- Email: [email protected]
Managing collection development in university libraries that utilize librarians with dual-responsibility assignments
Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory,Vol. the USA. All rightsreserved.
14, pp. 165-171, 1990
Printedin
0364~6408&I$3.00 + .oo Copyright0 1990PergamonPressplc
MANAGING COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT IN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES THAT UTILIZE LIBRARIANS WITH DUAL-RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENTS JASPER G. SCHAD Wichita State University Libraries Wichita, KS 67208-1595
Abstract-Heavy work loads, lack of administrative support, and innate difficulties in the work of collection building, lead many collection development librarians who have part-time or dual-responsibility assignments to feel that something is inherently wrong with this way of organizing and staffing collection development. While there are many dtfficu1tie.s associated with part-time assignments, they can be corrected by developing effective organizations for collection development, selecting librarians who are suited to this kind of work, and improving the management of collection development. This paper examines these problems and discusses specific actions that will reduce or eliminate them.
INTRODUCTION A recent flood of articles and programs about the organization of collection development and the pros and cons of part-time or dual-responsibility assignments reveals that collection development has not yet found its organizational niche [l]. What exists, instead, is a form of organizational Darwinism, in which various options are considered and tried out, then discarded, adapted, or evolved toward a more workable structure [2]. This discourse also reveals a feeling that something is wrong with part-time collection development assignments [3], leading one to expect libraries to abandon the use of part-time selectors. For varied reasons, however, exactly the opposite is occurring. Some libraries believe that reference assignments enable dual-responsibility selectors to understand better the needs of the collection because of their direct contact with patrons. Other libraries regard part-time collection development assignAn abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the RASD, Collection Development and Evaluation Section/RTSD Resources Section, Collection Management and Development Committee, program, American Library Association, Annual Conference, Dallas, June 25, 1989.
165
J. G. SCHAD
166
ments as an opportunity to expand their pool of subject specialists or reluctantly combine tasks in the face of staff cuts [4]. For whatever reason, more and more libraries now utilize at least some part-time selectors and very few have none at all. This being the case, the important question is how to address these underlying concerns and make collection development work better. A closer look at this issue reveals three basic concerns. Of these, the most frequently heard is that dual-responsibility selectors do not have enough time for both collection development and other assigned tasks [5]. No reasonable person will argue that point. Nor is this a problem unique to collection development. Most libraries have taken on new responsibilities without concomitant increases in staffing. Clearly, dual-responsibility selectors have trouble balancing their multiple assignments and cannot do everything to their satisfaction. Less is heard about the second aspect of this problem-lack of administration support but it is probably an even more serious source of morale problems. Cubberly discovered that over 40% of the selectors she surveyed in medium-sized academic libraries did not believe that the organizational structure of their libraries supported and rewarded collection development activities [6]. Library administrators who neither understand collection development’s complexity nor recognize its special needs often send mixed messages about its importance. A third source of discontent is rooted in how selectors feel about the work itself and the rewards that come from it. Collection building is a complex craft that is difficult to master and takes a long time to learn. Its many tasks often seem ambiguous, unstructured, and never-ending. There is not the same sense of completion or immediate positive reinforcement that comes with answering a reference question or cataloging a book. When dual-responsibility selectors are overburdened, they become frustrated. When they think that their libraries do not support collection development, nor regard it very highly, they see it as an imposition and something that is not particularly important. When they worry about whether they are doing a good job and derive few rewards from selection work, they develop an illusion of incompetence. Combine these three elements, and the result is low morale and productivity, accompanied by high turnover. High turnover is particularly damaging because good collection development depends on knowing and responding to the information needs of library users. The knowledge and the skills selectors must develop in order to function well are cumulative. They take a long time to acquire and are lost through turnover. Overcoming these barriers and changing this environment is not easy, but it can be done. Research and experience suggest three ways to improve the effectiveness of part-time selectors: 1. Create a more effective organization. 2. Select and develop librarians suited to such assignments. 3. Improve the management of collection development.
BUILDING
BETTER ORGANIZATIONS
The way collection development itself is organized is more important than one might realize. Two factors-the nature of the function and the size of the unit-influence what kind of organization works best. Collection development, especially when it employs dual-responsibility selectors, does not fit well into the normal hierarchical structure of libraries. Traditional departments-acquisitions, cataloging, reference and circulation- divide work into discrete segments. Conversely, collection development integrates work and staff, cuts across depart-
Managing Collection Development in University Libraries
16’7
mental lines, and combines tasks that are often administratively separate, for example, reference and selection. Collection development librarians are concerned with acquisitions and cataloging and services that enhance access to collections. These differences imply the need for another kind of organizational structure. The terms ‘“matrix organization” and “matrix management” describe such an organization. The hallmark of a matrix organization is its hybrid nature; the traditional hierarchy is overlaid by some lateral authority [7]. Charts for matrix organizations resemble a grid with intersecting authority lines (see Figure I). Unfo~unately, matrix organizations have some very real disadvantages. They are awkward, chaotic, and difficult to manage. Because boundaries overlap, they violate the principle of unity of command, enhance competition for personnel shared with other units, foster power struggles, increase stress, and oblige collection development librarians to accommodate sometimes incompatible demands as they work within two very different types of organization. All too often, these problems lead to weak and ineffective units, especially when a library first launches a collection development program. Heads of traditional departments may resist change that might weaken their power and try to limit the authority of the collection development officer or have none at all, preferring a committ~ instead [8], A weak organization lowers the image and prestige of collection development and exaggerates the problems inherent in matrix organizations. Fortunately, there are offsetting advantages. The most important of these is the ability of a matrix organization to utilize more fully librarians’ subject expertise, Hierarchical organizations are less effective in this respect; they must either pay the cost of subject redundancy or waste subject competencies. Additionally, matrix elements have always existed in most umversity libraries, but they operate inefficiently because they are not usually acknowledged formally. Once these relationships become integrated into the structure of the organization, things work better. Finally, while there are many forms of matrix organization, some work better than others, and there is nothing inherently unworkable about them. On balance, the advan-
I
Director
I
Figure 1. Matrix structure for collection development,
168
J. G. SCHAD
tages outweigh the limitations, making it worthw~le to create a strong and effective matrix orga~zation. A second, and very different, organizational implication of the part-time model is related to the size of a library. Medium-sized libraries normally have between 5 and 15 selectors, whose assigmnents are about the same and who are usually based in the reference department. Larger libraries have broader and more complex collecting responsibilities that require greater subject expertise and more selectors, sometimes as many as 40. They frequently include people from technical services, branch libraries, and other departments; their assignments often vary (e.g., some people may commit a third of their time to collection development while others spend no more than 5% or 10% on this function); and they may have narrow specializations. As the number increases beyond about 25, problems begin to occur. It becomes harder to communicate, more difficult for selectors to understand the broader aspects of the collection development function, and less likely that they will feel a part of the collection development team, thereby reducing their commitment to it. For a while, a good collection development officer may be able to keep a big group from becoming unworkable, but other options must eventually be explored. One option is a selfcontained collection development department with full-time staff, but it is difficult for a smaller number of collection development librarians to respond adequately to the complex and often highly specialized information needs of a large library and impossible to utilize the subject expertise of librarians in other departments who could contribute significantly to collection building. Because each segment of the collection needs the attention of someone who understands its particular requirements, it may be better to divide collection development into subunits based on subject or geographical areas and assign a senior, full-time collection development librarian to lead each of those teams 191.This approach allows a library to utilize more selectors by limiting teams to a manageable size.
CHOOSING
THE RIGHT PEOPLE
The second element of a successful collection development program using dual-responsibility selectors is the selectors themselves. The distinctive nature of collection development and matrix management mandates certain personal qualities. Selectors must be highly motivated selfstarters who possess first-rate time management skills and the ability to balance many diverse functions, set their own priorities, tolerate considerable stress and ambiguity, and recognize that doing an outstanding job in a situation involving multiple responsibilities is not necessarily doing each individu~ part perfectly. Not everyone can function well in this kind of environment. People who are easily distracted, are reactive or pursue their own interests have difficulty with these assignments. In many ways, part-time collection development librarians resemble technical professionals - engineers, for example-in corporations. Research on that group of people shows that the successful ones are much more effective in their relationships with other people and in working within organizations. They have better listening skills and greater awareness of how others think and feel about issues. They develop support and commitment from others more easily, gather more information before presenting their ideas, are sensitive to matters of timing a request and are better able to manipulate an organization to their advantage [lo]. Although these skills would ensure anyone’s success in an organization, they are especially critical for dual-responsibility selectors.
managing Collection ~ve~o~rnent
MANAGING
in University Libraries
169
MORE EFFECTIVELY
Having considered what kind of organization and staff are needed, the third component of a successful collection development program is management. Performing this function well is as daunting a challenge as any library administrator is likely to encounter. The particular nature of collection development mandates a management style that differs from the way departments have been historically administered. The collection development officer should be a strong leader who empowers others, motivates them, raises their commitment and confidence levels [l 11, and is less concerned about managing individuals than witb building a team that has a Common philosophy and works smoothly together. Successful collection development officers will focus on four tbings: 1e Team building. Above all else, collection development is a team effort, It will not work very well if the members are not united in pursuit of common goals. Ouchi and Price’s term, “clan,” is a useful way to conceptualize such a group, In a clan, members are more highly motivated and effective because they share a common set of objectives [12]. 2. Vision and values. Because a successful team or clan must have a strong organizational philosophy, team building and vision and values are closely linked so closely that they can be distinguished only theoretically. The need to impart meaning to what one does is always important, but is even more critical in the case of collection development. Its relationships with other library departments requires that the collection development officer articulate a vision and a set of values both to selectors and the whole library. Unless people understand why collection development is important, they are likely to see it as irrelevant and an intrusion. 3. Training. Without continuous formal and informal training, members of the collection development team will not possess the skills they need to do their jobs properly. Many librarians come to their dual assignments with little or no prior training or experience, and a subject background is not enough to prepare one for collection building. 4. Controlling work load. Selectors too often feel at a loss to control what they do, which is understandable given the constant pressure of external intrusion, such as price increases, budget crises, new programs, shifting institutional emphases, and specific user demands. To feel successful, selectors must have a realistic agenda that allows them to establish priorities and regulate their work flow. These four things enable selectors to know what to do, how to do it, realize why it is important, help reduce frustration, and enhance feelings of competence. Each of the four is equally crucial. Adopting only one or two of them will not ensure the success of collection development and may, in fact, cause as many problems as it resolves. For example, emphasizing training, while ignoring vision and values, can equip selectors with the skills they need, but if they do not understand the importance of collection development, they are likely to continue to question its value. Because collection development is so intimately connected to other library functions, the management of it extends beyond itself to the whole library. Collection development officers must cultivate those who have an impact on that function in order to build a library-wide base of support. Directors and associate directors should make it clear that they consider collection development irn~~~t and set goals and expectations that rn~nt~n balance among the often conflicting demands of collection development and the various departments and foster open communication.
170
J. G. SCHAD
Department heads also have a critical role to play. To understand their impo~ance, consider the following: a selector spends time choosing out~f-pint foreign titles, but acq~itions has trouble ordering them and decides not to bother with those requests, or, after repeatedly claiming issues of a journal, cancels the subscription. Actions of this sort generate feelings of frustration and a sense of futility. In a matrix environment, department heads need to relinquish some of their traditional authority and adopt a more team-oriented or collaborative management style. If they have dual-responsibility selectors in their departments, they must ensure that those selectors have enough time for their collection development responsibilities. If the department heads will not support collection development, the library must choose from among options-for example, replace those who do not support it, adopt a traditional departmental model with full-time collection development librarians, or live with serious morale problems-each of which can have damaging consequences for collection development and the library as a whole.
A PLAN FOR ACTION Having examined the significance of these three critical elements-selecting good people, developing the right kind of organization, and managing it properly-the final step is to integrate them into a program to make dual-responsibility selectors successful. There are six components: 1. Appoint a collection development officer who can articulate a vision of collection development that others will support and who has the insight to pick the right people for collection development assignments. 2. Give the collection development officer the authority, staff, and resources to get the job done. 3. Define relationships, expectations, and responsibilities (including how much time is assigned to collection development) formally in order to reduce ambiguity. An essential part of these relationships is dual reporting for part-time selectors, which need not be a source of frustration so long as both managers afford them enough flexibility to strike a reasonable balance between their responsibilities and get the work done [13]. 4. Write policies and procedures that describe what is to be done and why, so that collection development librarians know what is expected of them and how to meet those expectations. 5. Make a strong commitment to training that enables members of the collection development team to perform successfully. 6. Build support for collection development throughout the library and persuade department heads to accept some blurring of hierarchical distinctions to accommodate collection development. Doing these six things well may not be easy, but it is possible through hard work, communication, teamwork, training, and a management style that facilitates getting the work done rather than being preoccupied with how it is done. These are reasonable objectives. There is no need to live with frustration, burnout, high turnover, and collections that do not reflect the true needs of users. In the right kind of environment, dual-responsibility selectors develop a strong commitment to collection development after they master it. Indeed, it often becomes the most interesting and stimulating part of their ~sig~ents.
Managing Collection Development in University Libraries
171
Acknowledgement -The author wishes to thank Bonita Bryant, Assistant Director for Collection Development, State University of New York at Albany, and Joan Hubbard, Coordinator of Collection Development, Wichita State University for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
NOTES 1. For a discussion of the pros and cons of different organizational options, see Cogswell, James A. “The Organization of Collection Management Functions in Academic Research Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 13 (November 1987), 271-273. 2. Bobick, James E. “Collection Development Organization and Staffing,” SPEC Flyer (#131). Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1987. 3. Sohn, Jeanne. “Collection Development Organizational Patterns in ARL Libraries,” Library Resources & Technical Services, 31 (April/June 1987), 130-131; Null, David G. “Robbing Peter . . . Balancing Collection Development and Reference Responsibilities,” College & Research Libraries, 49 (September 1988), 449. 4. See also Bryant, Bonita. “The Organizational Structure of Collection Development,” Library Resources & Technical Services, 31 (April/June 1987), 120. 5. See note 4 above, p. 119; Cubberly, Carol W. “Organization for Collection Development in Medium-Sized Academic Libraries,” Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 11 (1987), 314, 315. 6. See note 5 above, p. 314. 7. Larson, Erik W. and David H. Gobeli. “Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights,” California Management Review, 29 (Summer 1987), 126. 8. See note 7 above, p. 138; Euster, Joanne R. and Peter D. Haikahs, “A Matrix Model of Organization for a University Library Public Services Division.” In Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, edited by Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges, 360-363. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 1984. 9. See note 2, above, p. 1; Creth, Sheila. 1988. “How Can Collection Development and Management Be Most Effectively Organized and Staffed.” Paper presented at the Association of Research Libraries and Standing Conference on National and University Libraries (joint meeting), University of York, 19-21 September. 10. Rosenbaum, Bernard L. “Critical Skills for Successful Technical Professionals,” Personnel, 63 (October 1986), X-60; Barker, Jeffrey, Dean Tjosvold and I. Robert Andrews. “Conflict Approaches of Effective and Ineffective Project Managers: A Field Study in a Matrix Organization,” Journal of Management Studies, 25 (March 1988), 167-178. 11. SeeCarver, Deborah A. “Transformational Leadership: A Bibliographic Essay,” Library Administration & Management, 3 (Winter 1989), 30-34. 12. Ouchi, William G. and Raymond L. Price. “Hierarchies, Clans, and Theory Z: A New Persepctive on Organization Development,” Organizational Dynamics, 7 (Autumn 1978), 36-37. 13. These adminsitrator relationships are discussed in Mashburn, James and Bobby C. Vaught. “An Appraisal of Dual Leadership.” In Matrix Management Systems Handbook, edited by David I. Cleland. New York: Van Nostrand, 1984, pp. 255-267; Moravec, Milan. “Ensuring High Performance in a Matrix Organization. In Matrix Management Systems Handbook, edited by David I. Cleland. New York: Van Nostrand, c. 1984, pp. 31-42.
14, pp. 165-171, 1990
Printedin
0364~6408&I$3.00 + .oo Copyright0 1990PergamonPressplc
MANAGING COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT IN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES THAT UTILIZE LIBRARIANS WITH DUAL-RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENTS JASPER G. SCHAD Wichita State University Libraries Wichita, KS 67208-1595
Abstract-Heavy work loads, lack of administrative support, and innate difficulties in the work of collection building, lead many collection development librarians who have part-time or dual-responsibility assignments to feel that something is inherently wrong with this way of organizing and staffing collection development. While there are many dtfficu1tie.s associated with part-time assignments, they can be corrected by developing effective organizations for collection development, selecting librarians who are suited to this kind of work, and improving the management of collection development. This paper examines these problems and discusses specific actions that will reduce or eliminate them.
INTRODUCTION A recent flood of articles and programs about the organization of collection development and the pros and cons of part-time or dual-responsibility assignments reveals that collection development has not yet found its organizational niche [l]. What exists, instead, is a form of organizational Darwinism, in which various options are considered and tried out, then discarded, adapted, or evolved toward a more workable structure [2]. This discourse also reveals a feeling that something is wrong with part-time collection development assignments [3], leading one to expect libraries to abandon the use of part-time selectors. For varied reasons, however, exactly the opposite is occurring. Some libraries believe that reference assignments enable dual-responsibility selectors to understand better the needs of the collection because of their direct contact with patrons. Other libraries regard part-time collection development assignAn abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the RASD, Collection Development and Evaluation Section/RTSD Resources Section, Collection Management and Development Committee, program, American Library Association, Annual Conference, Dallas, June 25, 1989.
165
J. G. SCHAD
166
ments as an opportunity to expand their pool of subject specialists or reluctantly combine tasks in the face of staff cuts [4]. For whatever reason, more and more libraries now utilize at least some part-time selectors and very few have none at all. This being the case, the important question is how to address these underlying concerns and make collection development work better. A closer look at this issue reveals three basic concerns. Of these, the most frequently heard is that dual-responsibility selectors do not have enough time for both collection development and other assigned tasks [5]. No reasonable person will argue that point. Nor is this a problem unique to collection development. Most libraries have taken on new responsibilities without concomitant increases in staffing. Clearly, dual-responsibility selectors have trouble balancing their multiple assignments and cannot do everything to their satisfaction. Less is heard about the second aspect of this problem-lack of administration support but it is probably an even more serious source of morale problems. Cubberly discovered that over 40% of the selectors she surveyed in medium-sized academic libraries did not believe that the organizational structure of their libraries supported and rewarded collection development activities [6]. Library administrators who neither understand collection development’s complexity nor recognize its special needs often send mixed messages about its importance. A third source of discontent is rooted in how selectors feel about the work itself and the rewards that come from it. Collection building is a complex craft that is difficult to master and takes a long time to learn. Its many tasks often seem ambiguous, unstructured, and never-ending. There is not the same sense of completion or immediate positive reinforcement that comes with answering a reference question or cataloging a book. When dual-responsibility selectors are overburdened, they become frustrated. When they think that their libraries do not support collection development, nor regard it very highly, they see it as an imposition and something that is not particularly important. When they worry about whether they are doing a good job and derive few rewards from selection work, they develop an illusion of incompetence. Combine these three elements, and the result is low morale and productivity, accompanied by high turnover. High turnover is particularly damaging because good collection development depends on knowing and responding to the information needs of library users. The knowledge and the skills selectors must develop in order to function well are cumulative. They take a long time to acquire and are lost through turnover. Overcoming these barriers and changing this environment is not easy, but it can be done. Research and experience suggest three ways to improve the effectiveness of part-time selectors: 1. Create a more effective organization. 2. Select and develop librarians suited to such assignments. 3. Improve the management of collection development.
BUILDING
BETTER ORGANIZATIONS
The way collection development itself is organized is more important than one might realize. Two factors-the nature of the function and the size of the unit-influence what kind of organization works best. Collection development, especially when it employs dual-responsibility selectors, does not fit well into the normal hierarchical structure of libraries. Traditional departments-acquisitions, cataloging, reference and circulation- divide work into discrete segments. Conversely, collection development integrates work and staff, cuts across depart-
Managing Collection Development in University Libraries
16’7
mental lines, and combines tasks that are often administratively separate, for example, reference and selection. Collection development librarians are concerned with acquisitions and cataloging and services that enhance access to collections. These differences imply the need for another kind of organizational structure. The terms ‘“matrix organization” and “matrix management” describe such an organization. The hallmark of a matrix organization is its hybrid nature; the traditional hierarchy is overlaid by some lateral authority [7]. Charts for matrix organizations resemble a grid with intersecting authority lines (see Figure I). Unfo~unately, matrix organizations have some very real disadvantages. They are awkward, chaotic, and difficult to manage. Because boundaries overlap, they violate the principle of unity of command, enhance competition for personnel shared with other units, foster power struggles, increase stress, and oblige collection development librarians to accommodate sometimes incompatible demands as they work within two very different types of organization. All too often, these problems lead to weak and ineffective units, especially when a library first launches a collection development program. Heads of traditional departments may resist change that might weaken their power and try to limit the authority of the collection development officer or have none at all, preferring a committ~ instead [8], A weak organization lowers the image and prestige of collection development and exaggerates the problems inherent in matrix organizations. Fortunately, there are offsetting advantages. The most important of these is the ability of a matrix organization to utilize more fully librarians’ subject expertise, Hierarchical organizations are less effective in this respect; they must either pay the cost of subject redundancy or waste subject competencies. Additionally, matrix elements have always existed in most umversity libraries, but they operate inefficiently because they are not usually acknowledged formally. Once these relationships become integrated into the structure of the organization, things work better. Finally, while there are many forms of matrix organization, some work better than others, and there is nothing inherently unworkable about them. On balance, the advan-
I
Director
I
Figure 1. Matrix structure for collection development,
168
J. G. SCHAD
tages outweigh the limitations, making it worthw~le to create a strong and effective matrix orga~zation. A second, and very different, organizational implication of the part-time model is related to the size of a library. Medium-sized libraries normally have between 5 and 15 selectors, whose assigmnents are about the same and who are usually based in the reference department. Larger libraries have broader and more complex collecting responsibilities that require greater subject expertise and more selectors, sometimes as many as 40. They frequently include people from technical services, branch libraries, and other departments; their assignments often vary (e.g., some people may commit a third of their time to collection development while others spend no more than 5% or 10% on this function); and they may have narrow specializations. As the number increases beyond about 25, problems begin to occur. It becomes harder to communicate, more difficult for selectors to understand the broader aspects of the collection development function, and less likely that they will feel a part of the collection development team, thereby reducing their commitment to it. For a while, a good collection development officer may be able to keep a big group from becoming unworkable, but other options must eventually be explored. One option is a selfcontained collection development department with full-time staff, but it is difficult for a smaller number of collection development librarians to respond adequately to the complex and often highly specialized information needs of a large library and impossible to utilize the subject expertise of librarians in other departments who could contribute significantly to collection building. Because each segment of the collection needs the attention of someone who understands its particular requirements, it may be better to divide collection development into subunits based on subject or geographical areas and assign a senior, full-time collection development librarian to lead each of those teams 191.This approach allows a library to utilize more selectors by limiting teams to a manageable size.
CHOOSING
THE RIGHT PEOPLE
The second element of a successful collection development program using dual-responsibility selectors is the selectors themselves. The distinctive nature of collection development and matrix management mandates certain personal qualities. Selectors must be highly motivated selfstarters who possess first-rate time management skills and the ability to balance many diverse functions, set their own priorities, tolerate considerable stress and ambiguity, and recognize that doing an outstanding job in a situation involving multiple responsibilities is not necessarily doing each individu~ part perfectly. Not everyone can function well in this kind of environment. People who are easily distracted, are reactive or pursue their own interests have difficulty with these assignments. In many ways, part-time collection development librarians resemble technical professionals - engineers, for example-in corporations. Research on that group of people shows that the successful ones are much more effective in their relationships with other people and in working within organizations. They have better listening skills and greater awareness of how others think and feel about issues. They develop support and commitment from others more easily, gather more information before presenting their ideas, are sensitive to matters of timing a request and are better able to manipulate an organization to their advantage [lo]. Although these skills would ensure anyone’s success in an organization, they are especially critical for dual-responsibility selectors.
managing Collection ~ve~o~rnent
MANAGING
in University Libraries
169
MORE EFFECTIVELY
Having considered what kind of organization and staff are needed, the third component of a successful collection development program is management. Performing this function well is as daunting a challenge as any library administrator is likely to encounter. The particular nature of collection development mandates a management style that differs from the way departments have been historically administered. The collection development officer should be a strong leader who empowers others, motivates them, raises their commitment and confidence levels [l 11, and is less concerned about managing individuals than witb building a team that has a Common philosophy and works smoothly together. Successful collection development officers will focus on four tbings: 1e Team building. Above all else, collection development is a team effort, It will not work very well if the members are not united in pursuit of common goals. Ouchi and Price’s term, “clan,” is a useful way to conceptualize such a group, In a clan, members are more highly motivated and effective because they share a common set of objectives [12]. 2. Vision and values. Because a successful team or clan must have a strong organizational philosophy, team building and vision and values are closely linked so closely that they can be distinguished only theoretically. The need to impart meaning to what one does is always important, but is even more critical in the case of collection development. Its relationships with other library departments requires that the collection development officer articulate a vision and a set of values both to selectors and the whole library. Unless people understand why collection development is important, they are likely to see it as irrelevant and an intrusion. 3. Training. Without continuous formal and informal training, members of the collection development team will not possess the skills they need to do their jobs properly. Many librarians come to their dual assignments with little or no prior training or experience, and a subject background is not enough to prepare one for collection building. 4. Controlling work load. Selectors too often feel at a loss to control what they do, which is understandable given the constant pressure of external intrusion, such as price increases, budget crises, new programs, shifting institutional emphases, and specific user demands. To feel successful, selectors must have a realistic agenda that allows them to establish priorities and regulate their work flow. These four things enable selectors to know what to do, how to do it, realize why it is important, help reduce frustration, and enhance feelings of competence. Each of the four is equally crucial. Adopting only one or two of them will not ensure the success of collection development and may, in fact, cause as many problems as it resolves. For example, emphasizing training, while ignoring vision and values, can equip selectors with the skills they need, but if they do not understand the importance of collection development, they are likely to continue to question its value. Because collection development is so intimately connected to other library functions, the management of it extends beyond itself to the whole library. Collection development officers must cultivate those who have an impact on that function in order to build a library-wide base of support. Directors and associate directors should make it clear that they consider collection development irn~~~t and set goals and expectations that rn~nt~n balance among the often conflicting demands of collection development and the various departments and foster open communication.
170
J. G. SCHAD
Department heads also have a critical role to play. To understand their impo~ance, consider the following: a selector spends time choosing out~f-pint foreign titles, but acq~itions has trouble ordering them and decides not to bother with those requests, or, after repeatedly claiming issues of a journal, cancels the subscription. Actions of this sort generate feelings of frustration and a sense of futility. In a matrix environment, department heads need to relinquish some of their traditional authority and adopt a more team-oriented or collaborative management style. If they have dual-responsibility selectors in their departments, they must ensure that those selectors have enough time for their collection development responsibilities. If the department heads will not support collection development, the library must choose from among options-for example, replace those who do not support it, adopt a traditional departmental model with full-time collection development librarians, or live with serious morale problems-each of which can have damaging consequences for collection development and the library as a whole.
A PLAN FOR ACTION Having examined the significance of these three critical elements-selecting good people, developing the right kind of organization, and managing it properly-the final step is to integrate them into a program to make dual-responsibility selectors successful. There are six components: 1. Appoint a collection development officer who can articulate a vision of collection development that others will support and who has the insight to pick the right people for collection development assignments. 2. Give the collection development officer the authority, staff, and resources to get the job done. 3. Define relationships, expectations, and responsibilities (including how much time is assigned to collection development) formally in order to reduce ambiguity. An essential part of these relationships is dual reporting for part-time selectors, which need not be a source of frustration so long as both managers afford them enough flexibility to strike a reasonable balance between their responsibilities and get the work done [13]. 4. Write policies and procedures that describe what is to be done and why, so that collection development librarians know what is expected of them and how to meet those expectations. 5. Make a strong commitment to training that enables members of the collection development team to perform successfully. 6. Build support for collection development throughout the library and persuade department heads to accept some blurring of hierarchical distinctions to accommodate collection development. Doing these six things well may not be easy, but it is possible through hard work, communication, teamwork, training, and a management style that facilitates getting the work done rather than being preoccupied with how it is done. These are reasonable objectives. There is no need to live with frustration, burnout, high turnover, and collections that do not reflect the true needs of users. In the right kind of environment, dual-responsibility selectors develop a strong commitment to collection development after they master it. Indeed, it often becomes the most interesting and stimulating part of their ~sig~ents.
Managing Collection Development in University Libraries
171
Acknowledgement -The author wishes to thank Bonita Bryant, Assistant Director for Collection Development, State University of New York at Albany, and Joan Hubbard, Coordinator of Collection Development, Wichita State University for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
NOTES 1. For a discussion of the pros and cons of different organizational options, see Cogswell, James A. “The Organization of Collection Management Functions in Academic Research Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 13 (November 1987), 271-273. 2. Bobick, James E. “Collection Development Organization and Staffing,” SPEC Flyer (#131). Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1987. 3. Sohn, Jeanne. “Collection Development Organizational Patterns in ARL Libraries,” Library Resources & Technical Services, 31 (April/June 1987), 130-131; Null, David G. “Robbing Peter . . . Balancing Collection Development and Reference Responsibilities,” College & Research Libraries, 49 (September 1988), 449. 4. See also Bryant, Bonita. “The Organizational Structure of Collection Development,” Library Resources & Technical Services, 31 (April/June 1987), 120. 5. See note 4 above, p. 119; Cubberly, Carol W. “Organization for Collection Development in Medium-Sized Academic Libraries,” Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 11 (1987), 314, 315. 6. See note 5 above, p. 314. 7. Larson, Erik W. and David H. Gobeli. “Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights,” California Management Review, 29 (Summer 1987), 126. 8. See note 7 above, p. 138; Euster, Joanne R. and Peter D. Haikahs, “A Matrix Model of Organization for a University Library Public Services Division.” In Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, edited by Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges, 360-363. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 1984. 9. See note 2, above, p. 1; Creth, Sheila. 1988. “How Can Collection Development and Management Be Most Effectively Organized and Staffed.” Paper presented at the Association of Research Libraries and Standing Conference on National and University Libraries (joint meeting), University of York, 19-21 September. 10. Rosenbaum, Bernard L. “Critical Skills for Successful Technical Professionals,” Personnel, 63 (October 1986), X-60; Barker, Jeffrey, Dean Tjosvold and I. Robert Andrews. “Conflict Approaches of Effective and Ineffective Project Managers: A Field Study in a Matrix Organization,” Journal of Management Studies, 25 (March 1988), 167-178. 11. SeeCarver, Deborah A. “Transformational Leadership: A Bibliographic Essay,” Library Administration & Management, 3 (Winter 1989), 30-34. 12. Ouchi, William G. and Raymond L. Price. “Hierarchies, Clans, and Theory Z: A New Persepctive on Organization Development,” Organizational Dynamics, 7 (Autumn 1978), 36-37. 13. These adminsitrator relationships are discussed in Mashburn, James and Bobby C. Vaught. “An Appraisal of Dual Leadership.” In Matrix Management Systems Handbook, edited by David I. Cleland. New York: Van Nostrand, 1984, pp. 255-267; Moravec, Milan. “Ensuring High Performance in a Matrix Organization. In Matrix Management Systems Handbook, edited by David I. Cleland. New York: Van Nostrand, c. 1984, pp. 31-42.