College and Research Libraries ROBERT L. BURR Library Goals and Library Behavior Libraries are multigoal organizat-ions. A simplified form of utility theory is used to identify three classic patterns of multigoal maximi- zation. Formulas describing these patterns can be applied to libraries to provide a tool for defining library goals and analyzing library be- havior. THE PROBLEM OF LmRARY GOALS weighs heavily on the collective library mind. Whenever librarians gather, be it for a library staff meeting or for a formal conference of a library association, a discussion of library goals or objectives is inevitable. The discussion may be on the elevated plane of philosophy or on the lower level of "what we are trying to do" in concrete behavioral terms. In either case, the discussion is apt to pro- ceed at some length and may conclude by producing more confusion than in- sight. This impression of deep profes- sional concern over library goals is con- firmed by a cursory glance through re- cent issues of Library Literature. Dur- ing 1972 no less than fifty-five citations appeared under the subheading of ~5 Aims and Objectives." For 1973 the count was a more modest thirty-four. Among the many factors stimulating increased attention to goals and objec- tives, two deserve mention. Goals are in- extricably linked with change, and as we all know change is one of the few cer- tainties left in our modern world. Like death and taxes, change seems to be in- evitable. Some librarians seem to pursue change for its own sake while other li- Robert L. Burr is director of circulation, Earl Gregg Swem Library, the College of William and Mary in Virginia, Williamsburg. brarians seem to resist change for the same reason. Most librarians, however, would prefer to deal with change and its effects on a rational basis. And for this group, goals are important as the necessary starting point to deal with change. Equally noteworthy is another factor: the impact of systems theory on library education. While perhaps strongest among younger librarians whose formal library education has included the ba- sics of systems theory, the impact upon the whole profession has been signifi- cant. Much of the current professional literature includes elements of systems thinking either explicitly or by implica- tion. Thus older librarians with a com- mitment to continued professional de- velopment are apt to have adopted the systemic view of the importance of goals and objectives. According to sys- tems theory, a clear understanding of goals is a sine qua non. One must un- derstand what the system is supposed to do before one may address the question of how it is working or how to perfect it. DEFINING LmRARY GoALS Given the recognized importance of library goals, it is perhaps a bit disheart- ening to find so much confusion and so little agreement about them. One of the difficulties may lie in the way in which the subject has been approached. Tra- / 27 28 I College & Research Libraries • January 1975 ditionally, defining goals has been an ex- ercise in deductive reasoning. First, broad philosophic principles are enun- ciated which can compel general agree- ment, and then specific goals for be- havior are set forth which attempt to translate theory into practice. The prob- lem with this approach is apparent: by the time a philosophic principle is broad enough to achieve consensus, it is too broad to be of much use as a guide to practical conduct and policy. In order to deal intelligently with goals and objectives, librarians must somehow bridge this gap between phi- losophy and practice. The concept of utility maximization, derived from eco- nomics and the behavioral sciences, may provide a tool which can be applied to this problem.l Behavioral studies of man make it clear that he is a multigoal directed creature. Further studies of group be- havior have led some organizational the- orists to conclude that organizations share this characteristic.2 Thus the ac- tions of the business firm are not solely dictated by the goal of maximum prof- its; the firm is also interested in status, power, and perhaps even some humanis- tic goals as well. Librarians will recog- nize that there is no single goal which determines their actions, or the actions of their libraries, to the exclusion of all else. In real life situations multiple causes and conflicting priorities are the rule rather than the exception. 3 Utility theory is based upon the as- sumption that man acts so as to increase his own satisfaction-utility maximiza- tion.4 The theory recognizes that be- havior generally springs from multiple causes and conflicting goals, and at- tempts to use mathematical formulas to describe the situation.5 These formu- las, in effect behavioral models, may be used both inductively and deductively. By examining examples of overt be- havior, one may induce the type of util- ity maximization which has been fol- lowed. If the type of utility maxrmi- zation preferred is known, then the course of action which will maximize that utility may be deduced. 6 Needless to say, one person's utility may well be another's debility. Yet since all are striving for maximum utility (satisfaction), it is possible to general- ize about general types of behavior. Using a much simplified version of utility theory, three behavioral arche- types can be identified. Each of these types of utility maximization or satis- faction can be expressed by a formula called a utility factor. 7 Type A, or independent behavior, can be expressed by the formula Ua = f(pa, qa, ra, ... ' Za). In this equation U is the utility maximi- zation or satisfaction of a and is seen to be a function f of p, q, r, etc., which are specific identifiable goals which a wishes to achieve. Here satisfaction is dependent strictly upon the degree in which these identified goals are met. This type of satisfaction can be charac- terized as indifferent to the environment in the sense that satisfaction is depen- dent only on one set of goals. Type B, or altruistic behavior, can be expressed by the formula Ua = f (p a, qa, ra, .. . 'Za; Ub, Uc, . .. ' Un). In this formulation, the satisfaction of a is a function not only of the degree in which one's own specific goals have been met but also the degree in which the satisfaction of certain others, b, c, etc., has been achieved as well. This type of satisfaction is dependent on the en- vironment in the sense that selected and identifiable elements of that environ- ment, each characterized by its own util- ity factor, must also be satisfied. Type C, or competitive behavior, can be expressed by the formula Ua = f( Ua- Ub, Ua- Uc, Ua- Ud, . .. , Ua- Un). In this archetype, the satisfaction of a is achieved according to the degree that the satisfaction of others specified is di- minished. Once again satisfaction is de- pendent on the environment, but this time in a negative manner. Appreciation of the three classic types may become easier if they are per- sonalized. The Type A individual is one whose happiness depends solely on self- gratification. The Type B individual is one who wants things for himself or herself but who regards the happiness of others, perhaps family or friends, as equally important. The Type C indi- vidual is one who derives happiness from seeing others made miserable. Less value laden but equally valid characteri- zations at the corporate level may be seen in business. The Type A firm sees its success in terms of higher produc- tion, higher sales, profits, etc. The Type B firm may share these goals but is also interested in employee welfare, safety, customer satisfaction, etc. Th e Type C firm views its success in terms of market position; it is successful only if it is su- perior to its competitors. Now that these three classic behavior patterns have been identified, it is time once more to consider libraries. As indi- cated before, there are two ways in which these utility factors may be uti- lized. The first to be discussed, deductive ·reasoning, is much the same as what many librarians have been doing for years. However, the presence of the util- ity factor may do much to reduce the usual confusion. Most librarians would agree that of the three types of behavior identified, Type B, or altruistic, is most appropri- ate for libraries. Therefore, the task is to identify those terms which should be included in the utility factor for any given library. There are, of course, a large number of internal goals which are important to library success. Thus the p, q, and r of the Type B formula might be identified as the construction Goals and Behavior I 29 of an adequate sized building, reaching a specific collection standard in terms of quality and quantity, obtaining cer- tain items of new equipment, etc. A list of such internal goals for a given li- brary might well be longer than this es- say. Some objectives will be more impor- tant than others. Some may be achieved within a relatively short time while oth- ers may remain forever an objective rather than an accomplishment. Once the internal goals of the library have been identified, attention must be turned to the second half of the equa- tion. The library must face the arduous task of identifying those groups whose satisfaction is most important to it. If the formula is to be used, the familiar platitude of "service for all" must be abandoned. Among groups whose satis- faction is important to public libraries might be found legislators of respon- sible funding agencies, library board members, pressure groups, and sub- groups of users identified by socioeco- nomic status, age, ethnic background, geographical location, etc. For academ- ic libraries the list might include admin- istrators, faculty members or subgroups of the faculty, students, subject special- ists, researchers, etc. As indica ted before, each of these groups whose satisfaction has been iden- tified as necessary to the success of the library has a utility factor. In order for the library to truly satisfy those groups , it must attempt to identify both the type of utility factor exhibited by each group and the library-related terms within it. The library must know its cli- entele in something more than a super- ficial manner. The development of util- ity factors for important client groups will provide additional inputs to the list of internal library goals since the li- brary will become more aware of what it needs to satisfy its users. Obviously, an analysis of library goals along the lines proposed here must be a paper and pencil exercise of protract- 30 I College & Research Libraries • 1 anuary 197 5 ed length and not a theoretical discus- sion. Limited library resources alone, to say nothing of the inevitable contradic- tions between the utility factors of dif- ferent user groups, must make the ne- cessity for assigning priorities and mak- ing difficult decisions graphically clear. One of the significant benefits of using utility factors is the help it provides in decision making. For it not only makes the necessity of choice explicit but also indicates the impact of decisions on the goals of the library. As an example, let us theorize that academic library X is faced with a de- mand by a group of students and facul- ty members to create a satellite depart- mental library. Satisfaction of the de- manding groups is an element in the li- brary's utility factor , but other elements in that utility factor include the follow- ing: the goal of satisfying other user groups whose satisfaction depends on having all materials available in one lo- cation, the goal of adding subject spe- cialists to the reference staff before add- ing any other staff positions, and the goal of satisfying Dr. Y, chairman of the demanding group, who also serves as budget review officer for the library. Taken to its conclusion, utility theory purports to be able to produce the best decision in a case such as this on the ba- sis of mathematical calculations. While most librarians would probably be un- willing or unable to assign mathematical values to the variables and make the requisite calculations, most librarians would appreciate this kind of awareness of what is involved in the decision be- fore making a judgment. Perhaps the most important advan- tage of the deductive us e of utility fac- tors is the framework it establishes for dealing with library goals. It is the con- straint imposed by working within the formulas which forces the library to identify that which is important to it in terms which remain meaningful for library practice. Once established, the utility factor of the library describes goals which must be achieved for suc- cess. Library behavior can then be de- signed as strategies to achieve those goals rather than to frustrate them. Another advantage of this method is that it provides a means to evaluate li- brary performance both on the individ- ual and institutional level. Just as the success of the library can be judged on the basis of its achievement of the goals identified within its utility factor, the success of the librarian may be judged on the basis of his or her contribution toward achieving those goals. Note here the emphasis on total library goals as op- posed to the goals of the individual li- brarian or the goals of an operating de- partment within a library. It is the task of library management to assure that personal and departmental goals are congruent with those of the library as a whole. This process, while admittedly difficult, may become less baffling if ap- proached in the same manner. Each staff member and operating agency within the library has a utility factor whose terms must be identified and dealt with. The completed library utility factor should provide a new position from which to evaluate library behavior: a position which does justice to the true complexity of the situation, a position which is intelligible, and a position which spans the gap between theory and practice. Library success has b een iden- tified as the achievement of certain in- ternal and external goals , and those goals have b een identified in terms of specific b ehavioral objectives. Two tasks r emain: first, the library must examine its present behavior to assure that it furthers rather than frustrates achieve- ment of library goals; second, the li- brary must introduce new modes of be- havior consciously designed to achieve the goals that have been chosen. ANALYZING LIBRARY BEHAVIOR The concept of utility maximization, used inductively this time, may prove to be of some help in the evaluation of present library behavior. In fact, li- brarians and libraries who choose not to bother with the lengthy deductive process just described may still wish to adopt this method of evaluating library operations. The basic concept remains unchanged. Libraries, whether they real- ize it or not, act in such a way as to max- imize their own satisfaction. Therefore, by examining library behavior as it now exists one can induce both the type of utility factor exhibited by the library and the identity of the terms within it. Attention should first be directed to- ward the internal goals which the li- brary seems to be serving. A convenient starting point for this analysis is the li- brary budget since the allocation of fi- nancial resources indicates both a goal and a relative priority. Equally impor- tant, however, are library policies, pro- cedures, statistical data and reports, and the actual conduct of library opera- tions. Throughout the analysis the fo- cus of attention must be on what the li- brary is doing in terms of behavioral outcomes which can be determined ob- jectively rather than on desired or an- ticipated results. And as the behavioral objectives are identified, the relative pri- ority assigned to their achievement should be noted. In all likelihood a behavioral analysis of this type would produce some dis- agreeable surprises. Policies and proce- dures designed to do one thing may in fact do something quite different. The library may also find that a dispropor- tionate share of its resources and efforts are being spent on goals with only mar- ginal importance. Furthermore, some objectives which the library has always espoused in theory may be conspicuous by their absence in practice. The examination of the relationship between the library and its client popu- lation will be equally difficult. The li- brary must identify the various groups Goals and Behavior I 31 and subgroups of library users and non- users, and determine those whose satis- faction seems to be most important to the library on the basis of library be- havior. Again the library may discover that it is in fact maximizing the satis- faction of some groups at the expense of other groups whose satisfaction is in theory more important. Once the internal and external goals which are actually being served by the library have been identified, it becomes possible to generalize about the type of utility factor which characterizes the li- brary. It is entirely possible that the li- brary will be forced to conclude that it qualifies as a Type A, or independent, library. If so, library behavior will have been shaped by a dedication to internal goals so strong that it dominates the ex- ternal goals. The library operates for its own sake rather than for the benefit of others. Such libraries are not unfa- miliar to the casual or even trained ob- server. But in all probability this con- centration on internal goals has not come about by design but by failure on the part of the library to maintain the connection between theory and practice. The competitive aspect of library be- havior, while not previously discussed, is nevertheless familiar to most librari- ans. Competition exists within libraries and library departments, between differ- ent libraries, and between libraries and other agencies and information sources. It is unlikely that competition would dominate library behavior to such a de- gree that it must be considered a Tyoe C, or competitive, organization. But the analysis is apt to reveal more instances of behavior shaped by competition than the library either recognized or desired to exist. Most libraries will, of course, reveal themselves to be Type B, or altruistic, institutions. And the goals which have been identified from the behavior of the library may be considered to consti- tute the library's utility factor. 32 I College & Research Libraries • january 1975 This behavioral utility factor shows what goals the library is in fact working toward and must be reconciled with what the library believes it should be doing. Even if the theoretical goals of the library have never been articulated, the library should have an intuitive grasp of what it is trying to achieve. Li- brary behavior which does not appear to further these aspirations should be 1nodified. If a library utility factor has been previously established, it is a relatively simple task to match the deductive for- mulation with that induced from the library's behavior. Where the utility factors agree, the library can be confi- dent that it is working to achieve its goals; where they disagree, the library must either change its goals or its be- havior. When the concept of utility maximi- zation and the utility factor is used de- ductively, it describes what goals the li- brary wants to achieve in theory. When the same concept is used inductively, it describes what goals the library is achieving in practice. The differences between the two may be modest, or they may be enormous. In any case, aware- ness of the discrepancy between library goals and library behavior is a necessary first step in bringing them together. REFERENCES 1. Peter Fishburn, Utility Theory for Decision Making (New York: Wiley, 1970). 2. Robert L. Burr, "Librarians, Libraries and Librarianship; A Model," Libri 23:181- 209 (1973). 3. R. T. Eckenrode, «vVeighting Multiple Cri- teria," Management Science 12:180-92 ( 1965). 4. Milton Friedman and L. J. Savage, "The Ex- pected Utility Hypothesis and the Measure- ability of Utility," journal of Political Econ- omy 60:463-74 (1952). 5. L. Thurstone, The Measurement of Values (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1959). 6. Morris Hamburg and William F. Matlack, "Maximizing Insurance Buyers' Utility," Management Science 14:B-294-301 ( 1967). 7. H. Johnson, Business in Contemporary So- ciety: Framework and Issues (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Press, 1971). INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS Manuscripts of articles submitted to College & Research Libraries are to be sent to the Editor: Richard D. Johnson, James M. Milne Library, State University College, Oneonta, NY 13820. Manuscripts should be in two copies and typed in double space. The title, name and affiliation of the author, and an abstract of 75 to 100 words should precede the article. Notes are to be consecutively numbered throughout the manu- script and typed in double space on separate sheets at the end. The journal follows A Manual of Style, 12th ed., rev. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969) in matters of bibliographic style ; and recent issues of this journal may be consulted as well.