an enhanced cultural context for the frame(s) within it. The PROACTIVE frame is an extension of and enhancement of the RESPONSIVE frame, and so on.

Frames of Reference: The concept of frames of reference, as applied here, is a useful way of examining the difference between organizational change efforts that merely re-sort and re-label the organization’s elements and functions, from change efforts that truly result in a new and transformed organization. Actual improved performance will result only if there is also a corresponding change in the frame of reference of the people in the organization beginning with the leader. Change in today’s environment is no longer a choice, it is a requirement. Its direction may take different forms.

An organization facing increasing complexity and change, such as the 21st Century Library, will either evolve toward a more connected and integrated form or drift into an increasingly fragmented condition. The fragmented condition is termed REACTIVE because it is drifting toward a fragmented survivalist condition. Organizations desiring to evolve toward a high performing condition can follow the High Performance Programming model which provides new ways for leaders to think coherently about how they can influence the transformation to excellence.

The REACTIVE Library:
The REACTIVE state is not the state where most organizations have their beginning. But, it is the state where many organizations find themselves stagnating and struggling for survival. In these organizations members do not; share a common purpose, have a sense of accomplishment, feel as though the leadership really cares, share a value system, or demonstrate the characteristics of excellence. The eleven dimensions shown in Figure 2 can be used to diagnose the culture of REACTIVE organizations. The air of “covering your rear” and “putting out fires” pervades the atmosphere in REACTIVE libraries. Leadership assumes the role of law enforcement, compliance with policies and procedures, and sheer survival are the motivators for most people. The lack of shared purpose has a telling effect on the structure of the library. The structure, despite its meat appearance on paper, is in reality a fragmented collection of separate elements, often working at cross purposes and competing over resources and territory.

Another lethal aspect of REACTIVE libraries is the almost total lack of caring about people. Subordinates have an unwillingness to tell their leader bad news. The leader rarely praises people for good work because “that’s what they get paid for.” People become insensitive in order to survive and “shut down” in these painful environments. Leaders also contribute to the perpetuation of this type environment by becoming blind to individuals and focused only on the short term perceived success of “kicking butt.”

The RESPONSIVE Library:
To move the organization out of a REACTIVE frame of reference into a RESPONSIVE one requires a carefully balanced approach that entails both patience and leadership. Change must occur in the frame of reference of the members and the organization concurrently. Positive leadership to clarify goals, values and the worth of the individual must be implemented in a way that builds mutual trust. This HPP model proposes that leaders must begin by re-focusing the organization on clearly defined goals, developing action plans for accomplishing tasks, solving problems, building teams and using the “situational leadership” model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (Management of Organizational Behavior , 1986).

A successful transformation from REACTIVE to RESPONSIVE type library will result in the changes depicted in the Model. Members are focused on producing results in the present through planned activities to achieve near term, clearly defined organizational goals. The leader is a coach and mentor that motivates group members by meaningful participation, rewarding high performance and incentives based on merit.

The PROACTIVE Library:
The PROACTIVE frame of reference requires looking to the future and seizing the initiative. It is a frame of reference from which leaders see the future as a choice to be made rather than as a situation to be endured. It is a view of the future as something to be chosen, not something waiting to happen. The critical factor in moving beyond the RESPONSIVE frame of reference is for the library to have a well established value system. The vision of the future must be one that is widely shared by library members, congruent with their value system, and an attractive and compelling force for them. For example; President John F. Kennedy proposed his vision of a man on the moon by the end of the 60s decade for America. Neil Armstrong did just that in July of 1969.

The vision of the future needs to communicate a choice that places high value on people – caring. People are simply not willing to put forth personal effort beyond being RESPONSIVE unless they feel the library they work for is their library that values them personally and professionally. The future vision must reflect a commitment to human values from which people derive a deep sense of personal meaning and satisfaction. High purpose, to be achieved, must be based on high order values. Thus, an enormous amount of energy that might otherwise be tied up developing, perpetuating and enforcing official rules is released to work on attaining the desired future state.

Achieving a PROACTIVE culture in your library requires “transformational” leadership that interacts with followers at the values level, as opposed to merely activating them at the material level. The transformational leader relates to the whole person of their followers by finding ways of developing their potentials and satisfying their higher needs. Genuine transformational leadership demands a resolute commitment to fundamental ethics and integrity, demonstrated “through congruent behavior. The role of leadership in PROACTIVE libraries is to keep the members purposed and well-tuned. The results of these leadership efforts are in the diagram.

The HIGH PERFORMING Library:
The more progressive perspective afforded by the PROACTIVE frame of reference is still insufficient to generate the level of performance observed in HIGH PERFORMING organizations. The phenomenon of library excellence is characterized by a high level of energy that unleashes human spirit and results in a marked improvement in productivity. The leaders of HIGH PERFORMING libraries have found ways of managing the flow of energy patterns and the human spirit these energy patterns release, as well as attend to those indicators with dedication that equals or often exceeds their dedication to the more visible performance results.

The HIGH PERFORMING library’s choices about strategy are made in the context of an underlying philosophy and “folk lore” that gives meaning to the library’s vision. The task of leadership becomes one of strategically navigating the library along a course established by the vision and the long range plans. Likewise, the performance management system required for a PROACTIVE library finds extra meaning in a HIGH PERFORMING library because it includes designing the plans for the library’s evolution.

Another key feature of the HIGH PERFORMING frame of reference is the emphasis on developing Metasystems as well as formal systems. Metasystems are groups, teams, or pockets of excellence within the larger organization to shape the cultural milieu throughout the library’s formal structure. Metasystems already exist in all libraries. Sometimes called the “good old boys” these informal structures provide pockets where leadership can begin to influence the desired value systems and spotlight the small successes. These can be used as think tanks for new ideas, for communicating (in both directions) with the organization informally, and for testing trends and moods of the organization. These informal leaders carry valuable influence which cannot be discounted or overlooked.

The kind of leadership required to achieve and sustain a HIGH PERFORMING library is nothing less than the excellent leadership described in literature. Excellent leaders also see their library as a contributing factor in the significant contributions to their community. In HIGH PERFORMING libraries the focus is on achieving high standards of excellence through identifying new potentials, seeking out new avenues of opportunity, and activating the human spirit. Leaders must have a frame of reference that extends beyond simply identifying results to be achieved. They must be able to see and feel the culture and spirit of the HIGH PERFORMING library through its members. Leaders operating in this state of flow are able to sustain for themselves (and communicate to their followers) an appreciation of the rich legacies, proud traditions and positive legends that are the valued roots of the HIGH PERFORMING library’s past.

The perspective of leaders operating in the HIGH PERFORMING frame of reference includes the importance of the synergistic effects of the library culture. As well as developing strongly cohesive teams and integrated sections, HIGH PERFORMING leaders look for ways of consciously strengthening their library by building a strong culture. They understand the uses of ceremony and ritual in creating and perpetuating the positive legends and proud traditions that give each member of the library a strong, proud heritage to maintain and reinforce. This attentiveness to the culture of the organization enables the leader to act in ways that support individual pursuit of excellence and fulfillment within the purposes and goals of the library.

Not only do leaders in HIGH PERFORMING libraries have the unique ability to think far into the future and keep their library aligned around a great vision, they have the parallel ability and courage to turn their people lose to pursue it. These leaders lead through their ability and willingness to empower their followers; to push power down into the hands of people so that they have the energy and freedom to seek adventure, creativity and innovation. Most importantly, they lead by virtue of caring deeply for their followers, which produces the mutual bond of strong emotional commitment and reciprocal loyalty that are the well-springs of excellence.

Summary: The High Performance Programming model provides a coherent framework for understanding the different levels of functional effectiveness that libraries can attain and the cultural frames of reference associated with each level. At the REACTIVE level, libraries are caught in frantic rounds of activity as their leaders think mainly of survival, enforcement of old rules and policies, and the protection of the old system. At the RESPONSIVE level, libraries handle their requirements competently as their leaders think mainly about building cohesive teams and solving problems as they arise. At the PROACTIVE level, libraries are oriented on achieving long term outcomes and their leaders think mainly about developing aligned and well-tuned people systems that are focused on a positive and purposeful future. At the HIGH PERFORMING level, libraries are flowing with excitement and spirit as their leaders think mainly about the further empowerment of their people so that together they can make even more significant contributions to the larger communities they ultimately serve.

A central concept in this model is that the three higher states of effectiveness are nested. That is, a PROACTIVE library must continue to be RESPONSIVE as well, and a HIGH PERFORMING library must also be PROACTIVE and RESPONSIVE. The frames of reference associated with each of these states are similarly nested. Leaders must not become so fixated on achieving a future state that they neglect to attend to the needs of the present, nor should they unleash their people completely without first making certain they are thoroughly aligned with the library mission and vision.

This High Performance Programming model brings into focus a coherent way to accomplish excellence within your library. As always, whether you make it happen depends on your willingness to put forth the necessary effort and dedication to exercise your leadership responsibilities excellently.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , ,

February 24, 2012

What’s Wrong With This Picture!

I recently reacquainted myself with Google books Ngram Viewer – a seriously fascinating tool for research. Essentially, it allows users to compare terminology used in literature and identify trends of change over time. In their default example it compares Atlantis with El Dorado to note how the frequency of use of the two terms changed over time.

I wanted to compare some librarianship terms to see the frequency of their use in American literature over time, beginning in 1900 through 2008 (the most current literature in the database). “Librarianship – local library – library technology – 21st century” were the terms I first compared and obtained the results shown in the first graph below. It shows that use of the term “librarianship” (blue) peaked in the early 1980s and has declined since. Use of the term “21st century” (yellow) has been on a steady and accelerating increase since the 1980s.

In the second search (results below) I replaced “21st century” with “21st century library” (again yellow). The comparison reveals that “21st century library” is virtually non-existent in the literature. Not surprising.

The other interesting result is that “library technology” (green) peaked slightly in the mid-1970s and then was flat until an even smaller bump in about 2003, after which it flattened out again.

What is particularly fascinating are the “librarianship” (blue) peak in the literature in the mid-1970s and then again in the early 1980s before it began a jerky but steady decline, except for the slight bump in what appears to be 2003, and the steady increase in the rise of use of “local library” (red) in literature, until its steady decline after 2000. During a time when the focus should have been more on the local library, why would the use of the term in literature decline?

I hope I’m not the only one who is asking “What’s wrong with this picture?” Why in a time when libraries were on the cusp of such significant change – the Internet – was there a decline in discussion in the literature? Maybe some of you who have been in the profession since then can explain the drastic peak in the early 1980s, and the equally drastic decline in the discussion after that time.

I became introduced to the profession in the mid-1990s when the Internet was being introduced, yet the literature shows at that time the lowest point in use of “librarianship” (blue) since the 1950s. Why? The introduction of the Internet was a HUGE deal in library school in the mid-1990s. Why doesn’t use of the terms “librarianship” or “library technology” reflect that situation?

And again, why has the use of all these library related terms declined since 2000? At a time when there should have been intense focus on the impending changes and impacts, why was there a dearth of literature about the profession?

In my opinion, library leaders shrink from the unfamiliar. SLIS faculty – where ideas and innovation should reign – don’t know enough about external influences to understand their impact on librarianship. Therefore, they stop discussing it. No, that’s not quite accurate, they stop writing about it. As I recall there were only a couple of individuals in the mid-1990s who were looked to as ‘futurists’ in the profession. Every profession needs futurists – all the time.

One of the things I noticed at my first ALA conference in Chicago in 1995 was a LOT of discussion, and the years after were more discussion about the same topics. The last ALA conference I attended in D.C. in 2007 was a repeat of the same discussions on most of the same topics.

Librarians talk a lot, but don’t accomplish much toward evolving the profession. Can anyone explain why that is? Lack of leadership maybe?

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

February 22, 2012

Being “The Library” Again

What would it take for “the library” to regain its former stature? To be recognized as the primary institution for free and equitable access to information? To be the place where people turn first to get answers to everyday questions, as well as find life altering experiences? Is that even possible, or desirable?

A couple of recent blog posts seem to suggest that it is – both – possible and desirable. Anthony Molaro’s post of February 10, “Libraries Gave Up Control” asks a lot of pointed questions about why the profession is in the shape it’s in today, and whether librarians can overcome the self-made situation to regain control of the profession. Agnostic, Maybe followed that post with his own views on February 16, Fight the Future where he sees the issue as two fold – “how much control over content, tools, and services do we have and is there a will to reclaim it?” Their perspective is focused more on the issues, but I suggest the solution is LEADERSHIP.

My thoughts lean toward the perception that there is not an abundance of talent in the profession today to turn the situation around, because what librarians know how to do any of the great and wonderful things both Andy and Anthony suggest may be solutions. What library school program is training new librarians to recognize 21st Century factors that are impacting librarianship, let alone apply solutions? Where does a librarian learn to create a new, more functional ILS? Where does one learn the fundamentals of “expanding rights over library content”? Where is the entrepreneurial spirit? Even if we “hope” there is a will to reclaim control, who is going to lead that movement? Where are the leaders?

Kansas City Public Library

I believe librarianship is faced with a new paradigm that places the emphasis on librarian leaders dealing with the local situation to position their library to survive, and yet that requires exceptional visionary leadership – not a common trait among the profession. As I stated in “The Revolutionary Library“, “Evidence has convinced me that the 21st Century Library Paradigm is that libraries will be defined by those librarians running them and their local community more than by the profession, or SLIS, or any librarian associations’ standards.”

The problem becomes one of vision. The characteristics I stated above; vision, entrepreneurial spirit, and leadership are all essential to making the local library “The Library” again – in whatever form it needs to be in 21st Century society.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

February 14, 2012

Digital Natives Want ‘More’ From Their Public Libraries

A colleague recently put me onto a study by the Idaho Commission for Libraries that collected feedback on “Perceptions of Idaho’s Digital Natives on Public Libraries“. It is a very comprehensive, eye-opening, and highly useful study from which I believe all public library leaders can benefit.

Since Digital Natives comprise the next big challenge in library customers, it is highly useful to know their opinions of their community library. This study provides that – and more. One puzzling finding is that focus group respondents reported that that believe that “Information on the Internet is not always trustworthy.” and they also believe that “Overall, information obtained through books and libraries is much more trustworthy than information found online.” Yet, they admit that “The Internet is typically the starting point when a search for information is begun.”

What would account for this contradiction? Well, “Convenience is most important when digital natives look for information.” and “Libraries are mostly for young children and older adults, but not for those that fall into the age range that encompasses digital natives.” because “Libraries are perceived to be an old-fashioned, cumbersome way to get information.”

So, what could libraries do to make themselves more attractive to Digital Natives? “Understanding how libraries should be used is important, and would help make the library less intimidating.” Also, “Libraries should elicit opinions and ideas from younger digital natives when creating programs and services targeted for this group.” Libraries could also create “Library activities that provide opportunities for social interaction [that] are very appealing to younger digital natives.” And to attract older digital natives, libraries could create the “Hands-on experience [that] is perceived to be the most valuable source in older digital natives’ learning experiences.” – such as a technology petting zoo.

Another important element is “The fact that older digital natives believe that libraries should act as a hub for community information is reflected in their choices for potential library services and resources.”

10) Web-based resources offered by public libraries should include reference tools.
The preferred resources chosen by the older digital natives were all related to accessing information online. This is despite the perception that public libraries would not be able to afford to offer resources equal to what a university provides online to its students. Still, it is an indicator of the importance that digital natives place on convenient access to reliable information.

This is a very valuable and comprehensive study presented for Idaho library community application, but which – IMHO – has nearly universal application to every library interested in providing services to their Digital Native customers.

How well do you know your Digital Native customers? What services/programs do you have aimed at fulfilling their needs?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , ,

February 9, 2012

Millennials & the NEW American Dream

Born between 1981 and 2000, also known as “The 9/11 Generation” and possibly “Echo Boomers”, this generation is now in the workforce, and the second half of the generation is entering college.

This generation is said to be a sharp departure from Generation X. I believe that, and what’s more frightening, they believe government owes them something – $$$$$

FOX & Friends News interviewed a Florida college professor on the results of a class project about – The American Dream. As noted, the results are jaw dropping!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHfYNTrnic

How will this generation of library customers affect the future of librarians, and libraries?

Please ignore the political overtones of this news piece, because politics is not my purpose or point in posting this. It’s about the impact in libraries from this generation of library customers.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

February 7, 2012

21st Century Library Strategy – Change!

Last week during the Edgy Librarian webinar there were some excellent topics discussed. Lybrarian Blog has a nice review of some of it, with more to follow. One session that I listened to that peaked my interest was the “Culture Shift: How to Create a Library That’s Prepared for the Future” by Cheryl Gould, a non-librarian (if I understood correctly) engaged in training and consulting with libraries.

I thought it was fortuitous that this topic was on the agenda since my recent Posts about leadership and managership, and how that all fits with libraries becoming something more – changing. Change is a whole topic in itself as it relates to organizations. In the webinar the audience poll reflected that the majority believe libraries need change, and apparently some think their library is ready for it. Although the presenter has adopted the “Culture Shift” label for organizational change, it’s still the same situation by any name.

A perfect example of organizational culture is the Salt Lake City Public Library. I’m sure some of you followed the beleaguered situation of the director hired in 2009 after the director of MANY years, and SLCPL employee for 30+ years, retired. It did not go well for the new director – some say because she did not understand the organizational culture, tried to change it, and lost – lost her job and potentially ruined her career.

Point being – organizational culture and attempts to change it are monumental big deals! But, as I’ve advocated, along with others obviously, libraries must change if they ever hope to become a 21st Century Library – something more!

Here are some good tips – for those who would tackle that objective – from strategy+business article from April 15, 2004.

10 Principles of Change Management
Tools and techniques to help companies transform quickly.
By John Jones, DeAnne Aguirre, and Matthew Calderone

Way back when (pick your date), senior executives in large companies had a simple goal for themselves and their organizations: stability. Shareholders wanted little more than predictable earnings growth. Because so many markets were either closed or undeveloped, leaders could deliver on those expectations through annual exercises that offered only modest modifications to the strategic plan. Prices stayed in check; people stayed in their jobs; life was good.

Market transparency, labor mobility, global capital flows, and instantaneous communications have blown that comfortable scenario to smithereens. In most industries — and in almost all companies, from giants on down — heightened global competition has concentrated management’s collective mind on something that, in the past, it happily avoided: change. Successful companies, as Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter told s+b in 1999, develop “a culture that just keeps moving all the time.”
…
Long-term structural transformation has four characteristics: scale (the change affects all or most of the organization), magnitude (it involves significant alterations of the status quo), duration (it lasts for months, if not years), and strategic importance. Yet companies will reap the rewards only when change occurs at the level of the individual employee.

Many senior executives know this and worry about it. When asked what keeps them up at night, CEOs involved in transformation often say they are concerned about how the work force will react, how they can get their team to work together, and how they will be able to lead their people. They also worry about retaining their company’s unique values and sense of identity and about creating a culture of commitment and performance. Leadership teams that fail to plan for the human side of change often find themselves wondering why their best-laid plans have gone awry.

No single methodology fits every company, but there is a set of practices, tools, and techniques that can be adapted to a variety of situations. What follows is a “Top 10” list of guiding principles for change management. Using these as a systematic, comprehensive framework, executives can understand what to expect, how to manage their own personal change, and how to engage the entire organization in the process.

1. Address the “human side” systematically. Any significant transformation creates “people issues.” New leaders will be asked to step up, jobs will be changed, new skills and capabilities must be developed, and employees will be uncertain and resistant. Dealing with these issues on a reactive, case-by-case basis puts speed, morale, and results at risk. A formal approach for managing change — beginning with the leadership team and then engaging key stakeholders and leaders — should be developed early, and adapted often as change moves through the organization. …

2. Start at the top. Because change is inherently unsettling for people at all levels of an organization, when it is on the horizon, all eyes will turn to the CEO and the leadership team for strength, support, and direction. The leaders themselves must embrace the new approaches first, both to challenge and to motivate the rest of the institution. They must speak with one voice and model the desired behaviors. …

3. Involve every layer. As transformation programs progress from defining strategy and setting targets to design and implementation, they affect different levels of the organization. Change efforts must include plans for identifying leaders throughout the company and pushing responsibility for design and implementation down, so that change “cascades” through the organization. At each layer of the organization, the leaders who are identified and trained must be aligned to the company’s vision, equipped to execute their specific mission, and motivated to make change happen. …

4. Make the formal case. Individuals are inherently rational and will question to what extent change is needed, whether the company is headed in the right direction, and whether they want to commit personally to making change happen. They will look to the leadership for answers. The articulation of a formal case for change and the creation of a written vision statement are invaluable opportunities to create or compel leadership-team alignment. …

5. Create ownership. Leaders of large change programs must overperform during the transformation and be the zealots who create a critical mass among the work force in favor of change. This requires more than mere buy-in or passive agreement that the direction of change is acceptable. It demands ownership by leaders willing to accept responsibility for making change happen in all of the areas they influence or control. Ownership is often best created by involving people in identifying problems and crafting solutions. It is reinforced by incentives and rewards. …

6. Communicate the message. Too often, change leaders make the mistake of believing that others understand the issues, feel the need to change, and see the new direction as clearly as they do. The best change programs reinforce core messages through regular, timely advice that is both inspirational and practicable. Communications flow in from the bottom and out from the top, and are targeted to provide employees the right information at the right time and to solicit their input and feedback. Often this will require overcommunication through multiple, redundant channels. …

7. Assess the cultural landscape. Successful change programs pick up speed and intensity as they cascade down, making it critically important that leaders understand and account for culture and behaviors at each level of the organization. Companies often make the mistake of assessing culture either too late or not at all. Thorough cultural diagnostics can assess organizational readiness to change, bring major problems to the surface, identify conflicts, and define factors that can recognize and influence sources of leadership and resistance. These diagnostics identify the core values, beliefs, behaviors, and perceptions that must be taken into account for successful change to occur. They serve as the common baseline for designing essential change elements, such as the new corporate vision, and building the infrastructure and programs needed to drive change.

8. Address culture explicitly. Once the culture is understood, it should be addressed as thoroughly as any other area in a change program. Leaders should be explicit about the culture and underlying behaviors that will best support the new way of doing business, and find opportunities to model and reward those behaviors. This requires developing a baseline, defining an explicit end-state or desired culture, and devising detailed plans to make the transition.

Company culture is an amalgam of shared history, explicit values and beliefs, and common attitudes and behaviors. Change programs can involve creating a culture (in new companies or those built through multiple acquisitions), combining cultures (in mergers or acquisitions of large companies), or reinforcing cultures (in, say, long-established consumer goods or manufacturing companies). Understanding that all companies have a cultural center — the locus of thought, activity, influence, or personal identification — is often an effective way to jump-start culture change. …

9. Prepare for the unexpected. No change program goes completely according to plan. People react in unexpected ways; areas of anticipated resistance fall away; and the external environment shifts. Effectively managing change requires continual reassessment of its impact and the organization’s willingness and ability to adopt the next wave of transformation. Fed by real data from the field and supported by information and solid decision-making processes, change leaders can then make the adjustments necessary to maintain momentum and drive results. …

10. Speak to the individual. Change is both an institutional journey and a very personal one. People spend many hours each week at work; many think of their colleagues as a second family. Individuals (or teams of individuals) need to know how their work will change, what is expected of them during and after the change program, how they will be measured, and what success or failure will mean for them and those around them. Team leaders should be as honest and explicit as possible. People will react to what they see and hear around them, and need to be involved in the change process. … It is all too tempting, however, to dwell on the plans and processes, which don’t talk back and don’t respond emotionally, rather than face up to the more difficult and more critical human issues.

Here’s a good suggestion about Change Management vs. Change Leadership – What’s the Difference? from Forbes, July 12, 2011, written by John Kotter, Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at Harvard Business School.

There is a difference that is very fundamental, and it’s very big, between what is known today as “change management” and what we have been calling for some time “change leadership.” The world basically uses change management, which is a set of processes and a set of tools and a set of mechanisms that are designed to make sure that when you do try to make some changes, A, it doesn’t get out of control, and B, the number of problems associated with it—you know, rebellion among the ranks, bleeding of cash that you can’t afford–doesn’t happen. So it is a way of making a big change and keeping it, in a sense, under control. Change leadership is much more associated with putting an engine on the whole change process, and making it go faster, smarter, more efficiently. It’s more associated, therefore, with large scale changes. Change management tends to be more associated—at least, when it works well—with smaller changes.

If you look around the world right now and just talk to people, it’s not just semantics. Everybody talks about managing change and change management, because that’s what they do. If you look at all of the tools, they’re trying to push things along, but it’s trying to minimize disruptions, i.e., keep things under control. It’s trying to make sure change is done efficiently in the sense of you don’t go over budget—another control piece. It’s done with little change management groups inside corporations, sometimes external consultants that are good at that, training in change management. It’s done with task forces that are basically given the whole goal of push this thing along, but keep it under control. It’s done with various kinds of relationships that are given names like “executive sponsors,” where the executive sponsor watches over this thing to make sure that it proceeds in an orderly way.

And change leadership is just fundamentally different—it’s an engine. It’s more about urgency. It’s more about masses of people who want to make something happen. It’s more about big visions. It’s more about empowering lots and lots of people. Change leadership has the potential to get things a little bit out of control. You don’t have the same degree of making sure that everything happens in a way you want at a time you want when you have the 1,000 horsepower engine. What you want to do, of course, is have a highly skilled driver and a heck of a car, which will make sure your risks are minimum. But it is fundamentally different.

The world, as we all know right now, talks about, thinks about, and does change management. The world, as we all know, doesn’t do much change leadership, since change leadership is associated with the bigger leaps that we have to make, associated with windows of opportunity that are coming at us faster, staying open less time, bigger hazards and bullets coming at us faster, so you really have to make a larger leap at a faster speed. Change leadership is going to be the big challenge in the future, and the fact that almost nobody is very good at it is—well, it’s obviously a big deal.

Sounds to me like 21st Century libraries are in a “change leadership” type environment where big changes are required to regain relevance. Are you prepared for the challenge?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

January 31, 2012

21st Century Library Strategic Management

In my Strategic Planning series of posts in the fall of 2010, I stated that the Strategic Plan was essential to the survival of a 21st Century Library. That series was fairly comprehensive in addressing the Strategic Planning model that I proposed, but it did lack follow up regarding the HOW. Once you make your 21st Century Library Strategic Plan, then what? Implementation is also very important, because as Morris Chang stated:

Related to my recent Leadership posts, management is equally as important in accomplishing the 21st Century library’s Goals and Objectives. Where leaders provide the vision and inspiration, managers provide the means and capability. Generally, organizations consist of leadership and management positions. Always leaders are directly responsible for the success of the organization, most often managers are not. Possibly a military analogy will best explain this concept.

In the military there are commanders and there are staff officers. Commanders are legally responsible for the unit they command and the individuals assigned to that unit. Commanders have authority to promote, and award medals and incentives, as well as impose non-judicial punishment on those who violate regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Commanders or responsible to accomplish the mission given to them by their superior commanders, whether that mission is in combat or peace time. Use the “charge and take that hill” image if it helps explain the responsibility of a commander.

Staff officers are the assistants to the commander. They are assigned primarily in the areas of personnel, intelligence, operations and logistics. These broad areas of support are charged with the responsibility to support the commander in accomplishing the unit’s mission. These support staff acquire the means and resources and make them available to the commander and his unit, as well as to his subordinate commanders and units to also accomplish their missions. In that way, when the commander is ordered to “charge and take the hill”, he has the means and capability to succeed.

In the same way, libraries are organized with leaders and staff positions. An analogy can be made between commanders and library directors, between subordinate commanders and branch managers, and between staff positions and reference, technical services, circulation, trainers, etc. Every library is different in terms of the number of staff and types of positions in its organization, but every library is the same in terms of those who establish the mission, goals and objectives, and those who support them by providing the means and capability to accomplish the mission.

This is where “strategic management” comes in.

Strategic management is a field that deals with the major intended and emergent initiatives taken by general managers [library managers] on behalf of owners [directors, boards and jurisdictions], involving utilization of resources, to enhance the performance of firms [libraries] in their external environments. It entails specifying the organization’s mission, vision and objectives, developing policies and plans, often in terms of projects and programs, which are designed to achieve these objectives, and then allocating resources to implement the policies and plans, projects and programs.
…
Strategic management is a level of managerial activity under setting goals and over Tactics. … In the field of business administration it is useful to talk about “strategic alignment” between the organization and its environment or “strategic consistency.” According to Arieu (2007), “there is strategic consistency when the actions of an organization are consistent with the expectations of management, and these in turn are with the market and the context.” [Wikipedia]

Where many libraries are out of step with reality today is in understanding the “strategic alignment” between the organization and its environment, therefore that have no “strategic consistency.” Many library jurisdictions, boards, directors, and staff still believe that it is business as usual. They have missed the fact that both the external and internal environment have changed – dramatically! Their missions, goals and objectives, and actions are NOT “consistent with the … market and the context.”

“There is nothing more wasteful than becoming highly efficient at doing the wrong thing.” is often attributed to Peter Drucker, But regardless, the concept is fundamental to the principals that drive a strategic plan, a strategic vision, and strategic management of a 21st Century Library.

The 21st Century Library is efficient at doing the right thing – providing the information needs of its 21st Century customers. It accomplishes this through strategic management of its goals and objectives, and providing the means and capability to succeed.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

January 26, 2012

Changes in Our Librarian Education for the 21st Century – Revisited

In my original Post Changes in Our Librarian Education for the 21st Century in May, 2010, I wrote the following.

Unfortunately, much of the MLS theory gets lost in the face of reality dealing with customers and daily issues. The standing joke of “What they don’t teach you in library school.” has grown legs for a reason. An MLS program is not intended to be a skills program. Advanced degree programs are inherently theory based and not training and practicum based. However, information with immediate application in addition to contemporary theory is highly useful. One example is the University of Michigan Library: The Future of Libraries (YouTube) with an excellent perspective on what libraries and librarians should become.

If SLIS are to stay relevant, like we all want libraries to do, they need to become more – more nimble at including current professional demands and requirements, not just “tried & true” library theory. Schools of library and information science MUST get more relevant and cutting-edge curriculum NOW to address these 21st Century librarianship issues. Tomorrow is too late.

It’s always nice to find out that what one wrote 19 months ago is still their opinion today, and still relevant. Schools of library and information science (SLIS) should seriously consider a bachelor’s degree program to provide “skilled” librarians for the workplace.

In a very recent New York Times, Education Life, article, What You (Really) Need to Know, former Harvard President Lawrence Summers posed some very interesting ideas about higher education. I believe many of these concepts could find application in our schools of library and information science (SLIS) – especially in a bachelor’s degree program.

Summers wrote about the rapidly changing world as compared to the stability of the university curriculum as “Part of universities’ function … to keep alive man’s greatest creations, passing them from generation to generation.” He also acknowledged that the structure of higher education has remained static.

With few exceptions, just as in the middle of the 20th century, students take four courses a term, each meeting for about three hours a week, usually with a teacher standing in front of the room. Students are evaluated on the basis of examination essays handwritten in blue books and relatively short research papers. Instructors are organized into departments, most of which bear the same names they did when the grandparents of today’s students were undergraduates. A vast majority of students still major in one or two disciplines centered on a particular department.

But the most interesting part of his article was his speculation that “Suppose the educational system is drastically altered to reflect the structure of society and what we now understand about how people learn. How will what universities teach be different?

Here are some guesses and hopes.”

1. Education will be more about how to process and use information and less about imparting it. This is a consequence of both the proliferation of knowledge — and how much of it any student can truly absorb — and changes in technology.

In SLIS master’s program curriculum the emphasis is on theory. This does not mesh well with the idea that librarians need to learn skills and to operate in a collaborative environment. They should be prepared to enter the professional workplace where mastery of facts is less important than being able to think creatively and innovate new technology and ideas.

2. An inevitable consequence of the knowledge explosion is that tasks will be carried out with far more collaboration. … More significant, collaboration is a much greater part of what workers do, what businesses do and what governments do. Yet the great preponderance of work a student does is done alone at every level in the educational system. … As greater value is placed on collaboration, surely it should be practiced more in our nation’s classrooms.

Views on ‘collaboration equates to cheating’ are changing in the face of the reality Summers points out. Strategic Partnerships is one of the new 21st Century librarianship skills that must be developed. Library science majors collaborating with business majors, marketing majors, and computer science majors is a good thing!

3. New technologies will profoundly alter the way knowledge is conveyed. Electronic readers allow textbooks to be constantly revised, and to incorporate audio and visual effects. … In a 2008 survey of first- and second-year medical students at Harvard, those who used accelerated video lectures reported being more focused and learning more material faster than when they attended lectures in person.

This is not news to any librarian, whether they are in the stacks or in the classroom. Learning this new technology is best accomplished by using this new technology, and where better to learn than in the classroom as an integral part of the curriculum.

4. As articulated by the Nobel Prize-winner Daniel Kahneman in “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” we understand the processes of human thought much better than we once did. … Not everyone learns most effectively in the same way. And yet in the face of all evidence, we rely almost entirely on passive learning. …

“Active learning classrooms” — which cluster students at tables, with furniture that can be rearranged and integrated technology — help professors interact with their students through the use of media and collaborative experiences.

If current SLIS have one strength, this is probably it. Even when I went through the MLS at ESU in 1995-6, it used this methodology, and it was very effective. It incorporates many other tenets of what librarians need to learn.

5. The world is much more open, and events abroad affect the lives of Americans more than ever before. This makes it essential that the educational experience breed cosmopolitanism — that students have international experiences,

At the risk of sounding like I’m bragging, the 2011 in Review of this 21st Century Library Blog showed many viewers from every continent. I gain much information from librarians in other countries. Collaboration is international today, not just local. Exposure to this reality should begin in SLIS.

6. Courses of study will place much more emphasis on the analysis of data. … As the “Moneyball” story aptly displays in the world of baseball, the marshalling [sic] of data to test presumptions and locate paths to success is transforming almost every aspect of human life. … [C]ertainly the financial crisis speaks to the consequences of the failure to appreciate “black swan events” and their significance. In an earlier era, when many people were involved in surveying land, it made sense to require that almost every student entering a top college know something of trigonometry. Today, a basic grounding in probability statistics and decision analysis makes far more sense.

For many years now people have been predicting change in the world, in the way it does business, they way it accesses information, but SLIS curricula have not kept pace with ANY CHANGES. University curriculum committees are notoriously slow to make changes, yet universities are supposed to be the incubators of ideas and innovation. Why aren’t we seeing any of that in SLIS curriculum?

Summers ended his article with the following.

A good rule of thumb for many things in life holds that things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then happen faster than you thought they could. Think, for example, of the widespread use of the e-book, or the coming home to roost of debt problems around the industrialized world. Here is a bet and a hope that the next quarter century will see more change in higher education than the last three combined.

It took many years for the e-reader to become a reality, but now Kindle is the fastest selling item in Amazon history. It also took many years before the tablet computer became a reality, but iPad launched an avalanche of mobile computing, as did the iPhone before it. Now mobile communication devices are everywhere doing virtually everything.

Technology is advancing exponentially, society is advancing exponentially, but education is barely advancing. WHY? Librarians can and are making changes in the way their libraries do business! We’re seeing excellent examples of that in practice in local libraries. SLIS are a collection of librarians, so why are we not changing librarian education? WHY DO SLIS WAIT UNTIL THERE IS A CRISIS TO MAKE CHANGES?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

January 23, 2012

Librarian or Radical Social Activist?

Last weekend began ALA’s Midwinter conference. Obviously, librarians (and others associated with the profession) got together to discuss the old and new topics of the profession – mostly old. But LIBRARYJOURNAL Online posted this on Saturday – ALA Midwinter 2012: Occupy Wall St. Librarians Wonder, When Did Sharing Become a Revolutionary Act? – about the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) librarian activists.

The article reports on a panel discussion that was sponsored by the ALA Masters Series and “included the first OWS librarian”. Another of the panelists and OWS librarians, a very recent MSIS graduate, was cited in the article that “he characterized the librarians as continuing the fight for their beliefs” even though the library had basically been destroyed when the protest was broken up by New York City authorities.

What concerns me are the apparent radical activist beliefs, motivations and perceptions of these librarians that inserted themselves into this “Occupy” movement, and affiliated a social protest movement with a “library” by using totally warped reasoning.

My first questions are: Who assessed the need for (we’ll be generous and refer to their book collection and reading area as) a “library” for the protestors? Who decided that their OWS library was a “People’s Library”? What is a People’s Library? Is that a new category like Public, Academic, School, Special, etc.?

Who decided this was a “library” in any sense of the term? If that was a “library”, let me show you my library that I carry in my brief case.

That same panelist was also quoted as saying that; “I joined [the People’s Library] because building a library, any library, in times like these is an act of resistance, and protest, and hope, and love,”. ?????? SERIOUSLY? Resistance and protest against whom? Your local library Board? Your local town council for cutting the library’s budget so it can still provide police and fire protection, and teachers salaries? Protesting against the Library of Congress? Society in general because libraries are not more valued? PROTESTING AGAINST WHOM? And, since when did the mission of a library become social protest?

In my opinion, these librarians are on the wrong track as far as what librarianship is all about, as well as the role of a library, and are simply acting out their frustrations toward society under the guise of librarianship.

Another panelist “spoke movingly on the topic of libraries’ importance. “Librarianship has a long history as a liberating force in society,” she said.” SERIOUSLY? Libraries have long been about liberating society? Read my Post from September 16, 2011, 21st Century Librarianship vs. The 1876 Special Report in which I quote the authors – librarians – who professed;

So that in fact it is only just now that we are coming to the social state where we are ready to produce a trained literary class. Thus far we have not done it, whatever may have been the case with a few individuals, and we have had no business to do it. Ax, plow, steam engine, not pen and palette, have been thus far our proper implements; and we have done a noble “spot of work” with them. Exactly now, at the end of our first national century, it is good to sum and value just this total of attainments. And exactly such a scientific instruction in books and reading as is here discussed is one of the influences which will do most to correct our views, to raise our ambition, to bring us up to the present limits of attainment in knowledge and in thought, and to prepare us for extending those limits. [page 235]

“… we are ready to produce a trained literary class” can only be interpreted as elitist librarians and their more elitist scholarly colleagues making the decision and plan as to how, what and who should be educated with books. We know that from the history of education in the US. Saying that “Librarianship has a long history as a liberating force in society,” is just not true.

Librarians had a very elitist self perception not that many years ago, and it seems as though that pendulum is swinging back in that direction.

As recently as 2007, George Needham is quoted as saying; “The librarian as information priest is as dead as Elvis.” The whole “gestalt” of the academic library has been set up like a church, Needham said, with various parts of a reading room acting like “the stations of the cross,” all leading up to the “altar of the reference desk,” where “you make supplication and if you are found worthy, you will be helped.” (When ‘Digital Natives’ Go to the Library, Inside Higher Ed., June 25, 2007.) If that is not a historical example of professional elitism, I’ve never heard one.

One of the panelists is quoted as saying; “How have we come to a place where the sharing of books, and the gathering and disseminating of knowledge has come to be such a revolutionary act – one that brought the full force of the militarized New York police department down upon it?” she asked. “I think the reason is that today we see an all-out assault on what libraries stand for and what they do.”

If we concede that building a library – “any library” – would be great and a necessary act, it would only be revolutionary if there wasn’t one already! Last time I heard the NYC Public Library, and its 70 something branches, is still up and running stronger than ever. How far away was the closest NYCPL branch – 2 or 3 blocks? Who knows whether the books that were retrieved from the NYPD after the protestors were cleared out were even usable before the OWS protestors were cleared out? Does anyone really believe the NYPD wants 3,000 paperback books?

Talk about self-centered! Does this person seriously expect anyone to believe that the New York police department was targeting the “library”? These librarians want to bizarrely take up a mantel of persecution upon themselves and their cause – whatever that may be but which is totally separate from the OWS cause – simply by affiliating their “library” with an illegal protest movement. An “all-out assault on what libraries stand for and what they do” – SERIOUSLY? I can’t help but wonder if this person even knows what libraries stand for and do.

I’m very concerned about this radical activist role that new librarianship seems to be taking upon itself. It is not the role of the librarian. It does a disservice to our profession to have radical activist librarians making hysterical vague and patently untrue claims about societal assaults on libraries.

Librarian or Radical Social Activist – which one did you get into the profession to be?

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

January 19, 2012

2011 Blog in Review

The WordPress.com stats folks prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 57,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 21 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

The Complete Report.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized