220 220 College & Research Libraries May 1998 The University Library As Learning Organization for Innovation: An Exploratory Study Rena K. Fowler This study examines an innovating university library as a learning orga­ nization and explores the mechanisms by which organizational learning facilitates innovation. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are ap­ plied. Three levels of library activity—individual, departmental, and or­ ganizational—are studied.Three aspects of a learning organization model are considered: continuous learning, team learning, and shared vision. Internet use serves as the outcome variable, representing innovation. Through qualitative analysis, a series of vehicles for organizational learn­ ing is identified, and partial support for the model was established through quantitative analysis. Human beings are not the only ones whose learning ability is directly related to their ability to convey information. As a species, birds have great potential to learn, but there are important differences among them. Titmice, for example, move in flocks and mix freely, whereas robins live in well-defined parts of the garden and for the most part communicate antagonistically across the borders of their territories. Virtually all the titmice in the U.K. quickly learned how to pierce the seals of milk bottles left at doorsteps. But robins as a group will never learn to do this (though individual birds may) because their capacity for institu­ tional learning is low; one bird’s knowledge does not spread. . . . The best learn­ ing takes place in teams that accept that the whole is larger than the sum of the parts, that there is a good that transcends the individual.1 earning across territories be­ comes important when new in­ novations are introduced, as testified above by Arie P. De Geus, a Shell Oil executive quoting from a research article on ornithology. And university libraries today contend with a great deal of innovation in new technol­ ogy, which is exacerbated by dynamic economic and market conditions. Central to technological change is adaptation to life on the information highway, the Internet, which some forecast to represent the “library” of the future. Confronted with this task, academic librarians struggle to understand the dimensions of the change and to find the means to ac­ complish it. In a 1993 article, “Organiza­ tional Change in Research Libraries,” Su­ san Lee writes: “Today’s research libraries Rena K. Fowler is University Librarian at Humboldt State University; e-mail: rkf1@axe.humboldt.edu. 220 mailto:rkf1@axe.humboldt.edu The University Library as Learning Organization 221 face changes exceeding the scope of natu­ ral assimilation processes, and lack suffi­ ciently comprehensive methods for ad­ justing and adapting to the turbulence. To enhance effectiveness, achieve excel­ lence, and ensure survival research li­ brary leaders need, in full collaboration with staff members, to develop conscious, explicit processes for organizational change.”2 There is the sense within the field that investment now is demanded in both technological innovation and organiza­ tional change to accommodate it. Background A framework for understanding may be found in modern organizational theory and the concept of planned change, en­ tailing “the use of valid knowledge and information as a basis for plans and pro­ grams of change.”3 In the view of an early leader, Kurt Lewin, learning is critical to all processes, for people must learn to learn in order to change.4 Systems theory, prominent in this discipline, stresses the dependence of organizations on inputs from the environment.5 Alongside system theory, the management of corporate or organizational culture has been an impor­ tant element in the study of planned change. Edgar H. Schein defines this as “the system of norms, beliefs and as­ sumptions, and values that determine how people in the organization act—even when that action may be at odds with written policies and formal reporting re­ lationships.”6 Within librarianship, surveys of this literature have been put forth by John N. Olsgaard and Peggy Johnson.7 A number of dissertations in the field have investi­ gated and found a positive relationship between participatory management and the introduction of some form of automa­ tion or technology, specifically those by Wilson Luquire, Larry N. Osborne, and Olsgaard.8 Charles R. Martell’s The Cli­ ent-Centered Academic Library, together with advocates for matrix management and experimentation, builds on this lit­ erature within academic librarianship.9 The study of organizational change logically relates to the more specific idea of introducing workplace innovation for which a separate, but related, body of lit­ erature exists. According to longtime re­ searcher Everett M. Rogers, an innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is per­ ceived as new by an individual or other unit.10 Studies by those interested in the diffusion of innovations have dealt most successfully with the characteristics of an individual who innovates.11 Scholars have struggled in carrying theories to the or­ ganizational level where quantitative models have proven complex.12 Diffusion of innovation studies has been applied to libraries by several researchers, notably in a dissertation by Helen A. Howard and a research project of Jose-Marie Griffiths.13 Clarion calls for change have come forth from the business management lit­ erature of the 1980s and 1990s, adding to earlier research in the social sciences and management fields and reflecting na­ tional and international change in the workplace.14 The literature of librarian- ship has mirrored that of management in calling for change associated with tech­ nology in the field.15 With the growth of organizational studies, scholars and consultants have devised many techniques to aid the prac­ ticing manager to better understand and improve the workplace. From surveys and small-group discussions, these tools have been fashioned into multifaceted processes. Strategic planning has been especially popular, although in recent years it has been criticized as ineffective, overly bureaucratic, and irrelevant. Thus, strategic planning has been replaced by continuous planning, which treats plan­ ning as an evolving process, incorporat­ ing reference to the environment and plans adjusted based on learning.16 This contributes to the concept of the learning organization, defined by David A. Garvin, as one that is “skilled at creating, http:learning.16 http:field.15 http:workplace.14 http:Griffiths.13 http:complex.12 http:innovates.11 222 College & Research Libraries May 1998 acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights.”17 The learning organization model has origins of its own in other threads of the literature for the management of change.18 Chris Argyris and Donald Schon say the process of organizational learning occurs “when members of the organization act as learning agents for the organization, re­ sponding to changes in the internal and external environments of the organization by detecting and correcting errors. . . .”19 The learning organization now is re­ garded as a source of competitive advan­ tage, and some think it the next logical step in the evolution of management thinking since World War II.20 Interest in the descriptive concept of organizational learning has given way to a focus on the more prescriptive learning organization, yet the models put forth do not yet offer a body of coherent theory or provide clear guidance for the practicing manager.21 Proposed sets of concepts seem overlap­ ping and complex. Ideas by differing au­ thors seem to represent alternative per­ spectives and terminology for like phe­ nomena. The best-known spokesperson for the concept in the 1990s has been Peter M. Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline. His book has effectively brought together many strands of thought that seem related and has become a best-seller in its field. Senge describes five components, or disci­ plines, that will lead to innovation in the learning organization, defined as “an or­ ganization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future.”22 These components are systems thinking, per­ sonal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning. Al­ though much praised in the management field, the work also is regarded as “far too abstract.”23 Variant models have been offered by those in the field.24 A pair of researchers, Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick, echo others but have tested their ideas through case stud­ ies with many firms as reported in two books, Sculpting the Learning Organization and Creating the Learning Organization, and numerous articles. In Sculpting the Learning Organization, Watkins and Marsick say that the learning organiza­ tion has six action imperatives: to create continuous learning opportunities; to promote inquiry and dialogue; to encour­ age collaboration and team-learning; to Interest in the descriptive concept of organizational learning has given way to a focus on the more prescrip- tive learning organization, establish systems to capture and share learning; to empower people toward a collective vision; and to connect the or­ ganization to its environment. They match these action areas against levels: individual, team, and organizational. Continuous learning is an individual ac­ tivity, albeit often sponsored by the orga­ nization. Inquiry is associated with both individual and team activity. The estab­ lishment of systems and vision rests at the organizational level, and the connection to the external environment begins there.25 The work of Senge and Watkins and Marsick constitute the fullest explications to date of the concept of the learning or­ ganization. Senge’s is quite well known; Watkins and Marsick succeed in describ­ ing similar ideas in operational terms that may be more readily tested. The literature of library management reveals parallel interests in planning and, in the past few years, the learning orga­ nization. Donald E. Riggs praised the lat­ ter concept in a 1997 editorial of College & Research Libraries.26 In a 1993 article, Shelley E. Phipps said: “Senge’s idea of the learning organization is precisely what is needed in today’s transforma­ tional academic research library. Learn­ ing about and utilizing his five disciplines provide a focus for developing the capa­ http:Libraries.26 http:there.25 http:field.24 http:manager.21 http:change.18 The University Library as Learning Organization 223 with these manage­ ment concepts and FIGURE 1 Conceptual Framework for Study much knowledge hasLearning Organization As Model for Innovation Level Learning Organization Vision System to share learning Department TEAM LEARNING Individual Continuous Learning Incorporates: Systems to share learning Vision bilities of libraries and librarians to de­ velop the library organizations of the fu­ ture.”27 Phipps of the University of Arizona and Maureen Sullivan of ARL now have offered a number of workshops to pre­ pare participants for leadership roles in creating organizations that can learn and continuously improve quality and effi­ ciency. They argue that libraries need to become learning organizations due to competition for services, new technolo­ gies, changing customer expectations, changing values in the workplace, and the challenges of higher education.28 Laura J. Bender, Phipps’s colleague at the University of Arizona, has written of Use of the Internet was taken as a measure of innovation. Arizona’s reorganization based on these principles.29 Yet another editorial, in Re­ search Strategies, cautions that Senge’s approach may be “just another short- lived, largely useless managerial ploy to motivate employees,” although the edi­ tor notes the interest and relevance of the concept to librarianship.30 Such senti­ ments as these drive interest in the learn­ ing organization as academic libraries deal with change, especially technologi­ cal change. Thus, there has been considerable re­ search in a number of fields associated been gained; however, the means by which innovation is commu­ nicated or organiza­ tional learning occurs remain elusive. Thus, Learning a study was under- Organization taken to examine an As Process innovating university library as a learning organization and to understand the mechanisms by which or­ ganizational learning facilitates innova­ tion. Use of the Internet was taken as a measure of innovation. The learning organization model and organizational learning as a process may be viewed simultaneously from differing perspectives. The model may be exam­ ined in terms of the structure of the orga­ nization by level: individual, team, and organizational. At each of these structural levels, organizational learning may be woven into the fabric of organizational life. Within each level may be a set of strat­ egies or technologies devised for and/or by staff who use technology to accom­ plish a task. Of these, the team is the ma­ jor center of activity within the work­ place. Through the team or group may be examined the presence of shared vi­ sion, team learning, and continuous or lifelong learning. Through the learning of individual staff are known the effects of organizational systems to capture and share learning. The learning organization model, seen through organizational pro­ cesses, contributes to change and inno­ vation. This framework is displayed in figure 1. Methodology A two-pronged study was designed to examine an innovating university library as a learning organization and to under­ stand the mechanisms by which organi­ zational learning facilitates innovation. http:librarianship.30 http:principles.29 http:education.28 224 College & Research Libraries May 1998 Given its significance for library work, use of the Internet, encompassing the World Wide Web, was selected as the in­ novation to incorporate into the project. Three research questions were put forth: 1. How does organizational learning occur in a given university library today, and how does it contribute to the inno­ vation process? 2. As part of this broad process, how does organizational learning contribute to use of the Internet and the Web as an innovation? 3. How does this learning and inno­ vation match a learning organization framework based on the literature asso­ ciated with management for change and innovation? The first two questions were designed to explore the process by which organi­ zational learning occurs and the third to incorporate a framework for testing a model, containing five more specific ques­ tions: 1. Within a university library work team, will individuals who engage in more continuous learning be more inno­ vative? 2. Among members of a university li­ brary work team, will individuals who do more team learning be more innova­ tive? 3. Among university library work teams, will teams that do more team learning be more innovative? 4. Among members of a university li­ brary work team, will individuals who share an organizational vision be more innovative? 5. Among university library work teams, will teams that hold a more strongly shared organizational vision be more innovative? The methodology chosen to test these hypotheses was a case study drawing together both qualitative and quantitative forms of research to examine one organi­ zation and the departments within it as units of study. Qualitative data, drawn from interviews, were coded, classified, and measured against the model and pro­ cess through explanation-building and a search for rival explanations. Quantita­ tive data, collected to test the series of five hypotheses pertaining to the model for the learning organization, were tested by standard techniques for statistical analy­ sis in the social sciences, including de­ scriptive statistics, contingency tables, and regression. The principal indepen­ dent variables were:  continuous learning;  team learning;  shared vision. Each was measured and scored through a series of questions to respon­ dents. Data also were collected for a se­ ries of background variables. The depen­ dent variable, use of the Internet, was measured through three factors:  common uses of the Internet;  tasks performed on the Internet;  attitudes toward performance of work on the Internet. Again, each was measured and scored through a series of questions to respon­ dents. As a case study of a single institution, many researchers would argue that its results cannot be generalized. That stand has been challenged by a proponent of case studies, Robert K. Yin, who main­ tains that such studies may be general­ ized to a theoretical framework and bol­ stered through multiple cases within a study.31 That effort was made in this study through analysis of multiple depart­ ments. An ARL member served as the study site, chosen as one actively engaged in technological innovation, showing evi­ dence of interest in qualities associated with the learning organization and char­ acteristics that might be typical of a uni­ versity library while affording leadership to others. Incorporated into the analyses were data for four of the library’s divi­ sions (Collections, Information Services, Automation & Technical Services, and Access Services) and eleven departments http:study.31 The University Library as Learning Organization 225 (Special Collections and Archives, Special Archives, Bibliographers, Reference, Gov­ ernment Publications, Business Library, Engineering Library, Technical Services, Medical Library, Automation, and Ac­ cess). Results 1. How does organizational learning oc­ cur in a given university library today, and how does it contribute to the innovation pro­ cess? Fourteen vehicles for organizational learning were identified from the remarks of those interviewed:  formal training;  informal training;  formal communication;  informal communication;  team revelation or learning;  organizational structure;  the personnel system;  planning;  professional involvement;  new technology;  reading;  exposure to a new perspective on one’s position;  leadership and initiative;  internal and external stimuli. These were accompanied by a series of incentives and barriers to organiza­ tional learning generally and, more par­ ticularly, the elements studied in the project (continuous learning, team learn­ ing, and shared vision). As part of the broader question, those interviewed were asked how library users drive organiza­ tional learning, a question with which many struggled before identifying series of:  positions to take;  formal or informal tools to use;  hindrances to overcome;  counterpositions. Organizational learning was found to drive innovation by:  priming the organization for inno­ vation;  empowering staff;  joining other drivers. Some said it lacked a uniform effect or suggested that innovation drives learn­ ing. 2. As part of this broad process, how does organizational learning contribute to use of the Internet and the Web as an innovation? Respondents reported positively that it:  aided the institutionalization of the Internet within the workplace;  encouraged creativity in thinking;  helped librarians find a new role;  offered vehicles to learn about the Internet;  produced an environment for inno­ vation. Some could not explain how it helped or interpreted the Internet itself as a ve­ hicle for organizational learning. Some incentives and barriers to Internet use reflected the unique aspects of the Internet, especially its disorganization, lack of quality control, and speed of change. In projecting future uses and characterizing the library of the future, those interviewed demonstrated just how the Internet primes people for change and empowers staff to look ahead and recog­ nize new possibilities. When asked how they learned about the Internet, respondents offered a fairly straightforward list of activities. These activities fitted generally within the broader framework for organizational learning, although, again, some were unique to the Internet’s own nature. When asked how their attitudes toward the Internet had developed or changed over time, responses formed a sort of his­ torical summary of its development. Par­ ticipants described their experiences with online searching, electronic mail, listservs, and the Web. Their memories attest to how it gave them the means to learn new skills in the past and prepared them for new developments. Asked why they used the Internet, the respondents’ answers fell into a number of purposes, namely:  as a tool, for communication;  for work tasks; 226 College & Research Libraries  to provide information services;  to provide resources;  for purposes apart from work ;  for an advantage. Beyond these specifics, they were asked how they thought the Internet might be used in the future for library work. The areas of application put forth were:  support a librarywide information system;  deliver improved information ser­ vice;  deliver more information electroni­ cally and remotely;  aid distance education;  offer librarians a new role in teach­ ing;  permit interactive user education;  promote electronic publishing;  aid greater collaboration via the Internet;  improve work processes electroni­ cally;  improve library research;  change staffing needs;  change use of physical space;  aid services for the disabled. These questions also revealed how librarians forecast the redesign of their work and aim for a user-centered en­ vironment for the services. Despite un­ certainties, those interviewed believed the Internet and the Web were here to stay. 3. How does this learning and innovation match a learning organization framework based on the literature associated with man­ agement for change and innovation? Profiles by individual department and division portrayed the outstanding responses of those interviewed from each unit, in keep­ ing with the goal of comparing teams or departments. When the ability to gener­ ate factors associated with organizational learning and its incentives and barriers were compared across all units, two de­ partments (Medical Library and Refer­ ence) and one division (Information Ser­ vices) stood out. May 1998 Quantitative methods were adopted to test five specific hypotheses tied to the third question. In each case, partial sup­ port was found for the hypothesis, based on statistical tests using regression or ANOVA with measures of continuous learning, team learning, and shared vi­ sion entered by department and division as independent variables. Three measures of Internet use served as the dependent or outcome variables. The questions and significant outcomes were:  Within a university library work team, will individuals who engage in more continu­ ous learning be more innovative? Responses from the Information Services Division and two departments, Government Pub­ lications and Technical Services, were sig­ nificantly associated.  Among members of a university library work team, will individuals who do more team learning be more innovative? Responses from the Information Services Division and two departments, Bibliographers and Automation, were significantly associ­ ated on at least one of the three outcome measures.  Among university library work teams, will teams that do more team learning be more innovative? Responses from the Informa­ tion Services Division and three of seven departments—Medical Library, Govern­ ment Publications, and Reference—were significantly associated and contributed to a greater score for innovation.  Among members of a university library work team, will individuals who share an or­ ganizational vision be more innovative? Only responses from the Information Services Division were significantly as­ sociated.  Among university library work teams, will teams that hold a more strongly shared organizational vision be more innovative? Responses from the Information Services Division and three of seven depart­ ments—Medical Library, Government Publications, and Reference—were sig­ nificantly associated and contributed to a greater score for innovation. The University Library as Learning Organization 227  When qualitative and quantitative results were examined together by de­ partment and division, surprisingly simi­ lar results were found. One division and three departments offered the most con­ sistently significant statistical results and stood out in the qualitative interviews. These were the Information Services Di­ vision and these departments—Govern­ ment Publications, Medical Library, and Reference. Three other departments— Bibliographers, Technical Services, and Automation—were evident in some sta­ tistical analyses. Skewed results and the lack of variance can affect the ability to find significance, and those may well be factors in the failure to find some results to report. When background factors and the principal independent variables were examined with the outcome variables by division, two factors were significant with the outcome variables:  hours of professional reading;  numbers of papers published. Of the three independent variables, the one most often significant with the three outcome variables when tested in combi­ nation with other variables was continu­ ous learning. Those interviewed were asked how their own library might be or become a learning organization. Most, answering briefly, thought they were in the process of becoming a learning organization. Lastly, survey responses to this ques­ tion did not result in normal distributions. Skewed results and the lack of variance can affect the ability to find significance, and those may well be factors in the fail­ ure to find some results to report. There are several other cautionary notes regard­ ing the findings: Inferential statistical tech­ niques have been applied to a population, not a sample; and this case study is based on a measurement at one point in time. Conclusions Upon examining the analysis broadly, there is support for this model, as dis­ played in figure 1, and elements of it may be useful to both practitioners and theo­ rists. However, the support is partial, the model is incomplete, and questions arise from the data that might be pursued by others. Overall, the relationships may be more complex and more dynamic than portrayed in the model. The results of this study offer evidence that organizational learning occurs through a series of vehicles that function at one or more of the levels identified: individual, departmental or team, and or­ ganizational. The list of fourteen vehicles identified might provide the basis to bet­ ter specify types of tools to advance or­ ganizational learning in differing arenas. At each level, there exist barriers and in­ centives to organizational learning, as reported by those interviewed. Some of these appeared in the list of background variables tested statistically. Of these, only two showed a significant relationship with innovation in this study: profes­ sional reading and number of publica­ tions authored. These pieces of informa­ tion may be useful in encouraging con­ tinuous learning among librarians, but further research is needed. One respon­ dent maintained that professional con­ nections for librarians ought to extend beyond the field as it has been defined, an aspect not covered by this study but perhaps meriting attention in a field that is rapidly changing. The model and process shaping this project, outlined in figure 1, do not ad­ equately describe the relationship be­ tween organizational learning and inno­ vation, as it emerged in this study. Based on the preponderance of the qualitative data, organizational learning might drive innovation because it primes individuals and teams for innovation, and it can em­ power people in the workplace. Use of the Internet, including the Web, was the particular innovation that served 228 College & Research Libraries May 1998 as an outcome variable in this study. In­ dividual initiative is a necessity, but or­ ganizational learning may promote use of the Internet by creating new uses for it, suggesting new roles for librarians through their work with the Internet and institutionalizing the Internet in the workplace. Thus, organizational learning, at every level, may move the group to­ ward innovation. However, by seeking out and studying potential rival explana­ tions offered in the interviews, another aspect of the relationship between orga­ nizational learning and innovation ap­ peared—its iterative nature. Learning and innovation in an academic library may fuel each other. Learning may lead to in­ novation, leading to more learning about and with that innovation and more inno­ vation. That may apply to use of the Internet, but there is insufficient evidence to say more because testing that point was not an aim of this study. A better diagram would incorporate a relationship with innovation, even in an incomplete form. This model and process did not broadly encompass the stimuli to organi­ zational learning and innovation, either internally or externally. Yet, these forces were raised in the interviews and one question in the study did elicit data on the ways that users might drive organi­ zational learning. This was a question that respondents found very difficult to answer. A number of them named infor­ mal as well as organizational tools. Oth­ ers described the condition or relation­ ship between them and their users, or named hindrances to knowing user need, or said that user needs either did not or should not drive organizational learning. Overall, user needs did not seem well understood, perhaps an area for future research, as suggested by one of those interviewed. The uncertainty surrounding the us­ ers’ role also might affect shared vision. Technology and economic conditions are thought to be the major drivers of inno­ vation. Technology is the apparent force behind the need for staff with new skills and ideas. Although those interviewed were convinced of the imperative to change, some spoke of a desire for a more evolutionary process, offering that some users would prefer this. The comments in the interviews might suggest that the commitment to change at this university, and perhaps at others, may be driven by factors in the broader environment for Learning and innovation in an academic library may fuel each other. higher education and information tech­ nology industry, especially the expecta­ tion or anticipation of change. Some of those interviewed expressed the concern or fear that, without adaptation to tech­ nological change, the library risks becom­ ing irrelevant. This may lead to action based on a search for competitiveness. Under dynamic and uncertain circum­ stances, there may be confusion in under­ standing just what factors are driving change. The relationships among the fac­ tors may be difficult to assess, topics that extend beyond the scope of this study. The model contained levels of learn­ ing within the organization: individual, departmental (meaning team), and orga­ nizational. Team learning was particu­ larly highlighted in the model as central to the process of organizational learning. One of those interviewed raised the pos­ sibility that the three levels might repre­ sent a progression, that individual learn­ ing is required before team learning and team learning before shared vision. De­ spite some intuitive logic in that idea, it has not been demonstrated through the data. From the quantitative analysis, there is evidence that continuous learning is a critical foundation for innovation when these three levels of learning are com­ pared together with innovative activities. Perhaps team learning and continuous learning are more equal partners than has The University Library as Learning Organization 229 been outlined in this researcher’s model. The relationship between continuous learning and team learning ought to be better understood if both are to be pur­ sued effectively in the workplace. Relationships between shared vision and innovation were the hardest to estab­ lish. Within departments, this was not established, although it was found within one division. In comparing departments, significant differences were found. The three departments in which shared vision contributed to a mean score for innova­ tion were the same ones that demon­ strated significant relationships between team learning and innovation. These out­ comes, in combination with the inter­ views, support the idea that team learn­ ing does precede and contribute to shared vision. When shared vision was exam­ ined only with background variables, sig­ nificant relationships were found with age, professional reading, and committee service. These relationships might bear further study. At this point, no evidence was found to show how continuous learn­ ing might incorporate systems to share vision, as presented in the diagram. The statistical analysis testing the five hypotheses tied to the third research ques­ tion gave partial support to each hypoth­ esis. One division of the three analyzed and three departments of the seven ana­ lyzed demonstrated statistically signifi­ cant relationships that supported the tie between one or more of these levels of organizational learning and innovation. This study was introduced with a quo­ tation by Arie P. De Geus. He described the superior ability of titmice, birds who fly rather freely in flocks, to learn collectively when compared to robins, who prefer to remain in more defined territories. In its broadest sense, this project will have suc­ ceeded if the reader has found clues to understanding the success of the titmice. Notes 1. Arie P. De Geus, “Planning as Learning,” Harvard Business Review 66 (Mar./Apr. 1988): 74. 2. Susan Lee, “Organizational Change in Research Libraries,” Journal of Library Administra­ tion 18 (1993): 129. 3. Kenneth D. Benne, Warren G. Bennis, and Robert Chin, “Planned Change in America,” in The Planning of Change, 4th ed., eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985), 19. 4. Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne, “General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems,” in The Planning of Change, 4th ed., eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985), 31. 5. Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978), 30–33. 6. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985), 6. 7. John N. Olsgaard, “Automation As a Socio-Organizational Agent of Change: An Evalua­ tive Literature Review,” Information and Technology and Libraries 4 (Mar. 1985): 19–28; Peggy Johnson, Automation and Organizational Change in Libraries (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1991), 21–56, 83– 101. 8. Wilson Luquire, “Attitudes toward Automation/Innovation in Academic Libraries,” Jour­ nal of Academic Librarianship 8 (Jan. 1983): 344–46; Larry N. Osborne, “Predictors of Satisfaction with Automated Library Circulation Systems” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pittsburgh, 1983), 138; John N. Olsgaard, “The Relationship between Administrative Style and the Use of Computer-Based Systems: An Attitudinal Study of Academic Library Professionals” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1984), 170. 9. Charles R. Martell Jr., The Client-Centered Academic Library: An Organizational Model (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1983), 67; Hugh F. Cline and Loraine T. Sinnott, The Electronic Library: The Impact of Automation on Academic Libraries (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983), 173–74; Peggy Johnson, “Matrix Management: An Organizational Alternative for Libraries,” 230 College & Research Libraries May 1998 Journal of Academic Librarianship 16 (Sept. 1990): 225; Joanne R. Euster, “The New Hierarchy: Where’s the Boss?” Library Journal 115 (May 1, 1990): 44; Ann De Klerk and Joanne R. Euster, “Technology and Organizational Metamorphoses,” Library Trends 37 (spring 1989): 462–68. 10. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. (New York: Free Pr., 1995), 11. 11. Ibid., 252–66. 12. Ibid., 378–79; Gerald Zaltman, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbek, Innovations and Orga­ nizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), 178–83; George P. Huber and William H. Glick, eds., Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1993), 215–47. 13. Helen A. Howard, “Creating Your Library’s Future through Effective Strategic Planning,” College & Research Libraries 42 (Sept. 1981): 425–33; Jose-Marie Griffiths et al, Diffusion of Innova­ tions in Library and Information Science, Final Report, ERIC, ED 279 350 (Rockville, Md.: King Research; Andover, Mass.: Network, 1986), 190–208. 14. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, The Change Masters: Innovations for Productivity in the American Corporation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 27–28, 50; Peter Drucker, The Age of Disconti­ nuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 10; Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988), 3– 4, 27; Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Busi­ ness Revolution (New York: Harper Business, 1993), 1–35; John Naisbitt and Patricia Aburdene, Re-inventing the Corporation: Transforming Your Job and Your Company for the New Information Soci­ ety (New York: Warner Books, 1985), 145–78. 15. Donald E. Riggs, Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship in Libraries (New York: Haworth Pr., 1989), 1; Lauren H. Seiler and Thomas T. Surprenant, “The Virtual Information Center: Scholars and Information in the Twenty-First Century,” in Libraries and the Future: Essays on the Library in the Twenty-First Century, ed. F. W. Lancaster (New York: Haworth Pr., 1993), 157, 178–79; F. W. Lancaster, “Whither Libraries? or, Wither Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 50 (July 1989): 407; Johnson, Automation and Organizational Change in Libraries, 132–33; Lee, “Orga­ nizational Change in Research Libraries,” 129–30; Richard M. Dougherty and Carol Hughes, Preferred Futures for Libraries: A Summary of Six Workshops with University Provosts and Library Directors (Mountain View, Calif.: Research Libraries Group, 1992), 1–19; idem, Preferred Library Futures II: Charting the Paths (Mountain View, Calif.: Research Libraries Group, 1993), 1–25; Miriam A. Drake, “Technological Innovation and Organizational Change,” Journal of Library Adminis­ tration 19 (1993): 40, 51. 16. Charles Handy, The Age of Paradox (Boston: Harvard Business School Pr., 1994), 11; John C. Redding and Ralph F. Catalanello, Strategic Readiness: The Making of the Learning Organization (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994), 21–24. 17. David A. Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization,” Harvard Business Review 71 (July– Aug. 1993): 80. 18. Dave Ulrich, Mary Ann Von Glinow, and Todd Jick, “High Impact Learning: Building and Diffusing Learning Capability,” Organizational Dynamics 22 (fall 1993): 53; Kenneth D. Benne, “The Processes of Re-education: An Assessment of Kurt Lewin’s Views,” in The Planning of Change, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985), 273–76. 19. Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978), 29. 20. Ray Stata, “Organizational Learning—The Key to Management Innovation,” Sloan Man­ agement Review 31 (spring 1989): 64. 21. Eric W. K. Tsang, “Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research,” Human Relations 50 (Jan. 1997), 84–85. 22. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990), 5–10, 14. 23. Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization,” 79. 24. Ulrich, Von Glinow, and Jick, “High Impact Learning,” 62–64; Joop Swieringa and Andre Wierdsma, Becoming a Learning Organization: Beyond the Learning Curve (Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley, 1992), 55–58, 74.; Daniel R. Tobin, Re-educating the Corporation: Foundations for the Learning Organization (Essex Junction, Vt.: Oliver Wight Publications, 1993), 14–23; Edwin C. Nevis, Anthony J. DiBella, and Janet M. Gould, “Understanding Organizations As Learning Systems,” Sloan Management Review 36 (winter 1995): 73–77; Redding and Catalanello, Strategic Readiness, xiii, 5–12; Michael J. Marquardt, Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Ap­ proach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success (New York: McGraw, 1996), 19–28. 25. Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick, Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993), 14–18, 99–102; idem, The University Library as Learning Organization 231 Creating the Learning Organization (Alexandria, Va.: American Society for Training and Develop­ ment, 1996), 4–6. 26. Donald E. Riggs, “A Commitment to Making the Library a Learning Organization,” Col­ lege &Research Libraries 58 (July 1997): 298. 27. Shelley E. Phipps, “Transforming Libraries into Learning Organizations—The Challenge for Leadership,” Journal of Library Administration 18 (1993): 21. 28. ———, “Transforming Culture: The Role of Leadership in Creating the Learning Organi­ zation,” faxed notes from speech, 1994. 29. Laura J. Bender, “Team Organization–Learning Organization: The University of Arizona Four Years into It,” Information Outlook 1 (Sept. 1997): 19–22. 30. Barbara Wittkopf, “Is Your Library a Learning Organization,” Research Strategies 13 (win­ ter 1995): 3. 31. Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5 (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994), 10, 31–32. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /All /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 1 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo true /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 151 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.10000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 151 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.10000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 600 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.16667 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ENU (IPC Print Services, Inc. Please use these settings with InDesign CS4 \(6.x\). These settings should work well for every type of job; B/W, Color or Spot Color. Contact Pre-press Helpdesk at prepress_helpdesk@ipcprintservices.com if you have questions or need customized settings.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks true /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks true /AddPageInfo true /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName (U.S. Web Coated \(SWOP\) v2) /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines true /ConvertTextToOutlines true /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.250000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (3.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice