MIT Libraries Task Force on Organizational Issues Final Report
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH ASSOCIATE HEADS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Current Structure: What Doesn't Work
Value of Associate Head Position
Suggestions and General Comments
Current Structure: What Works
· Library autonomy; divisional units work well for local faculty relationships and subject expertise; better service to communities.
· For Archives, Ease of informal communication works well with Document Services, bindery, cataloging.
· Communication and coordination between collections and tech services works well.
· Size of units is good (unmerged divisional units).
· For Archives: Communication with divisional libraries improved by being part of PSAC.
· Ginny recruiting from beyond DLG is a very positive change.
· Bottom-up process represents good new direction.
· Smaller units (branches) work much better.
Current Structure: What Doesn't Work
· Gulf between menial level tasks (shelving, paper, etc.) and higher levels of management.
· For Archives, informal communication with divisional units difficult.
· Communication and coordination between collections and public services (at the system level) doesn't work.
What Hinders
· Computer infrastructure: Up to recently, outdated equipment, no support, LTE's unqualified, too low-paid.
· LTE position not well thought-out (carved out of old positions).
· LTE hiring is difficult.
· Divisional libraries have too little decision-making authority.
· Steering Committee meets infrequently and is slow to respond to divisional needs.
· Lack of upper level decision-making or addressing of issues.
· Perception of speaking up as trouble-making.
· For Archives: Because Margaret Depopolo is not an Archivist she is not heeded by upper levels.
· Divisional libraries are expected to solve problems which are not theirs or cannot be solved without upper level decision-making
· (which doesn't happen).
· Lack of personnel functions: Staff development, professional development, training.
· No reward system
· No career path for librarians: Librarian 1's and 2's are stuck or encouraged to leave.
· No supervisory or budgetary experience available to those trying to become competitive in a job market we are encouraged to join.
· Lack of a sense of a leader with vision, with staff buy-in, listening to us, making decisions, with direction.
· No coordination between GS and CF, a gulf between them.
· Subject selectors feel disenfranchised; they need to meet together with CF regularly.
· PSAC is moribund; no forum for reference people either.
· DLG too small; too few deciding too much.
· Library Council unsuccessful; passive, no policy setting; disempowered department heads; power has migrated to the top.
· C3 reps become remote.
· Halt on head count has put too much burden on the same small group.
· Poorly defined jobs.
Status Quo: To Be Kept
· Same staff doing both collections and reference.
· Processing team in HUM/Dewey is great: Moves people around, high morale.
· Circulation team in Rotch.
Merged Units
· For Rotch and Archived doesn't work. Archives needs professional Archivist.
· Science and Eng works intellectually but not physically or managerially.
· Dewey/HUM has too many people reporting to too few.
· Allowing librarians to work two ref desks, etc. works for those who want to, doesn't for those who don't.
· Splitting a job down the middle doesn't work, issues of a practical nature intrude.
· Dewey and Barker need two Heads or one Head and two Assoc. Heads. Physical presence is best for supervision and
· collections work.
· Intellectual 'combining' works very well.
Value of Associate Head Position
· Can devote time to mentoring supervisees.
· Can serve as Acting Head when Head is elsewhere.
· Much hands-on experience.
· Salami in the sandwich, between staff and Head.
Branches
· Have some autonomy but feel left out and isolated.
· Sometimes happy to be on the fringes.
· Can be more effective and closer to user/subject.
Suggestions and General Comments
· Create a ref team and a subject selectors team.
· Centralize gov docs.
· Develop work systems that compensate for short-staffing.
· Each department should have a Head.
· Create a way for lower level people to gain valuable experience for their professional development and 'moving on,' if need be.
· Expose people to administrative functions.
· Rewards and promotions: Open up more paths to Level 3 positions, with increased responsibility but not tied to administrative roles. Same for Level 4.
· All levels should be rewarded for professional activity, not just 1's and 2's.
· Need stronger LTE's.
Structure & Hierarchy
· There needs to be a personnel function:
for professional staff (as Sheelah Britt is for support staff)possibly someone at Steering Committee level
where grievances can be brought up
· Currently there is no support at the top for publicity & handouts
· Anything that is library wide doesn't get done
training of staff and userspublicity
· When at staff are great at something, and may not be great at their job, the person is driven out instead of using them within the library where there skills are needed and could be utilized
This is part of the problem with the divisional libraries -- skills in one unit may not get shared across the library
· Up and down communication needs to be addressed
things have become issues due to bad communicationlibrary notes was useful when we had it, could be done more effectively also if reinstated
communication in general, especially library notes, helps to de-isolate people/units
library notes gives the director/associate director a place to communicate -- it is felt that more of this communication, especially from the director, is needed
information put on the web is not felt to be adequate -- reading that information is too much of voluntary thing and takes action to get to it
Staff Issues
· Attention needs to be paid to professional development of staff
if no promotion track within the library, we have the responsibility to help people grow so they can go up and out to better jobs
· Salaries are low & not competitive
Best Practices
· Decision making was decentralized
decision made at a lower level
· People rewarded and promoted for their professional development
tenuresabbatical
ladder to move up (more than just 3 levels)
promotions based on work plus publications/teaching (time given to do the extra)
· Librarians are not just 9-5 workers -- more responsible to student needs -- when they may need help
· Archives able to develop strong relationship with the central administration
bound to getting funding for Archives projectsthis needs to be encouraged here
that's what successful Archives do elsewhere
Ideal Organization
· Visionary, responsive, communicative, capable of change --- [but how would it be organized to do this?]
· More forums for people to express ideas and/or come up with solutions
· Needs to be a way to express concerns without being perceived as being negative and not being ignored
· An observation was that much of the above in this section is culture
· Floating structure
deals with issues at the timeimpermanent
groups/committees happen when they need to happen (or on a continuing basis)
across units -- may be representatives
rotating positions on Library Council
this wouldn't work with everything
maybe some at large positions
· System wide positions -- but not as replacements for local positions
· Where things are locally or centrally most efficient
· Reward structure not tied to the hierarchy
steps in the salary range for each level
· Teams would work by unit --> not necessarily by function
Other
· Expertise is currently not appreciated & rewarded -- how do you stop that?
· DLG may be a problem
Top
Table of Contents
OITF Final Report
Redefinition Home Page