july06b.indd


Dan Gjelten and Teresa Fishel 

Developing leaders and 
transforming libraries 
Leadership
institutes
for
librarians



What do focus, passion, courage, wis­dom, and faith have to do with our 
day­to­day work? If you are a leader in to­
day’s academic library, those qualities are 
essential for success in guiding this gen­
eration of library workers through the cur­
rent reinvention of the academic library. As 
Karen Wittenborg has pointed out in her 
essay “Rocking the Boat,” the leaders she 
most admires are those who are “vision­
aries, risk takers, good collaborators and 
communicators, mentors, and people with 
uncommon passion and persistence.”1 It is 
these kinds of leaders who will be able to 
turn this transition into a meaningful “trans­
formation,” and the development of these 
leaders is a key challenge for the profes­
sion today. 

Library administrators acquire their leader­
ship skills from a number of different sources: 
their library education, independent study 
and reading, mentors, and, notably, on­the­
job experience, both positive and negative. 
Yet, for library professionals in mid­career, 
there is still often a need for refl ection and 
consideration of one’s understanding of 
leadership, especially as it is distinguished 
from management and administration. In 
addition, as we know from various reports, 
we should be preparing for a fairly signifi cant 
loss in library leadership due a “major wave 
of librarian retirements”2 sometime within 
the next decade. 

This year, two library leaders have iden­
tified a particular focus—one on library 
education (Michael Gorman) and the other 
on advocacy for academic libraries (Camila 
Alire).3 With this renewed emphasis on edu­

cating future librarians, as well as the need 
to develop advocates and leaders throughout 
the library organization, and given the need in 
the library profession for leaders with vision 
and courage, our article is intended as com­
mentary, but also to advocate for programs 
that can help develop leaders. Our experi­
ences are based on two excellent programs 
that provide opportunities for leadership 
training for academic librarians: the one­
week ACRL/Harvard Leadership Institute 
(Cambridge, MA) and the two­week Frye 
Leadership Institute (Atlanta, GA) Both, in 
somewhat different ways, provide current and 
future library leaders with opportunities for 
growth and transformation as professionals. 
While there are differences between the two 
programs, they have several characteristics 
in common. 

Leadership programs 
In both cases, the programs will be most 
useful for academic library professionals 
who are maturing leaders in mid­career. 
They assume a certain level of experience 
with leading an organization or a depart­
ment within an organization in the higher 
education environment, including respon­
sibility for strategic planning and the man­
agement of people and budgets. They also 
assume a commitment to something greater 
than an individual career. The experience is 
most powerful when the participants share 
a devotion to the “bigger idea”—the value 

Dan Gjelten is director of libraries at the University of 
St. Thomas, e-mail: drgjelten@stthomas.edu, and Teresa 
Fishel is library director at Macalester College, e-mail: 
fi shel@macalester.edu 

July/August 2006  409 C&RL News 

mailto:shel@macalester.edu
mailto:drgjelten@stthomas.edu


of the library in the larger academic orga­
nization. Both institutes are for librarians 
who believe, as William Plater noted in a 
1995 essay, that “the library is the means by 
which American universities will transform 
themselves into something entirely new.”4

Both are for library professionals who wish 
not only to sustain, but to advance their or­
ganizations. 

Since leadership is, to some extent, based 
on self­knowledge, there is the need in both 
programs for a level of openness to personal 
growth. As in all kinds of educational expe­
riences, the fundamental ability to be able 
to listen nondefensively is important. These 
leadership programs ask participants to as­
sess themselves honestly and to be willing 
to change and transform themselves based 
on a new understanding of individual roles 
and responsibilities within a larger organi­
zation. 

Both programs will help develop credibil­
ity in participants who take the experiences 
seriously. Both can help to develop leaders 
who are continually open to new ideas, 
who have a compelling “story” to tell, and, 
importantly, who have the ability to step back 
from the level of the subjective (that is, being 
subject to stresses and frustrations) and be 
able to objectify those frustrations, to hold 
them up and study and analyze them. 

Both require pre­readings and homework. 
Both involve classroom lectures and discus­
sions. (The readings vary according to the 
year of attendance, and according to instruc­
tors and guest lecturers.) Instructors provide 
recommended readings that have included 
Mirage of Continuity (Brian Hawkins and Pat 
Battin), Reframing Organizations (Lee Bol­
man), and How the Way We Talk Can Change 
the Way We Work (Robert Kegan). The Frye 
Institute schedules speakers from a variety 
of academic perspectives; in previous years, 
they have included James Hilton, David Shu­
lenburger, Stanley Katz, and Diane Oblinger, 
among many others. Each speaker brings a 
special perspective that leads to extensive 
discussions in class, and conversations that 
often continue outside of class. 

In both cases, the participants come from 
a diverse group of institutions—adding to 
the rich mix and exchange of experience. In 
academic libraries, the variety and range of 
institutional size, institutional cultures, and 
economic factors present opportunities to 
increase our understanding of how external 
forces can impact all of us in similar ways. 
Whether one is from a small college or a 
large university, the exchange of ideas leads 
to thoughtful exploration of solutions that can 
be implemented in any institution. Finally, it 
is the personal transformation that takes place 
during each of the institutes that is perhaps 
the most valuable experience. 

That is a lot that the two experiences have 
in common. But there are also differences in 
the programs—not in quality, but in depth 
and breadth. 

ACRL/Harvard Leadership Institute 
The ACRL/Harvard Leadership Institute uses 
the case study method to examine particular 
issues related to the nature of leadership it­
self. It poses the following questions: 

• How effective is my leadership? 
• How is my library positioned to meet 

the challenges of the present and future? 
The most compelling portions of the 

curriculum are personal and meaningful 
conversations about what it means to be a 
leader in a rapidly evolving profession. These 
conversations take place in formal classroom 
settings as well as small­group sessions. The 
structure of the week is a university schedule 
in microcosm—a series of daily sessions with 
professors, each of whom had an area of 
expertise that they explored with the class, 
including leadership, fi nancial management, 
and adult development. These are provocative 
sessions that give participants time to ponder 
questions that are essential to understanding 
themselves as evolving leaders. Comments 
from past participants frequently refer to being 
reinvigorated, revitalized, rejuvenated, and re­
newed. The quality of the faculty at Harvard is 
unanimously recognized by past participants; 
for us, it was one of the highest quality edu­
cational experiences of a lifetime. 

C&RL News July/August 2006  410 



All the participants of the ACRL/Har­
vard Institute are from academic libraries, 
giving the program a very specifi c focus: 
academic library leadership. It also provides 
participants with a cohort group that one 
seeks out at conferences and meetings, and 
from which one can find ongoing support 
as new challenges develop at our respective 
institutions 

The Frye Institute 
The Frye Institute, on the other hand, in­
cludes participants from a variety of back­
grounds in libraries, information technolo­
gy, the faculty and administration in higher 
education throughout the world. In both 
cases, participants leave the programs with 
new relationships and colleagues. But be­
cause the Frye Institute is a longer immer­
sion, one is likely to develop closer con­
nections with fellow participants. While 
one can renew acquaintances at annual 
gatherings for alums of both programs, we 
have found that the election discussion lists 
for the Frye Institutes continue to serve as 
connections with colleagues on an ongo­
ing basis. 

Both programs are “immersion experi­
ences” and provide the opportunity to 
reflect on these issues away from the daily 
operational grind of the office, but there 
is a notable difference in the time com­
mitment between the two. As noted, the 
ACRL/Harvard program is one week, and 
the Frye Institute is two weeks, including the 
weekend between. Participants at the Frye 
Institute, therefore, have a concentrated 
and extended time to study, and dig both 
deeper and wider into the material that is 
presented. The Frye faculty consists of uni­
versity presidents and other administrators, 
faculty, researchers, librarians and technolo­
gists, each with a unique perspective but a 
real interest in the work of those who are 
attending the institute. 

The daily schedule at Frye typically 
includes two to three sessions that share 
a common theme—for example: issues 
in higher education, institutional mission, 

student success, perspectives from different 
university positions (president, VP fi nance, 
faculty), and leadership styles. In all ses­
sions, the recurring theme is participation 
in management and leadership “at the big 
table” (as Brian Hawkins says): that is, un­
derstanding the positions and concerns of the 
institution beyond the walls of the library. 
The Frye Institute places its emphasis on 
the importance of a campuswide perspective 
on the work of libraries, as well as focus­
ing on the collaborative nature of library 
and IT interactions. Many sessions at Frye 
relate to the larger educational mission of 
the institution and provide participants with 
a new understanding of the role they play 
(as individuals and in organizations) in the 
academic enterprise. 

Before going to Atlanta, each Frye fel­
low is required to prepare a proposal for a 
project that he or she will begin to explore 
during the institute and be expected to 
complete within a year of completing the 
institute. As an additional preparation for 
the experience, participants are required 
to interview key academic officials to get a 
sense of what issues are considered critical 
on their respective campuses. Participants 
leave Frye sensitized to the issues facing 
colleges and universities and with a better 
understanding of the role the library plays 
in the mission of the institution. Fellows are 
asked to consider the library’s contribution 
to teaching and learning at their institutions, 
and the most effective ways to collaborate 
with colleagues across the campus to achieve 
institutional goals. 

Transformations 
In assessing the personal transformations 
that took place for each of us, we both 
agree that we have become more visible 
and more vocal on our respective campus­
es. Although we both feel that previously 
we were advocates for our respective librar­
ies, we also feel we are now more aware of 
and engaged with trends in higher educa­
tion that are relevant to the services we pro­
vide, and we are better able to articulate our 

July/August 2006  411 C&RL News 



roles and how the library can contribute to 
the educational mission in addressing these 
changes. While both institutes allowed us 
time for reflection, they also taught us to 
think in different ways to address the com­
plexities of constant change while working 
within organizations that are often resistant 
to change. We have redefi ned ourselves, 
in a growing sense of our role: from “I’m 
a reference librarian” to “I’m a librarian” 
to “I’m an educator in support of the aca­
demic enterprise.” This movement away 
from specialization has brought us closer to 
the larger vision of the world in which we 
work. Further, we have each taken steps to 
become more involved in national organi­
zations, either as presenters at conferences 
or participants in conference planning. For 
both of us, this transformation can be at­
tributed to broadening our scope during the 
Frye Institute and the ACRL/Harvard Lead­
ership Institute. 

During this year of emphasis on library 
education and advocacy, we feel the need 

to focus attention on leadership institutes is 
vital for our continued success in transform­
ing academic libraries in the digital age. 
Preparing leaders who are “visionaries, risk 
takers, good collaborators and communica­
tors, mentors, and people with uncommon 
passion and persistence” is essential for the 
healthy future of academic libraries. Both of 
these institutes are excellent opportunities 
for individuals to explore ways to develop 
their own vision, to articulate it with passion, 
and to inspire and influence the direction of 
their organizations. 

These are not the only institutes available 
for those who wish to pursue development 
of their leadership skills; for instance, a 
new institute for Academic Library Leader­
ship has been advertised for the summer 
of 2006.5 There is a critical need for these 
programs, and the profession must fi nd 
ways to ensure that opportunities such as 
these continue for the purpose of helping 
us “grow our own leaders.” In this time of 
rapid and ongoing transitions within aca­
demic libraries and academic institutions, 
we need leaders who are prepared to foster 
the transformations that are essential for the 
continued relevance and success of higher 
education. 

Notes 
1. Karen Wittenborg, “Rocking the Boat,” 

in Reflecting on Leadership. (Washington DC: 
Council on Library and Information Services, 
2003), 1. 

2. Rachel Singer Gordon, “Secure our pro­
fessional future,” Library Journal (February 
15, 2006): 50. 

3. Camila A. Alire, “Advocating to ad­
vance academic libraries: The 2005–06 ACRL 
President’s focus,” C&RL News 66 no. 8 
(2005): 590. 

4. William M. Plater, “The labyrinth of 
the wide world,” Educom Review 30 no. 2 
(1995): 39. 

5. Summer Institute for Academic Library 
Leadership, July 9­13, 2006; Peabody Profes­
sional Institute. www.vanderbilt.edu/ppi/in­
stitutes. 

C&RL News July/August 2006  412 

www.vanderbilt.edu/ppi/in