Back in January, I wrote about a major project I’m currently working on: a comprehensive review of library programs. Through a really extensive schedule of meetings, I’m mapping out the major work done across the library to achieve programmatic goals, the goals we’d like to achieve, the resources we would need to achieve those ideal goals, and what we can realistically accomplish with our current resources.
Last fall, I met with leaders in each area to discuss what their departments do and what they see as the outcomes they’re working toward. I mapped all of the different work that was discussed to a set of programs, and then sought feedback from other library leaders on what work was missing. Those initial meetings were about major goals, not capturing everything we do, so some work got left out of the discussions and filled in during that round of feedback.
The initial list of specific work activities was organized by department, so I reorganized it to group like activities together. Each meeting intentionally included people from all different areas. We have traditionally been really siloed, without great communication between departments, even when working on the same larger project, which breeds miscommunication and misunderstanding. So, for example, getting everyone who contributes to weeding – the stacks manager, liaisons who communicate with faculty about reviewing lists of books, and catalogers who process out the books, along with the dean – into one zoom room to discuss what our capacity is and where our bottle necks are and what resources we would need to be able to step up the pace was incredibly productive.
The discussion about weeding was the most recent meeting. In it, one of the catalogers raised a suggestion that I had never even considered before. They said they had mentioned it to their department head before, but he hadn’t shared it with the dean or in a “leadership team” meeting (all the department heads). We spent a good chunk of the meeting discussing how that idea could work if we could get support (money) from university administration to make it happen. It became the set of extra resources we can request and goal that we can’t accomplish with our current resources.
That really exemplifies one of the major goals of this project – to involve all library faculty and staff in brainstorming what could be. Everyone has expertise in their area, and can bring ideas that maybe are great as they are, or maybe they spark a discussion that leads to an even better suggestion.
Another major goal is to build a feeling of a shared mission across the library. Yes, we work in siloed departments, but nobody is more or less important than anyone else, we’re all working on different necessary parts of the same project. I feel like we’ve been missing that for most of the decade+ that I’ve been working here. When I started, there were divisions between instruction librarians and tech services – both sides saw the others as not doing as much important work as they were. There were major divisions between staff and librarians – because librarians were off doing less visible work instead of sitting at a desk, what are we even doing? They felt disrespected when we rushed through the building, running from our offices to meetings across campus to classes on the other side of campus. We felt disrespected when they accused us of not caring as much as they did about students because they rarely saw us in the library, and hardly ever saw us at a public service desk. It was really toxic, made worse by negligent administrators who failed to hold problematic department heads accountable.
This came to mind recently because of a discussion on social media about toxicity in libraries. Frontline staff made a comment about wanting to just “throw admins on the desk” for a while, so they understand what public services staff need, and I just… Whew. It feels like responding to toxicity with toxicity.
I understand that as a response when people with less power feel disrespected and disregarded by those in power. But that doesn’t actually accomplish the stated goals of making a workplace less toxic.
It’s too early to say for sure whether this project will fix the long-term toxicity in our library. And, honestly, it’s a tough time across campus, because our current upper university leadership just may be more toxic than anything I’ve experienced here before. Our enrollment has tanked, which means cuts to our budgets, chronic understaffing, and all kinds of other mess. Plus, the current university president managed to inspire faculty to a no-confidence vote within his first 8 months – and instead of working to improve those relationships, he just doubled down on the toxic behavior. I stand by my vote of no confidence in his leadership, and I have seen no improvement since then. So who knows how many of us will still be here in two years. Maybe we end our legacy of toxicity by just losing everyone with any institutional knowledge.
But work like this, bringing everyone into discussions about what we’re doing, what we could change, and what resources and support we need to do our best work, seems far more effective than shouting for admins to work desk shifts. Getting leaders to see the value in taking the time to prioritize a shared governance approach is the challenge, and I just don’t see making administrators work a desk shift as ever accomplishing that.
I don’t have an answer right now for how to get a toxic manager to value open communication and shared governance. I do know that you don’t have to plan a whole comprehensive review to start building shared governance into your decision making process. It takes time to build trust across the organization – I’m not taking the risk of making a suggestion until I can trust that leaders will consider my input, implement what is feasible, and not hold my feedback / suggestions against me in any way. But it’s worth taking that time because it brings so many great ideas to the table. There’s no need for an administrator to work a desk shift if they build solid communication and trust with those who regularly work at the desk.