College and Research Libraries Managing the Coexistence of Hierarchical and Collegial Governance Structures Nancy A. Brown Dual structures of governance, that is, the collegial and the hierarchical, are in place in many university libraries today. The problems from a managerial perspective of managing the coex- istence of these governance structures may include accountability, lack of organizational flexi- bility, time requirements, communication between the structures, some lessening of librarians' interest in the function of line management, the potential for goal conflict, and a lack of appreci- ation for librarians' position in their bargaining group. While there is no one solution to these problems, it is imperative that university libraries operate in such a manner as to be judged effective or the mandate of the library stands in some danger of being at least partially distrib- uted. he need to recognize and to manage the coexistence of hier- archical and collegial govern- ance structures in academic li- braries is a phenomenon of the last fifteen years. During this period, faculty mem- bers, including librarians, have commonly formed associations or unions to bargain for terms and conditions of work. It should be acknowledged without reserva- tion that where these associations or un- ions are legally recognized to bargain by provincial or state or federal jurisdictions, they have all attendant rights and respon- sibilities including the duty of fair repre- sentation. Faculty associations or unions are distinct, however, from other unio.ns because the traditional collegial processes form an integral part of the agreements and these processes are enforceable by law under labor relations boards. Librarians have sought and frequently achieved comparability with faculty with respect to collegial processes and peer re- view. But libraries, unlike academic col- leges and departments, have more formal hierarchical structures. These hierarchies can be illustrated by the organization chart of any university library. Anything fewer than four organizational levels is unusual. A collegial structure somehow linked or paralleled with a hierarchical structure, that is, two governance structures, results in a complex formal organizational struc- ture. Where authority and responsibility diverge significantly the structure may be unstable. The outcome for the library may · be an ineffectual response to a university environment which itself may be in a state of retrenchment, rapid change and tech- nological innovation. Library governance must be equal to the demands placed upon it because the li- brary is essential to the teaching . and re- Nancy A. Brown is university librarian and director of libraries at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada S7N OWO. This paper was presented at an invitational conference, "Administrative Perspectives on the Changing Role of Libraries in Higher Education: Critical Issues and Challenges for the 80s," held at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, September 17-18, 1984. The author is grateful to her colleagues for helpful discussions, and would particularly like to thank Frank Winter, associate university librarian, University of Sas- katchewan. 478 search function of the university. Re- search libraries are among the major cost centers on campus. Given the need and the cost, libraries will be asked by users and by university officials to operate effec- tively. Otherwise, their functions may be at least partially distributed. This would be exceedingly unfortunate because li- braries that are well positioned with re- spect to computer and communication technologies, that have strong political ·profiles in the universities, and that have experienced managers and expert systems staff could make a significant contribution to the information and technological revo- lution that is underway on the campuses. DIMENSIONS OF COLLEGIAL INFLUENCE OR CONTROL In academic libraries collegial models have three dimensions of influence or con- trol. 1 These are: 1. The degree of control. This may refer to the amount of influence a collegial com- mittee has on any decision. The amount of influence, or the degree of control, de- pends on whether the recommendations of the committee are advisory or are bind- ing by virtue of tradition or agreement. For example, a committee of peers exer- cises control when it decides who will re- ceive merit increases. 2. The issues subject to control. Here, for example, search, promotion and tenure committees, with the majority of members elected, may determine who will join the staff, who will be promoted, who will be rewarded, and who will receive tenure. 3. The level at which control is exercised. A collegial gov~rnance structure in co- existence with a hierarchy can exercise control or influence at any level from indi- vidual library department to the senior university administration. In unionized organizations, representa- tives of the collegial processes as well as individuals can expect to influence their union. In turn, the union has legitimate power in dealing with senior university administration. These three dimensions, the degree, the issues, and the level at which control or in- fluence are exercised can range from per- Managing the Coexistence 479 functory through advisory to full decision-making power. In a unionized university all three dimensions are mat- ters for negotiation. STRUCTURE The structure of an organization is the vehicle by which choices are made on how the work of the organization will be di- vided and how coordination and integra- tion are effected. The structure of a hierar- chy is well known; traditionally, in a library the division of work has been be- tween public service, technical service, and perhaps systems, with coordination achieved through line and staff positions and through standing management com- mittees. This traditional structure is changing in resp.onse to technological de- velopments. Other formal structures are replacing it. For example, a matrix struc- ture is sometimes employed during ex- tended or ongoing development or imple- mentation projects. In considering the organizational struc- ture of a library, it is important to remem- ber the composition of the staff. In Can- ada, the ratio of support staff to librarians is about three to one. The number of non- librarian professionals or specialists is small but is believed to be growing. Since non-librarian professional and support staff members (70 to 80 percent of the total staff) are excluded from the collegial pro- cess, a research library cannot operate with only a collegial structure in place. There must be a hierarchical or matrix structure for the library to achieve the goals for which it exists. CONCERNS FROM A MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE Given the continued coexistence of hier- archical and collegial structures, what are the problems of management? The most serious problem may well be accountability. The chief librarian is held accountable by the university administra- tion and the faculty at large for the effi- ciency and effectiveness with which the li- brary meets its mandate. Collegial committees come together, make deci- sions, and disperse. The decisions are typ- ically related to functions such as hiring, 480 College & Research Libraries promotion, tenure, and assignment of du- ties. Collegial committees may or may not have direct policy making power, but de- cisions on hiring, promotion, tenure, and assignment of duties will clearly affect pol- icy making and policy implementation. With respect to accountability, individual committee members may or may not per- sonally accept responsibility for decisions. Even if individuals do accept responsibil- ity, their options to demonstrate account- ability are limited. There may be the power to make decisions without respon- sibility for the outcome. Accountability follows the hierarchical structure. The collegium with advisory or decision-making power answers to itself. The views of the collegium may coincide as frequently with the views of library ad- ministration as the views of the teaching faculty coincide with the views of the uni- versity administration. Another problem may well be a lack of organizational flexibility. It may be diffi- cult to reorganize to respond to the chang- ing environment, particularly with re- spect to technology, retrenchment, and user needs. In unionized organizations, it may be virtually impossible to shift the po- sitions between bargaining groups. A third problem is that the management of a collegial structure demands large amounts of time for committee delibera- tions and agreement administration. The governance of the librarian collegium can be very costly. The fourth concern relates to communi- cation between the structures. The trans- fer of information, particularly personnel information, between the hierarchical and collegial structures is a matter deserving respect. Documentation may or may not flow from the hierarchy to collegial com- mittees; normally it does not flow from collegial committees back to the hierarchy. This may limit a department head in ef- forts to counsel and develop a staff mem- ber. A fifth problem is that there is some evi- dence to suggest a growing ambiguity in the commitment of research librarians to the function of management. Librarians are advancing very strong arguments for the implementation of career ladders for November 1985 librarians without managerial responsibil- ities that would enable such librarians, in a normal career progression, to reach a sal- ary and position level equivalent to full professor. Librarians have, for many rea- sons, sought to increase their community of interest with teaching and research fac- ulty members. Line and staff management ~ are generally not part of a faculty mem- ber's professional responsibilities and this may account for some ambiguity. Some li- brarians consider nonmanagerial posi- tions intellectually superior. · If there is widespread ambiguity with respect to the function of management, and if collegial committees allocate re- wards such as merit increases, then librar- ian managers may not be rewarded for their management skills. This, may lead to a nonmanagement orientation. It may en- courage the best librarian managers to seek other employment, and it can divide the librarian collegium. If librarians increasingly choose alter- nate career routes and nonmanagerial senior positions, then who will manage the library? Whether or not librarians wish to manage, many of them find it com- pletely and unalterably unacceptable to take direction from nonlibrarian profes- sionals or support staff. In my judgement, librarians cannot adopt the view of some faculty that they will neither manage nor be managed. Overall, if a significant num- ber of the best and brightest librarians do not accept managerial duties, then the strain and friction in the library will in- crease substantially. A sixth problem is the potential for de- partment heads and other senior librari- ans with management responsibilities who are members of legally recognized faculty associations or unions to experi- ence goal conflict. These individuals may be required to take a position on such is- sues as job action, withdrawal of certain services or budget cuts involving colle- gium members. Simultaneously, these in- dividuals have line management respon- sibilities that include advising the chief librarian on a course of action designed for the greater good of the library. This is typi- cally a retrenchment problem. The difficulties of managing can be con- siderably ·exacerbated by senior university officials who, for whatever reason, do not understand or appreciate the position of librarians with respect to status, affilia- tion, and bargaining group. Libraries, like other organizations, can be assessed by four criteria: by how they meet their goals, by the resources they at- tract, by the absence of internal strain, and by the degree to which all constituents are minimally satisfied. The problems inher- ent in managing the coexistence of the col- legial structure and hierarchical structure can potentially lead to negative assess- ments on all four criteria. This may occur in association, union, and nonunion orga- nizations, because the collegial structure has to have power and legitimacy to en- force its rights as it sees them, or it is not a viable governance structure. While there is no simple resolution of the aforementioned concerns, it should be clearly understood that the two structures will continue to coexist. Good _ manage- ment practices are essential if the system is to work. One might hypothesize that the development of a climate of excellence and a culture of innovation and progress are to be desired. If the situation becomes totally unworkable, the only structural re- sponse is to redesign the delivery of li- brary service. COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS ORFORMALTERMSAND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTS FROM A MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE With respect to collective agreements or formal terms and conditions of employ- ment documents and dual structures, the following points bear some consideration: 1. The negotiators should clearly un- derstand the particular circumstances of the university library, including (a) the im- portance of the library to the academic process and a recognition of the fact that although the number of librarians is small compared to the number of faculty, librari- ans are essential to the operation of the li- brary; (b) the need for flexibility to re- spond to technological developments and changing user needs; (c) the need for flexi- Managing the Coexistence 481 bility to respond to retrenchment; for ex- ample, libraries cannot take all major per- sonnel reductions from the support staff establishment and still operate; and (d) a hierarchical structure is in place because it is the only way to divide and coordinate the work of several hundred people and to provide some accountability. 2. It is only prudent to seek the best possible advice when first agreements are being negotiated. 3. Communication between library di- rectors and chief management negotiators should be full and open. 4. There should be a senior library ad- ministrator on management negotiating teams. 5. Senior university officials should be readily available during the term of the agreement to provide quick, authorita- tive, consistent management interpreta- tions as they are required and where there are campuswide implications. 6. Assignment of duties should be ap- propriate to bargaining groups. 7. Management rights should not be given away unilaterally by poor manage- ment practices. 8. Finally, all parties should accept terms and conditions of employment doc- uments or collective agreement docu- ments when they are in place, and further, respect them. It is only after accepting the legitimacy of the existence of the two structures that the organization will func- tion as it should. IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY Technology has only been mentioned briefly, but it is the driving force of the decade. It is changing the world, and the question of whether libraries can move with the online environment of the infor- mation age and retain their relative posi- tion of importance in universities is, in my judgement, still open. Over the next ten years, technological development will both permit and dictate fundamental changes in information handling. As Rus- sell Shank pointed out, ''Because more people and groups on campuses, other than librarians, now have strong vested interests in the installation, management, and use of information handling facilities, 482 College & Research Libraries the process of dealing with the issues is much more sophisticated, difficult, and time consuming than it ever has been. ''2 Unless a library goes into this environ- ment with an overriding commitment, supported by demonstrated local library systems expertise, to use technology to achieve excellence in information access, collections, and services, the chances of the library remaining a major constituent November 1985 of the information-handling campus con- sortium are reduced. The costs of technol- ogy and the need to integrate computing, communications, and all other informa- tion resources on campus will forge new university organization structures. 3 The place of the library, as it now generally constituted, is not guaranteed in that new structure. REFERENCES 1. Nancy Brown, II Academic Libraries, an Operational Model for Participation, 11 Canadian Library ]ournal36:201-7 (August 1979). 2. Russell Shank, 11 Academic Institutions and the Advent of the Information Age, II Association of Research Libraries, minutes of the 102nd Meeting, Banff, Canada May 4-6, 1983. p.25. 3. Nancy A. Brown, ''Administration in the Online Environment,'' Association of Research Libraries, minutes of the 102nd Meeting, Banff, Canada May 4-6, 1983. p.32. IN FORTHCOMING ISSUES OF COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES The Client-Librarian Relationship in Reference by Joan C. Durrance · Involvement of Academic Librarians in Curriculum Change by Catherine Pasterczyk Academic Library Regional Accreditation by Mary F. Casserly Knowledge Bases and Library Education by Ronald R. Powell and Sheila D. Creth Copyright and Fee-Based Library Copying Services by James S. Heller The Reliability Factor in Subject Access by Constance McCarthy Selected Reference Books by Eugene P. Sheehy