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.
Although the above is true, I’m interested in hearing how many of today’s librarians (as well as their employers) are committed to PDCE? Are many librarians hurting from the fact that reconfigurment and restructuring occur and they cannot apply for other positions in their library? What is their institution doing to see that they encourage and support talent? Do they really want to see each position a revolving door? Whether the aim is purely budgetary or practical, I sense that Professional Development and Continuing Education are essentials that are often either discouraged or short-shrifted. Moreover, finding quality (and affordable) courses / workshops on cutting edge trends and technology continues to be an ongoing impediment to maintaining employability in this field.
I read this and the first thought that came into mind, crude and unprofessional as it may be, was from a counted cross-stitch piece my mom made for me last year:
“Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.”
That’s a great point, Stephanie. Speaking with other academic librarians, I get the feeling that, generally, there is a strong support for PDCE but I don’t know that it is aligned with strategic planning. This is actually a great idea and something which I’d like to see more libraries do. It seems reasonable that if you see your library going in a particular direction (or you plan to make it go a certain way), as an administrator, you should work in ways to get your staff from here to there. As any human resources manager knows, it’s usually more cost effective to maintain staff than to hire new ones.
But the question that then comes to mind: how many of our staff could adapt? Or a better question: what can administrators do to help/inspire/force adaptation in radical (and fast) ways?
So when I first heard about all of this (several months ago), I took the same general approach as you. But then I had a lengthy conversation with a Harvard librarian, and some different concerns came to the fore about process.
Transparency, as you briefly note, is a major issue; similarly participatory values. While they’ve had some town-hall-esque meetings, it seems that the vast majority of the decision-making has happened behind closed doors, without any involvement of rank-and-file librarians. It also seems that they’ve created a brand-new administrative structure with additional high-level administrators, hired from outside, at the same time as they’re cutting those aforementioned not-consulted rank-and-file librarians. (Of course a new administrative structure is necessary and inevitable; the point is the money spent on additional administrators in the context of overall job cuts, and the failure to look inside the institution — the way that signals a lack of faith in the capabilities of people already in the system — a boggling lack of faith when you consider the caliber of people Harvard libraries employ.)
The librarian I spoke to was also concerned that the streamlining was being done in ways that didn’t make sense in the context of his library’s needs and workflows, given that no one had spoken to them about what it was they actually did.
Maybe there’s just no way for this to be anything other than awful; Harvard’s an insanely complex system with a lot of history, and that can’t be streamlined without pain. And of course everyone is always unhappy when their workflows change. But I think the lack of transparency and inclusiveness are serious concerns that raise important questions about whether the process is being handled effectively. Just because a change in this direction may be needed doesn’t mean *this* change is the right one.
Be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
[...] 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 [...]
Thanks for this: I agree that streamlining is necessary, and perhaps the level of job security and comfort librarians might have enjoyed in the past is something librarians of our generation shouldn’t get used to. I agree, also, with commenters who have questioned the level of professional development support that is provided in organizations that are restructuring, and I’ll just say, from my limited perspective, I’ve known A LOT of librarians who aren’t interested in professional development, no matter how much their organizations support it. The fact is that this profession employs a fair number of people who want to maintain the status quo, and we’re in a difficult position now where we have to get rid of those people.
I’m not a cold person, but I’m a realistic one. And I know that every situation is going to have its own unique nuances. But the Harvard Libraries have been an unwieldy organization (or set of, rather) in need of streamlining for a long time. I worked there briefly and that was something I realized everyday anew. It’s going to be hard, but in the end, I hope it will be better.