College and Research Libraries Participatory Management in Academic Libraries: A Review Nicholas C. Burckel Participatory management and its variants have been the subject of much debate in the man- agement literature for more than twenty years. It has attracted the attention of academic librar- ians only relatively recently. To put the issue in perspective, this article reviews the major contributions to participatory management theory, examines the arguments of library propo- nents and critics of the theory, and draws some conclusions about its application in libraries. he 1960s and much of the 1970s witnessed a meteoric increase in the number of students at- tending college, partly as a result of the "baby boom" coming of age and partly because a greater proportion of college-age students continued their post- secondary education in colleges and uni- versities. From the 1961-62 to the 1970-71 academic year, college student enroll- ments grew from 3. 9 million to 8.2 million. The growth in the libraries during that same period paralleled this surge. The to- tal number of volumes in university li- braries grew from approximately 200 mil- lion to some 350 million; the total operating budget jumped from nearly $184 million to $600 million. Expe~ditures for library materials increased 370 percent, and the size of library staffs more than doubled from twenty-one thousand to forty-eight thousand. Although less dra- matically, the dynamism of the 1960s ex- tended into the early 1970s as well. 1 Even though the growth in library per- sonnel lagged other measurements of li- brary expansion, the increase was impres- sive. It occurred concurrently with an increased emphasis on proper academic training for professional librarians; the sine qua non even for an entry-level posi- tion became the master's degree in library science. This emphasis on formal educa- tion, however, simply mirrored the in- creasingly specialized skills that librarians had to master in order to function compe- tently in a rapidly changing profession. Inevitably the increase in size of academic libraries has meant, as it has in other large and complex organizations, a concomitant increase in the size of the bureaucracies in which librarians work. Among most li- . brarians, "bureaucracy" carries a pejora- tive connotation, suggesting ''·isolated levels of organization, impersonal roles for staff members, centralized coordina- tion and decision-making, and rigidly stratified authority and accountability." Organizations so characterized tend to re- sist change, stifle innovation, and main- tain the status quo. 2 The combination of these elements-an increasing tendency toward bureaucracy and increased professionalism among librarians-has created a tension in the ad- ministration of academic libraries. The problem is perhaps more acute on cam- puses because the obvious role model for academic librarians is the teaching faculty whose organizational style is generally egalitarian and nonbureaucratic. Even if this were not true, librarians could not help but be influenced by the student ac- tivism of the 1960s and early 1970s, which began as a movement to increase student participation in university governance. In an effort to increase their influence over li- brary policies and procedures, many li- brary staffs sought and gained faculty sta- tus; others pushed for changes at variance Nicholas C. Burckel is associate director of the library/learning center, University of Wisconsin, Parkside. 25 26 College & Research Libraries with the traditional hierarchical structure of most administrations. Equally con- cerned administrators experimented with new management techniques in an effort to build morale and effectiveness. 3 MANAGEMENT THEORIES Both staff and administrators turned to management literature to find applicable theory and practice . The oldest manage- ment structure, and the one subject to most criticism, was the traditional pyrami- dal organization with the president or di- rector at the peak of the pyramid and the workers or staff at the base of the organi- zation. Information moved up through successively higher levels of manage- ment, and decisions were made at the top, then transmitted down the chain of com- mand for implementation. Except when there were changes at the top, the struc- ture was fairly stable, even static. This management structure evolved naturally as institutions grew and actually predates management theory, which is largely a product of the twentieth century. Although challenged by a host of experi- mental alternatives, the traditional struc- ture, with obvious modifications, remains the most common organizational pattern in libraries, perhaps even in academic li- braries. 4 Empirical work designed to make man- agement more a science than an art was pi- oneered by Frederick W. Taylor; it also tended to reinforce the dominant manage- ment tradition. Taylor believed that "sci- entific management'' would assure greater worker productivity, especially in low-skill, mass-production industries. He, therefore, conducted time-and- motion studies at plants and factories to devise ways to make the operation more efficient. This approach sought to make workers as. mechanized and dependable as the machinery they operated. While Taylor felt that the resulting productivity would mean a rising standard of living for the worker, many who applied his tech- niques merely did so to realize higher profits. Taylor's contribution to future management theory, however, can hardly be overestimated. His research formed the basis for the subsequent evolution of man- January 1984 agement theory and practice. 5 Taylor's work remained largely unchal- lenged during the early decades of the twentieth century, but the research of Elton Mayo at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932 failed to validate predictions based on Taylor's theory. The significanc~ of Mayo's firidings lay in the fact that worker productivity was often more af- fected by social than physical conditio~s. His major findings varied in nearly every important respect from the principles · of scientific management. He concluded: .(1) The level of production is set by social norms, not by physiological capacities. (2) Non- economic rewards and sanctions significantly affect the behavior of workers and largely limit the effect of economic incentive plans . (3) Of- ten, workers do not act or react as individuals but as members of groups. (4) The function of leadership, both formal and informal; is impor- tant in setting and enforcing group norms. (5) · Communication between ranks is an important factor in organizational behavior. 6 Mayo's research contributed to the de- velopment of the human-relations school of management based on the study of peo- ple as humans rather than work units. Managers turned to the insights of sociol- ogists and psychologists for a better un- derstanding of interpersonal relations. An extension of this school of thought, devel- oped by Douglas McGregor, Rensis Li- kert, Peter Drucker, and Frederick Herz- berg, maintains that ''if the organization makes employees happy, it will gain tli.eir full cooperation and effort, plus reachmg optimum efficiency. ''7 The concept of participatory manage- ment ~volved naturally from a cluster of ideas loosely associated with this human- relations school. Douglas McGregor, for instance, introduced two antipodal man- agement theories-X andY. Theory X as- sumes that workers avoid responsibility and are lazy, self-centered, and resistant to change; management, therefore, must direct, motivate, and control workers in order to meet organizational goals. The- ory Y, on the other hand, makes no nega- tive assumptions about workers, but rather emphasizes that management's major responsibility is ''to arrange organi- - zational conditions and methods of opera- tion so that people can achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts to- ward organizational objectives. " 8 McGregoe s work stressed the positive role of workers, given adequate responsi- bility and freedom; Frederick Herzberg emphasized the difference between ''hy- giene" factors and motivation factors. The former are factors such as salary, status~ working conditions, job security, and in- terpersonal relationships; the latter in~ elude achievement, recognition, work it- self, responsibility, and advancement\ The absence of some hygienic factors may lead to job dissatisfaction, but their pres- ence does not necessarily guarantee hig}:l satisfaction or motivation. Herzberg ar- gues that only factors such as the work it- self, responsibility, and advancement have a long-range effect on job attitudes. Thus, high productivity is a reflection of high worker motivation. 9 Another major contributor to the human-relations school is Peter Drucker, a widely published management consul~ tant, who has been credited with formu- lating the much ballyhooed concept of management by objectives (MBO), whic1' actively involves employees in planning and controlling their jobs on the assump- tion that "such involvement fosters com- mitment, and that commitment motivates employees to channel their efforts in a way that will effectively contribute to the achievement of organizational objec- tives.'' The major components of MBO in- clude goal setting, action plans, periodic reviews, and annual performance ap- praisal. MBO proponents claim seven benefits: ''improvements in management performance, planning, coordination, control, flexibility, superior-subordinate relationships, and personal develop- ment." Until recently MBO appeared to be the panacea for business and academic managers alike. 10 The last major contributor to the human-relations school considered here is Rensis Likert, formerly director of the In- stitute for Social Research at the Univer- sity of Michigan. In two highly influential studies, New Patterns of Management and The Human Organization, Likert constructs Participatory Management 27 and elaborates his theory of participatory management. He constructs four organi- zational models, graduated from system 1 (authoritarian) to system 4 (participative), and argues that the most productive orga- nizations are those that best approximate system 4. At the heart of participatory management is group decision making, which Likert sees as superior to individual decision making because: (1) Available cues are increased. (2) The imme- diacy of feedback regarding suggestions allows faster recognition of potential mistakes. (3) The greater formulation of ideas by people in groups than by people acting separately favors group decisions. (4) The increasing division of labor favors group decisions by utilizing to greater advantage the group's cumulative ex- pertise. (5) There is less inhibition because of personal responsibility for failure. (6) Pooling ideas provides an opportunity for identifying and removing errors. (7) If the group is orga- nized from members who have developed nei- ther friendship nor animosity patterns and if the group retains its identity for only a short time period, the lack of identification of the members as a cohesive group enhances their ability to consider the problem objectively.11 PROPONENTS OF PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT Likert, McGregor, Herzberg, and Drucker, each in his own way, have con- tributed to the popularity of participatory management. Although much of their work was based on industrial or business models, librarians saw in its application to libraries a solution to the problems of an authoritarian structure, the alienation of professionals, and a numbing bureau- cracy. While many librarians extolled the merits of participatory management with- out fully understanding the implications, a few methodically examined and evalu- ated library applications of the concept. The most influential and thorough of these studies was undertaken by Maurice P. Marchant in his dissertation, ''The Ef- fects of the Decision Making Process and Related Organizational Factors on Alter- native Measures of Performance in Uni- versity Libraries," and then in later arti- cles and a monograph. Marchant recognized that Likert's theory was built on research in profit-making organiza- 28 College & Research Libraries tions, but felt it might as easily apply to nonprofit organizations, and so he tested 'it in academic libraries. Specifically, Mar- chant chose twenty-two university or re- search libraries from which he collected data to measure the relationships between various performance criteria (dependent . variables) and the degree of librarian par- ticipation in management (independent variable). The five dependent variables were "(1) staff job satisfaction, (2) extent of library long-range planning, (3) uni- formity in library evaluation, (4) circula- tion of materials for home use, and (5) fac- ulty evaluation of library services, facilities, and resources." The study also included thirteen different control vari- ables, such as doctoral degrees granted by the institution, perquisites available to the library staff, and number of professional librarians, which he thought might affect . one or more of the dependent variables. Using regression and correlation tech- niques, he analyzed the data and con- cluded that "involvement of the univer- sity library staff in the library's administration produces greater staff job satisfaction and, through it, better li- braries." In particular, participatory man- agement forced decisions to be made at the level best suited for effective resolu- tion, thus freeing top management for long-range planning and cultivating rela- tions with university administrators and key faculty. Moreover, he argued, partici- patory management helped the staff ''unify its value system regarding both the relative importance of various aspects of the library and the ~uality of those aspects in a given library.'' 2 Marchant's was not the only study of li- brary applic~tions of participatory man- agement. Shortly after Marchant com- pleted his study, Henry Stewart, Jr., conducted a similar study for his doctoral research at Indiana University. Unlike Marchant, however, Stewart examined six small colleges drawn from the Associ- ated Colleges of the Midwest and person- ally administered the questionnaires. He concluded, as Marchant did, that there was no direct relationship between a li- brary's management style and selected performance characteristics of that library, · January 1984 but that staff morale was affected by man- agerial style. He further opined that there might be ''no relationship between mana- gerial style and productivity in business enterprises where there are fewer than ten employees.' ' 13 In a less rigorous approach than that of Marchant and Stewart, Jane Flener, with the aid of a fellowship from the Council on Library ·Resources, traveled to ten re-. search libraries during 1971-72 to examine firsthand the application of management theory in libraries. She found that the de- gree of staff participation depended not merely ''on the attitude and personality of the administration, but also on the dyn~­ mism and leadership within the staff.'' Quite a significant proportion of staff, she observed, did not participate for a variety of reasons-"some for personal reasons, some for lack of interest, some who did ·· · not want to take the time from their du- ties, and some who philosophically dis- agreed with the concept." 14 More recently Nancy Brdwn, University of Guelph Library, developed an opera- tional model for actually measuring staff participation. The three major determj.:. nants of participation on which the model is based are "the degree of control over the decision-making process; the issues subject to control; and the hierarchical level at which control is exercised." She also suggested how information on each of these can be obtained. While not apply- ing her model to any institution, she has demonstrated how participation can be measured quantitatively. Her model awaits application by future researchers. 15 Despite the paucity of rigorous analysis and the inconclusive results of those stud- ies, proponents of participatory manage- ment claim much for it. In a discussion of change in academic libraries, for instance, Robert Haro concludes his article with strong endorsement of participatory man- agement: The opportunities for significantly effecting change, service or organizational, can be con- siderably enhanced by a participative manage- ment approach. Indeed, the extent to which recommendations within a library are likely to be implemented, and innovative ideas gener- ated and acted upon, depends upon the amount of participation by individuals commit- ted to the process of change .. .. Participatory management can be made to work in an aca- demic library if improved service is the goal of change. While Haro' s conclusions are plausible, · he offers no convincing evidence. 16 Fidelia Dickinson, California State Uni- versity, San Diego, in a discussion of li- braries in the California State University and College system, assumes at the outset ''the merits and general workability of participative management. II The major benefits she attributes to participatory management are an increased commit- ment of staff to the library profession, in- creased job satisfaction, a reduction of fac- tionalism and territoriality, greater acceptance of decisions, and a higher quality of library staff. In a strident and undocumented article in the same journal two years later, Thomas Gwinup of San Diego State University denounced the tra- ditional bureaucratic structure as having ''promoted the detachment of administra- tors and the disunity of the profession. It has advanced professional incompetence with its politically and clerkishly orienteq scheme of rewards. II Bemoaning the fail- ure to restrict the number of graduates from library schools, the lack of either a · union or an association to protect librari-· ans, and the unresponsive structure of. most academic library administrations, he concludes that only participative manage- ment offers a realistic solution. 17 Although examining academic libraries ~ from a different point of view, Duane Webster and Jeffrey Gardner, both of the Association of Research Libraries' Office of University Library Management Stud- ies, find a number of benefits of increased staff participation in library decisions. · One benefit, perhaps unintended, of such , participation in major library planning is increased staff enthusiasm that may lead to better service for patrons and that also · may favorably influence university ad- ministrators. Another benefit from staff participation, th.ey argue, is improved staff-management relations , ''as staff members learn more about the complex and very difficult processes involved in ·managing an academic library. '' 18 Participatory Management 29 In the most recent book-length treat- ment of the subject, Donald Sager, for- merly of the Chicago Public Library, pub- lished Participatory Management in Libraries to generally favorable reviews. Sager' s is a practitioner's guide, designed to demon- strate how participatory management can alleviate common problems faced by li- brary supervisors and employees. By and large he instructs by example, relegating theoretical aspects of the topic to a selec- tive bibliography. While he writes about participatory management in libraries generally, his techniques are applicable to academic libraries. Because he writes as an advocate, his book is of most help to those planning to implement the theory . It is less useful for those needing a rigorous analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach. In one of his conclud- ing chapters, for instance, Sager correctly identifies some of the problems associated with participatory management and makes practical suggestions for dealing with them. None of them, however, ap- pears drawn from actual library experi- ence, and the general paucity of documen- tation throughout leaves the reader without anything but Sager's word on which to rely. As do other advocates, he cites a number of benefits to employers and employees who adopt participatory management-greater creativity and in- novation, less job dissatisfaction, and more individual flexibility . He concludes with an observation that the movement toward participatory management in the workplace will continue to grow as politi- cal, economic, and social institutions be- come more democratic. 19 A number of university libraries have experimented with some degree of partici- patory management and have declared those efforts a success. After a two-year study of participatory management, the Duke University Librarians' Assembly adopted a set of proposals to increase staff participation in library governance. In California, perhaps the best examples of participatory management in action are at the University of California, Los Angeles, and at California State University, San Diego. The implementation of a wide- ranging staff participatory syste appar- 30 College & Research Libraries ently revitalized the staff at Dickinson Col- lege's library, where librarians had been 'I uneasy about the quality of the library and restless about their own roles and self perception in a traditional hierarchical structure." At the University of Guelph, Chief Librarian Margaret Beckman stressed the inappropriateness of the fac- ulty collegial governance model for li- braries, arguing instead for a participatory form of management that 11 can achieve all the benefits of a collegial system and still leave the library director with a role for which he or she can accept accountabil~ ity. 1120 CRITICS OF PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT Given this overwhelming chorus of sup- port for participatory management, one might conclude that it will solve most ma- jor management problems. Criticism, however, has been equally strong. Scarcely more than a year after Maurice Marchant's pioneering article appeared in Library Trends, it was critically reviewed by Beverly Lynch. Lynch took issue with nearly every aspect of Marchant's work- its theory, methodology, measurement, analysis, and conclusions. Much of the criticism was technical, but its main tenets can be sketched. Marchant readily admit- ted his debt to the research of Rensis Li- kert, and Lynch first turned her attention to more recent studies of his theory of par- ticipative management and productivity. These recent studies tended to be incon- clusive regarding any relationship be- tween participatory management and productivity. She also argued that Mar- chant adopted Likert's model without verifying its applicability to institutions such as libraries, and then incorrectly adapted it to his own purposes. In con- cluding her review, Lynch discounted Marchant's study, declaring: !Given the inadequacies of the theoretical devel- \ opment and the invalid measure of decision making .. . the study provide~ no basis for the generalization that an increase in the library 1 staff's participation in decision making will in- ~rease library effectiveness. 21 In a rejoinder, published immediately January 1984 following Lynch's article, Marchant pointed out that while subsequent schol- arly research of social psychologists has challenged Likert's theory, a significant number of studies have corroborated it. Much of the rest of his article is devoted to a point-by-point refutation of Lynch's specific criticisms. In a subsequent article dealing with organizational structure and the academic library,. Lynch returned to Marchant's work to emphasize that what librarians need to know is not so much the relative degree of job satisfaction, but rather what organizational structure will achieve high staff performance. Librarians have to be willing, she contended, to ask the unpopular. but important question, ''Would more staff participation in decision-making result in lower library ef- fectiveness? That is, the more time the li- brarians spend on committee work, the less time they spend on professional work, which may lower their effectiveness and thus the library's." 22 The Lynch-Marchant exchange, how- ever, was only the first attack on the bene- fits of participatory management . in li- braries. Two articles by former University of Wisconsin Library director Louis Kap- lan raised additional questions aboufpar- ticipatory management. He cautioned that improperly introducing participatory management can lead to disillusionment. Citing studies made of participation in other organizations, he forecast that II much disappointment will be experi- enced with participation, largely because of lack of skill and unreal expectations." He also emphasized the view expressed by a recent study of participation theory that many of the benefits claimed for par- ticipation ''are subject neither to absolute proof nor disproof, and that no complex organization can ever operate purely on the participatory principle. '' 23 Kaplan also suggested a number of cau- tions in applying Likert's theory. He noted, for instance, that subsequent re- search has shown that Likert's dichotomy between "authoritative" and "participa- tive" management is too simplistic. Likert also failed to note organizational vari- ables, such as the state of technology, in his scheme. Finally, he omitted individual personality differences that might deter- mine whether or not an employee will ac- cept or reject participation. Relying on re- search findings based on nonlibrary organizations, Kaplan takes issue with Marchant's contention that group deci- sions will be more readily accepted by the group. Kaplan lists four possible negative results from group decision making: Individuals whose opinions have been rejected by the group may be alienated; the expectations aroused by group participation lead to further demands that management cannot always sat- isfy; the process of group decision making may prove frustrating to several in the group; though participation may bring about group co- hesiveness, cohesiveness might be turned against, as well as in favor of management. · Another possible source of tension under a participatory system arises; Kaplan con- tended, over the use of discretion. While regulations and guidelines govern most situations, occasionally good judgment dictates discreti~ in applying them. In group situations~ employees might be un- willing to grant''necessary exceptions be- cause they do riot want to have to make in- dividual judgments; they would prefer instead simply to apply rules without .ex- ception.24 In a critical overview of management by · objectives in academic libraries, James Mi- chalko also offered some caveats applica- ble to participatory management gener- ally. His review of recent research on worker motivation bears out Kaplan's point that a wide range of variables affects performance. None of the theories Mi- chalko examined, in fact, argued that job satisfaction was a determinant of job per- formance. He also pointed out that the li- brary could not realistically emulate the regular faculty because the library "is a service organization whose effectiveness depends on the coordination of its mem- bers, not their independence.'' The value of participation depends on whether or not the major organizational goal is staff satisfaction or organizational effective- ness. 25 Without directly criticizing participatory management, Bruce Bergman discusses a number of elements that contribute to job satisfaction other than direct staff partici- Participatory Management 31 pation in management. These elements, such as the feeling that one's talents are being well used or the satisfaction derived from helping another, have more to do with a librarian's interaction with the pub- lic than with the administrative structure of the library. Bergman also noted that much of what the library staff does is dic- tated by circumstances and cm1ditions outside the library over which neither staff nor library management have direct con- trol. These externalities may be crucial in determining management structure and style. 26 Although Peter Drucker is properly identified with the human-relations school of management, some of his recent work has been cited in an article critical of participatory management by James F. Govan, former university librarian of the University of North Carolina. While par- ticipatory management may be especially appropriate to some organizations, it may have much less utility, Govan noted, for a service organization such as the library. In such service organizations, Drucker has argued, management requires ''the con- trol of costs, not performance and results, as in a commercial enterprise.'' If Drucker is correct, Govan argues, then librarians need to be concerned about committee work, deliberations, and other participa- tory exercises that may push costs up without a compensating rise in productiv- ity. Participation requires time and money, ''and often, like faculty delibera- tions, produce[s] rather conservative results." He goes so far as to suggest that participatory management may be a lux- ury libraries cannot afford in a period of declinin~ resources and increased respon- sibilities. 7 CONCLUSIONS Can any conclusions be reached from this review of the extensive recent litera- ture on participatory management in aca- demic libraries? Certainly one conclusion is that while enthusiasm for participatory management continues, the experience of some institutions and the research of li- brarians have tempered some of the more extravagant claims of its early proponents: Perhaps in Hegelian fashion, having 32 College & Research Libraries swung between support and criticism of participatory management, librarians are finding a synthesis on which they can agree. No one seriously questions that properly implemented and maintained, participatory management generally in- creases staff morale and job satisfaction. "Proper implementation" usually means active support for the technique by top li- brary administrators and phased adop- . tion . It also implies that librarians under- stand the limits of their involvement and that such participation will .not solve all li- brary problems or guarantee happiness with all decisions . Conflicts will still arise and difficult decisions will still have to be made. Perhaps another reason for a more cautious approach to participatory man- agement is the realization that it is best suited to periods of affluence and expan- sion rather than the fiscal stringency and contraction of the 1980s. While many un- derstandably wish to participate in build- ing collections and expanding services, few want to accept the responsibility for reducing hours, eliminating services, or laying off staff. 28 The evidence of the effect of participa- tory management on library effectiveness or productivity is inconclusive. Current management literature suggests that staff satisfaction does not necessarily deter- mine effectiveness. Since service organi- zations are not designed primarily for em- ployees, but rather for patrons or users, librarians need to make sure that partici- patory management at least does not ham- per effective service. While it is generally accepted that participatory management does not reduce costs, no one has yet de- vised an accurate and sophisticated enough measurement of the actual costs of group decision making. Even if one concedes that group decisions are better in some sense than those of individuals, are they so much better that the additional time and cost associated with the group decisions are offset?29 This latter question highlights the cen- tral issue underlying much of the debate over participatory management-theory. Rigorous statistical analysis, like that used January 1984 by Marchant and Lynch, is a powerful tool that librarians must increasingly bend to · their use. At the same time, there is a real danger in its improper use. It is a well- developed theory of service organization management that will specify the choice of variables and the expected relationships . among them. The application of appropri- · ate statistical methods can then be used to ~ test the theory. But since much of the new , methodology and theory will come from ... other disciplines, such as social psychol- ogy, it will be necessary for librarians to : keep abreast of the current research litera- ture. Too often interdisciplinary resegr.ch , proves inadequate because part of it is ' based on discredited theory. Richard Eg- · gleton, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, summarized the problem of information transfer from manage111ent to library literature: "We accept and use second-hand and popularized versions of theory; by the time new insights reach our literature from other disciplines they ar~ years old, and sometimes, even out of fa- vor or greatly changed by the discipline from which they emanate." 30 Finally, librarians will have to accept that participatory management is no sub- stitute for individual responsibility and leadership . There will likely always be li- brary directors and just as likely they will be paid considerably more than the rest of the nonadministrative staff. Directors re- ceive such salaries not because they ar-e older, more intelligent, or harder workers than other professionals, but because they are accountable for the operation of the li- brary. It is the director who most often will set the parameters within which staff par- ticipation will operate. Librarians, there- fore, should seek in their administrators ''leadership that seeks consensus which is sound and responsive to present and fu- ture needs, but leadership that takes ac- tive responsibility for identifying appro- priate directions for library development and for the vigorous, aggressive pursuit of clearly defined institutional and client in- terests." That, in turn, promises the best environment for successful participatory management . 31 Participatory Management 33 REFERENCES 1. Edward G. Holley, "Organization and Administration of Urban University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 33:175 (May 1972). 2. Duane Webster and Jeffrey Gardner, "Strategies for Improving the Performance of Academic Li- braries,'' Journal of Academic Librarianship 1:13 (May 1975); Bruce Bergman, ''Participatory Manage- ment: Some }\eservations," Lacuny ]ournal4:7 (Spring 1975). 3. Holley, "Organization and Administration," p.175-79; Webster and Gardner, "Strategies for Im- proving," p .13. 4. Guy L. Lyle, The Administration of the College Library (New York: Wilson, 1974), p .38-39; Robert D. Stueart and John Taylor Eastlick, Library Management (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1977), p .15-21. 5. Stueart and Eastlick, Library Management, p.15-21. · - 6. Maurice P. Marchant, Participative Management in Academic Libraries (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1976), p.2-3. 7. Stueart and Eastlick, Library Management, p.21-22. 8. Jerrold Orne, "Future Academic Library Administration-Whither or Whether," in Evan Ira Far- ber and Ruth Walling, eds., The Academic Library: Essays in Honor of Guy R. Lyle (Metchen, N.J .: Scarecrow, 1974), p.82-84 . 9. Stueart and Eastlick, Library Management, p.138-41. 10. James Michalko, "Management by Objectives and the Academic Library: A Critical Overview," Library Quarterly 45:235-37 (July 1975); Ernest R. DeProspo, "Management by Objectives: An Ap- proach to Staff Development," in Elizabeth W. Stone, ed., New Directions in Staff Development: Moving from Ideas to Action (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1971), p.39-47; Peter Drucker, "Managing the Public Service Institution," College & Research Libraries 37:4-14 (Jan. 1976) . 11. Rensis Likert, The Human Organization: Its Management and Value (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976), p.3-46; Marchant, Participative Management, p .5-7. 12. Maurice P. Marchant, ''Participative Management as Related to Personnel Development,'' Library Trends 20:48-59 (July 1971); Marchant, Participative Management, p.6-10, 37-41, 148-65. 13. Henry R. Stewart, Jr., "Staff Participation in the Management of College Libraries and Its Rela- tionship to Library Performance Characteristics," (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1972), p.1-5, 107-15. 14. Jane G. Flener, "Staff Participation in Management in Large University Libraries," College & Re- search Libraries 34:275-79 (July 1973). 15. Nancy Brown, "Academic Libraries an Operation Model for Participation," Canadian Library ]our- nal36:201-7 (Aug. 1979). 16. Robert P. Haro, "Change in Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 33:97-103 (Mar. 1972). 17. Fidelia Dickinson, "Participative Management: A Left Fielder's View," California Librarian 34:24-33 (Apr . 1973); Thomas Gwinup, "Participation in Decisions: Reference, the Library, and the Larger Question," California Librarian 36:56-62 (Apr. 1975). 18. Webster and Gardner, "Strategies for Improving," p.13-18. 19. Donald}. Sager, Participatory Management in Libraries (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1982), p.vii-x, 155-79. 20. Library Journal99:2116-17 (Sept . 15, 1974); Library Journal100:248 (Feb. 1, 1975); American Libraries 12:605-6; (Nov. 1981); Library ]ournal102:321-22 (Feb. 1, 1977). - 21. Beverly P. Lynch, "Participative Management in Relation to Library Effectiveness," College & Re- { search Libraries 33:382-90 (Sept. 1972). 22. Maurice P. Marchant," And a Response," College & Research Libraries 33:391-97 (Sept. 1972); Bev- erly P. Lynch, "Organizational Structure and the Academic ·Library," Illinois Librarian 56:201-6 (Mar. 1974). 23. Louis Kaplan, "Participation: Some Basic Considerations on the Theme of Academe," College & Research Libraries 34:235-41 (Sept. 1973). 24. ____ , "The Literature of Participation: From Optimism to Realism," College & Research Li- braries 36:473-79 (Nov. 1975). 25. Michalko, "Management by Objectives," p .239-47. 26. Bergman, "Participatory Management," p.7-9. c. -- 34 College & Research Libraries January 1984 27. James F. Govan, ''The Better Mousetrap: External Accountability and Staff Participation,'' Library Trends 26:255-67 (Fall1977). 28. Edward R. Johnson and Stuart H. Mann, Organization Development for Academic Libraries: An Evalua- tion vf the Management Review and Analysis Program (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1980), p.149-51; Charles R. McClure, Information for Academic Library Decision Making: The Case for Organi- zational Information Management (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1980), p.186-88. 29. Govan, "The Better Mousetrap," p.261-64. 30. Richard Eggleton," Academic Libraries, Participative Management,· and Risky Shift," in Robert D. Stueart and Richard D. Johnson, eds., New Horizons for Academic Libraries: Papers Presented at the First National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries; Boston, Massachusetts, No- vember 8-11, 1978 (New York: K. G. Saur, 1979), p.96-101. 31. Thomas J. Galvin, "Beyond Survival: Library Management for the Future," Library Journal 101:1833-35 (Sept. 15, 1976).