Ink and Vellum

More information is beginning to trickle out of Harvard. Today’s Library Journal (h/t M.V.) reports that 275 voluntary buyouts have been offered to library staff. Additionally, an overview of the reorganization [pdf] was released last week. Andromeda Yelton wrote an insightful comment to yesterday’s post and I wanted to give it more attention. As both she and the LJ article point out, the lack of inclusiveness and transparency are major concerns in this controversy.

According to a 2009 report, a Harvard Libraries task force (of 29 members) held two open forums, multiple focus groups with students and faculty, and sent three campus-wide emails requesting input on the library system. Based on feedback from these solicitations and library data, the task force created a set of recommendations for the administration who then set about to plan the logistics of the reorg. In the spirit of inclusiveness: Was this enough?

I will admit that I’m not entirely settled in my opinion of the matter, though generally I feel that Harvard Libraries is doing the best it can considering the size and scope of the institution. It does, however, raise the question: What does it mean for an institution to be “inclusive” in its decision-making processes? Also, given Harvard’s size, are there limitations to how inclusive an organization can be?

We give a lot of lip service to transparency and the ability of technology to break down traditional organization barriers, but if this new era of flattened org structures and increased collaboration has taught us anything it is that we are far more varied in our opinions, skills, ethics, and practices than we ever thought before. Given this complexity, perhaps “the executive decision,” as a [traditional] tool of moving an organization forward and instigating change is even more necessary than before.

But then, maybe no one has tried hard enough to make these new communication structures work. Given its resources, Harvard is the one institution that could have made it happen. Anyone else want to give it a go?

I hadn’t given much attention to uproar over the Harvard Library reorganization until an article from the Boston Globe came through my feed this morning. The article, much like the letter it’s based on, discusses the strategic goals of the library administration. My first thought after reading the article was: Isn’t this what we wanted? Streamlining acquisitions processes, removing barriers between users and digital content, improving access to ILL materials,  creating a unified front for library services (esp. online but also through on campus marketing), reducing the costs of serials… these are more than just a sign of the times or a result of financial restrictions. These are the goals many of us have been working toward for years.

I understand that the controversy is more about the loss of jobs and alleged lack of transparency, but what else, as librarians and as professionals, would we expect? Streamlining always results in a loss of jobs (or to use an awful phrase employed by this author, “involuntary staff reductions”). When you have 73 libraries operating semi-autonomously, there is bound to be some overlap in functions. But I digress…

My two cents about the matter is this: in order to become better organizations in a quickly changing, digitally-centered environment that demands higher levels of access in a landscape of fierce competition from non-librarian-based forces, libraries need to be agile. And agility, metaphorically or physically, requires one to be slim and sleek.

Perhaps that makes me sound cold, but then, as a professional I take a practical approach to my work: I know that I could lose my job at any time. Not because of anything personal (except maybe bow ties). Not because I am not an effective worker (I am, check my stats). And not because I’m dispensable (come on, you know you can’t live without me). No, I know I could lose my job at anytime because I cannot predict the future shape of libraries. None of us can. And if we cannot know the layout of our future home, how can we know if all the stuff we currently have will fit in it?*

Steven Bell says it well:

Restructuring is happening all around us. At every government level, in national associations, at your institution, and even at the mighty Harvard. It is a sign of the times, and we need to adapt. The first step is to separate the symbolism from the reality. If we can understand that restructuring is not about destroying core institutional values, but about strengthening our institutions for future survival, then we can move forward. When we do, we will discover new and possibly better ways to honor the past, and the values we hold so dear.

It is a tricky business, as Bell says, but we need to think about what is best for the institutions that academic libraries claim to support: the students, the faculty, and the university. If we fail to serve their needs, then we need to change what we’re doing or get out of the way.

*I am moving into a new house this month, hence the metaphor.