College and Research Libraries Position Classification at Michigan: Another Look This article summarizes two reevaluations of the process of position classi- fication in the University of Michigan Library since the mid-1960s. Changes in philosophy and practice within the profession as well as in the way in which professionals operate necessitated this reevaluation. The article also discusses the development and preparation of the scheme, the interviews with librarians and administrators, and the evaluation of the data collected for the establishment of a classification level for each professional position in the library. pROFESSIONAL STAFFS iri academic libraries today are structured in a myriad of different patterns. T'Qese range from librarians or- ganized as academic faculties, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of other faculties, to the more traditional posi- tion classification approach. Factors leading to a particular pattern can often be attrib- uted to local circumstances on both institu- tional and individual levels. BACKGROUND Since the early sixties the University of Michigan Library has used a position man- agement approach in which each profes- sional position has been classified according to its function relative to other positions within the library. This approach to position classification resulted from the work of a classification evaluation committee ap- pointed in 1963 by the director of the li- brary. The committee developed the Chart for Classification of Academic Positions, which used weighted factors for each professional position, and established five levels of pro- This article was prepared by members of the University of Michigan Library's classification evaluation committee for 1977-78: Ronald Austin, James Cruse, Rose-Grace Faucher, Sara Heitshu, Carol Holbrook, Lynn Marko, and Jean L. Loup, chair. fessional classification. Then, applying the chart, the committee recommended to the director a classification level for each posi- tion. These recommendations were accepted and implemented by the library administra- tion in 1965. A full report on the work of the committee appeared in the May 1966 issue of College & Research Libraries. 1 During the next few years the classifica- tion evaluation committee continued to evaluate new positions and those in which the duties of the position had changed sub- stantially. In response to a changing professional environment, the committee on personnel classification was elected by the professional staff in 1970 at the request of the director. This committee was charged with reviewing the initial classification scheme and recom- mending any necessary changes. 2 This committee revised the original list of factors to be used in evaluating professional positions and recommended that the number of grade levels for professional posi- tions be reduced from five to four. It also revised the system of weighted points to be used in evaluating and classifYing each posi- tion and recommended that the classifica- tion evaluation committee be an elected committee with three members each from public services and technical services and with the assistant for personnel and staff de- velopment an ex officio member. In 1972 I 205 206 I College & Research Libraries • May 1979 this elected committee conducted the sec- ond review of all professional positions. An additional recommendation of the committee on personnel classification, im- plemented in 1972 and still in effect, was a promotional opportunity through which an individual librarian might be promoted one level above the position classification. Such promotion was to be based on outstanding performance and was to be considered not by the classification evaluation committee, whose concern was position classification , but by the executive council, an advisory body to the director. DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SCHEME By 1975 significant changes in the duties performed by professional librarians dictated a further review of the classification of pro- fessional positions , and the classification evaluation committee was charged with conducting a review of the criteria used to classify positions. Two preliminary docu- ments were prepared , which served as a basis for the subsequent work of the com- mittee . The first of these was prepared by Ralph Edwards during his tenure as a Council on Library Resources administrative intern in the university library .3 Edwards consulted a personnel management expert in the Grad- uate School of Business Administration, the library staff, and library administrative officers. His report recommended changes in the content of the chart but retained the weighted point system. He also recom- mended that the membership of the classi- fication evaluation committee be changed to include four elected members (two from public services and two from technical ser- vices), two appointed members (one each from public services and technical services), and the assistant for personnel and staff de- velopment , ex officio . The second preliminary document was prepared by Louis Mortimer , of the Library of Congress , who visited the university li- brary as a consultant in 1975. 4 His report proposed a factor evaluation chart using the following criteria to classifY those positions not having management or supervisory re- sponsibility: scope of assignment , level of responsibility, and knowledge required to perform the duties of the position. Man- agement and supervisory positions were to be classified using these factors and additional criteria applicable to those posi- tions. The system recommended by Mortimer was more flexible than the system of points previously in use and recognized the importance of informed and experienced judgment in classifying professional posi- tions. After careful review and discussion of the documents prepa~ed by Edwards and Mortimer, 5 the classification evaluation committee revised the procedure for classi- fication evaluation, incorporating many of their recommendations. Mortimer's factor evaluation chart was selected to provide the framework for the scheme. (See appendix.) The committee chose two basic factors to govern the evaluation of professional posi- tions: scope of assignment and level of re~ sponsibility. Within each of these factors, three degrees of difficulty (A, C , E) were described in order of increasing complexity. Degrees B and D were not defined but would be used when a position fell between two defined degrees, or when a position compared with one degree in some respects and another degree in other respects. Factor 1, scope of assignment, incorpo- rated the following elements : 1. Difficulty of work performed, including guidance necessary and originality required. 2. Education and experience required to complete the assignment. 3. Extent of participation in development of programs, plans, policies, procedures , plus administrative or staff assignments. In a fourth element the committee at- tempted to provide a differing means of evaluation for technical services positions and public services positions. A need for this had become apparent during the appli- cation of the earlier chart. In most cases public services positions would be evaluated on the basis of the scope, coverage, and size of the collection , the clientele served, and the range and difficulty of materials in the collection. Technical services positions would be evaluated on the basis of the depth of knowledge of bibliographic tools and methods required. Factor 2, level of responsibility, contained these elements: 1. Impact of the position beyond the functional unit. 2. Nature and importance of person-to- person contacts. 3. Supervisory and managerial respon- sibilities. . The elements in factor 2 wo~ld be applied selectively to the position under re- view. For example, positions that contained no managerial or supervisory responsibilities would be evaluated only in terms of impact and person-to-person contacts . In considering the impact of each profes- sional position, the classification evaluation committee used the following recommenda- tion from the report prepared by Ralph Edwards: This [element] measures the significance of the work of a librarian in the achievement of the ob- jectives of the Library and the University . This work may have an impact on end results in one or more areas including at least the following: a .) the quality and completeness of the Li- brary's collections, b .) the effectiveness of access to the materials in the collections , c .) knowledge and understanding of the library needs of the Library's clientele-students, staff, faculty, and researchers , d. ) service to the clientele , e. ) the image of the Library in the academic and professional communities and the develop- ment of support for the Library, f. ) costs of operation, efficiency, morale, and physical maintenance of buildings , equipment , and collections. 6 A problem encountered in the use of the earlier chart had been the difficulty in classifying the higher-level nonsupervisory and nonmanagement positions. As discus- sion progressed the committee recognized that, although a position need not contain a supervisory aspect in order to be classified at the highest level, it would have to have managerial aspects. Ultimately the commit- tee developed definitions for these two terms: Managerial Responsibility The primary element in management is re- sponsibility for providing leadership in the opera- tion of a major segment of the library system , or in the operation of the library system as a whole. Managerial responsibility includes substantial and significant input into planning, policy making, and decision making at a level that directly affects Position Classification I 207 the operation of a major segment of the library system and usually affects the operation of the li- brary system as a whole. Those who have man- agerial responsibility must make judgments based on significant experience in library work and on a broad knowledge of the library system ; these judgments form part of the information which li- brary administrators use in making decisions and formulating policy . Supervisory Re~ponsibility The primary element in supervision is respon- sibility for someone else ' s work performance. Every staff member "reports to" someone; that is, every staff member is directly accountable to someone for the work which he or she does . The person to whom he or she "reports, " to whom he or she is directly accountable, is the supervisor. A supervisor, in turn, is responsible for the work performance of those whom he or she supervises. If a staff member is held directly ac- countable for another person's work, then he or she is that person's supervisor. The following kinds of activities are characteris- tic of supervisory responsibility: 1. Interview and recommend applicants for vacant positions . 2 . Assign work to other staff members, train them in the best way to do it, take responsibility for seeing that they do it, and discipline them if they do not do it. 3. Evaluate other staff members ' work perfor- mance , including the preparation of written evaluations , and counsel with them to resolve any problems that are encountered . 4. Approve vacation and sick leave requests ; review and sign time cards . Some positions have significant and ongoing training responsibilities , particularly of other pro- fessional librarians, but do not have supervisory authority as described in the above paragraph . In such cases , recognition will be made of that re- sponsibility under the " difficulty of work" ele- ment. The chart developed in 1963-BS and re- vised in 197~72 employed a weighted point system. Under this system, for example, education might be assigned a maximum of 50 points, and independence of performance a maximum of 250 points. The new scheme was not formally structured in this manner. When the new scheme was applied, how- ever, it became apparent to the members of the committee that not all of the elements in the scheme should have the same influ- ence in determining position classification. Elements such as " education " and "knowledge of foreign languages" should not 208 I College & Research Libraries • May 1979 have as much influence as "impact" or "planning and policy making. " The commit- tee determined that, in order for a position to be classified at the highest level, it would have to include significant management re- sponsibility, and also be evaluated at high levels in the areas of " impact" and "plan- ning and policy making." The review of professional library posi- tions conducted in 1972 was based on a written position description prepared by each librarian. In this instance , the written position description was intended as a com- plete picture of the responsibilities of the position. These written position descriptions varied widely in content , and Mortimer recommended that the classification evalua- tion committee interview each member of the professional staff in order to obtain a more detailed basis for evaluation . 1 The committee adopted this recommen- dation and requested each incumbent librar- ian to prepare a written position descrip- tion . These written descriptions were to summarize the major responsibilities of the position rather than to treat them exhaus- tively, as each written description would be supplemented by an audit interview. Communication between members of the library professional staff and the classifica- tion evaluation committee of 1972 was quite limited. The committee at that time worked primarily from written position descriptions and based its recommendations upon a care- ful review of these written statements. The recommendations of the committee were treated confidentially by the library admin- istration and were not communicated to in- dividual staff members . The classification evaluation committee in 1977 recommended several changes in these procedures in order to provide for more open communication between the commit- tee and the library staff. Besides the use of the audit interview, which would provide for direct contact be- tween the committee and each professional staff member, the committee also recom- mended that each librarian receive a written statement of the committee's recommenda- tion concerning his or her position and the reasons for the recommendation. The committee also felt the need for a more adequate written record of its deliber- ations and decisions and adopted Mortimer's recommendation that a decision book be maintained in which the committee's deci- sions, and the reasons for them, would be recorded. The committee's final recommen- dations for the structure of a scheme to be used in reviewing positions were presented to the director in August 1976. Before the scheme could be implemented, it had to be reviewed by several levels of library and university administration. When this review had been completed, the scheme was intro- duced to the staff. IMPLEMENTATION The committee held a series qf meetings with the staff in December 1976 during which discussion of the new scheme and procedures occurred . Each librarian was then asked to submit a position description to the committee by February 1, 1977, and the audit interviews were scheduled to begin on February "7, 1977. The interviews were to focus on an analysis and evaluation of the duties of a po- sition and were not to be concerned with an evaluation of the performance of an indi- vidual. A set of uniform questions was pre- pared to provide a common basis for com- parison and to elicit responses that would supplement, rather than merely repeat, the information in the written position descrip- tion . The following questions were asked at every interview: 1. Describe fully the major duties and respon- sibilities of your position. 2~ Relate the educational requirements, profes- sional experience, and special skills noted in your position description to particular aspects of your job. 3. Illustrate the types of problems that you are expected to solve on your own and those that you would refer to a higher authority. 4. Give an illustration of the type of operational (day-to-day) planning, if any , and the type of pol- icy planning , if any , normally associated with your position . 5. Are the duties of the people you supervise primarily of a routine or of a discretionary na- ture ? Give examples. How many positions do you supervise , and at what performance level are these? 6 .. With what positions within the library or outside the library do you have regular contact? Describe the nature of this contact. 7. Describe those aspects of your position that you feel have not been adequately covered , either on the position description form or in this job audit. During the initial audit interviews, which the committee conducted as a whole , dif- ferent approaches to the interview were tested, and the technique was refined until a more or less uniform procedure evolved. Subsequent interviews were conducted by three committee members , a group usually consisting of the assistant for personnel and staff development, one member of the committee representing public services, and one representing technical services . Supervisors of each unit were also inter- viewed by the committee and were asked to explain their understanding of the role and function of each position under their super- vision and its relationship to other positions in the library. Organization charts were consulted by the committee to help in understanding these relationships . The committee also met several times with the associate directors for public services and for technical services to understand the ad- ministration 's view of the positions within the library. A written report , detailing each audit interview with a librarian , supervisor , or member of the library administration, was prepared. This report became part of the permanent records of the committee and was used to supplement the written position description. Upon request , staff members were given an opportunity to review the written record of their audit interviews and to suggest corrections or additions . During the period when . the audit inter- views were being conducted , the committee began a preliminary evaluation of each pro- fessional position . First, each position was compared with others in the same unit , using the written position description, the information from the audit interview, and the information from the interview with the supervisor. These preliminary evaluations were reviewed with the appropriate associ- ate director, for public services or technical services. The next step in the classification process was the establishment of eight "benchmark" positions , one public service position and one technical service position at each of the Position Classification I 209 four grade levels. Each of the benchmark positions was selected because it seemed most nearly to typify library activities and responsibilities at its grade level. Reference to these positions provided a basis for com- parison for positions whose classification was difficult to determine. After the preliminary evaluation of each position, positions at the same classification level throughout the library were examined in relation to each other. The problem of providing equity when comparing positions with very different emphases and respon- sibilities presented a particularly difficult challenge to the committee . Two external factors affected the commit- tee's work at this point. The first involved a series of reorganiza- tions within the library. As a result, sever.al staff members assumed new and sig- nificantly different responsibilities, neces- sitating revised position descriptions and supplementary audit interviews . The second external factor affecting the work of the committee was its responsibility to act in an advisory capacity to the univer- sity personnel office in classifying profes- sional library positions outside the univer- sity library system. These positions were primarily in small libraries serving academic departments or research centers . Th e pro- cess of reviewing and classifying thes e posi- tions , using written position descriptions and audit interviews, provided the commit- tee with additional insight to the classifica- tion process. At this point, although the classification process was basically complete , each posi- tion underwent a final review. The results of this final review were discussed with one of the associate directors , for public services or technical services. This discussion pro- vided an opportunity for the committee to elaborate the reasons for its recommenda- tion and for the associate directors to raise questions regarding any of the recom- mended classifications. As a result' of these discussions, several staff members were asked to rewrite their position descriptions , and their positions were reviewed again. The committee then submitted its final rec- ommendations to the director. The work of the classification evaluation committee extended over a period of more 210 I Collew~ & Research Libraries • May 1979 than eigh teen months. During that time the committee dealt with a variety of practical and philosophical problems in preparing a new document upon which to base the clas- sification of professional positions in the university library. The deliberations covered a wide range of topics, including the ques- tion of management versus supervision, the factors most significant in determining posi- tion classification level, and the meth- odology of comparing public services and technical services assignments. The validity of the decisions made by the committee in preparing the document was demonstrated by the successful use of the document as a basis for classifying the 102 professional positions in the library. The audit interviews proved very valuable in supplementing the written position descrip- tions. Additionally, the open communication between the committee and library super- visors and administrators at each stage of the committee's work proved worthwhile and provided the committee with a number of valuabl e insights. The resulting com- prehensive and balanced picture of the li- brary system aided the committee in mak- ing its recommendations. Past experience at the University of Michigan Library has demonstrated that po- sition classifications do not remain constant. The library and the library profession exist in an environment of continuing change. It is the hope of the present classification evaluation committee that it has provided a document sufficiently flexible to provide for these expected changes for some time in the future. REFERENCES 1. Marjorie M. Tompkins, "Classification Evalua- tion of Professional Librarian Positions in the University of Michigan Library," College & Research Libraries 27:175--84 (May 1966). 2. University of Michigan Library, Committee on Personnel Classification, "The Classification System for Academic Positions: The University of Michigan Library," internal report, The University of Michigan Library, 1972. 3. Ralph M. Edwards, "The Classification of Pro- fessional Positions at The University of Michi- gan Libraries," internal report, The University of Michigan Library, 1975. 4. Louis R. Mortimer, "A Guide for the Classi- fication of Professional Librarian Positions," internal report, The University of Michigan Library, 1975. 5. Other documents that proved valuable during the development process include: Lynn F. Marko, "Professional Position Classification within the University of Michigan Library," internal report, The University of Michigan Library, 1976; Louis R. Mortimer, "Comments and Observations on the Classification Pro- gram for Professional Positions at The Univer- sity of Michigan Libraries," internal report, The University of Michigan Library, 1975; U.S. Civil Service Commission, Bureau of Policies and Standards, Supervisory Grade- Evaluation Guide and Qualification Standard, Personnel Management Series no.22 (Wash- ington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off. , 1970); and John Wilkinson, Kenneth Plate, and Robert Lee, "A Matrix Approach to Position Classi- fication," College & Research Libraries 36:351-63 (Sept. 1975). 6. Edwards, "The Classification of Professional Positions at The University of Michigan Li- braries," p.17. 7. Mortimer, "Commen ts and Observations on the Classification Program for Professional Po- sitions at The University of Michigan Librar- ies," p.l. APPENDIX CLASSIFICATIOI'\ FOR PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS PREFACE Professional librarian positions within the Uni- versity of Michigan library system are classified into four levels: assistant librarian, associate li- brarian, senior associate librarian, and librarian. The scheme that follows is the instrument used by the classification evaluation committee to de- termine at which level each professional position falls. Three levels of difficulty (A, C, E) are de- scribed in order of increasing complexity. De- grees B and D are not described but may be used when a position clearly falls between two described degrees, or when a position compares with one degree in some respects and another degree in other respects. Descriptions of the type of work performed are indicative only of the level of performance re- quired at each grade. In other words, no attempt has been made to describe every library position. Therefore, it should be understood that no pen- alty accrues to positions that are not specifically described. The levels describe the skills expected to be brought to the position and the performance at this level after a period of training. Performance beyond the basic requirements of the position is not considered here. FACTOR 1: SCOPE OF ASSIC MENT This factor reflects the breadth, depth, and difficulty of the assignment. Differences in levels ,a,re primarily determined by consideration of each of the following: - either the scope, coverage, size of collec- tion, clientele served, range and difficulty of the materials in the collection, or the depth of knowledge of bibliographic tools and methods re- quired; and - the difficulty of work performed, including guidance necessary and orjginality required; and - education and experience required to com- plete the assignment; and - extent of participation in development of programs, plans, policies, procedures, administra- tive or staff assignments. Degree A This level includes assignments of average difficulty relating to one or more library functions with predetermined limitations restricting subject areas dealt with or depth of analysis. Assign- ments, while performed within established pro- cedures, typically include segments of more difficult work allowing some opportunity for orig- inality . The work seldom involves tasks requiring higher specialized subject or bibliographic com- petence or experience beyond that gained through the achievement of the A.M.L.S . , al- though some proficiency in foreign languages may be required. Usually responsibilities do not extend beyond the solution of problems encountered in day-to- day assignments . However, though limited , the work does require analytical ability and imagina- tive interpretation. General participation in planning and de- velopment is expected . Degree B For positions that clearly fall between degrees A and C or that compare in some respects with degree A and in other respects with degree C. Degree C This level exceeds degree A in breadth and/or depth of assignment and regularly encompasses work of more than average or normal difficulty. The assignment allows for frequent originality within the limits of the objectives established for the functional unit and often requires language proficiency (reading knowledge of two languages or working knowledge of three languages) and/or graduate work in a requisite subject or profes- sional field in addition to two or more years of requisite experience. A major aspect of the work at this level in- cludes the solution of problems involving varied Position Classification I 211 and complex procedures, the simultaneous ap- proach to several problems, and/or handling prob- lems passed on from below. Performance requires substantially higher levels of analytical ability and resourcefulness than degree A, and there is a sig- nificant investigative factor in the assignment. Work involves staff assignments or special proj- ects within and occasionally beyond the functional unit and may require participation in formulating policies , developing program plans, recommend- ing new or revised methods or techniques . J)egree D For positions that clearly fall between degrees C and E or that compare in some respects with degree C and in other respects with degree E. Degree E Responsibility at this level substantially exceeds that of degree C . Within library policy, work is performed with independence to set goals and to choose methods of accomplishment. Performance demands originality, initiative, and resourceful- ness and requires four or more years of increas- ingly responsible requisite experience and/or a second master's degree in a requisite subject or specialization in library science beyond the A. M.L.S. The significant factors at this level are those of final authority for the operations of the functional unit and/or specialized activity and sig- nificant contribution , on a continuing basis, to policy planning and development beyond the functional unit . FA CTOR 2: LEYEL OF RESPOII