• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
George Needham Report and Recommendations / Salt Lake City Public Library System Page 1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ONSALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ISSUESFinal report, October 5, 2010George Needham, Consultant
 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS1.
 
To improve efficiency in implementation, reorganize the administrative and managementstructure of the Library.2.
 
To remove ambiguity in reporting structures and decision making, update the Employee Manual
and the Policy and Procedure Manual to remove references to “participative management.”
3.
 
To make it clear that the Library Director has staffing authority, revise the Board Bylaws.4.
 
To clarify roles and to place institutional attention on the Library’s strategy,
evolve the OutcomeLeads to full-time positions as positions and funding become available.5.
 
To refresh the leadership of the Library, open all changed positions for application byincumbents and other staff.6.
 
To infuse the Library with new ideas and to get full credit for the excellent work of the Library,support staff participation in state and national library associations.BACKGROUNDIn June 2010, the Salt Lake City Board of Directors and Library Director Beth Elder engaged me
to consult with the Library “to help ensure that the Salt Lake City Public Library’s plans are well alignedwith community’s needs and expectations and that the Library’s resources are effectively mobilized in
support of those plans.
”
 The motivation for this engagement was to resolve issues between the staff and the Library
Director over implementation of the Library’s strategy, which had been introduced and approved
by theBoard approximately one year earlier. Late 2009 and early 2010 had seen considerable dissention withinthe Library, with the strategy serving as the focal point of this concern.
 
George Needham Report and Recommendations / Salt Lake City Public Library System Page 2
METHODOLOGYUpon the award of the engagement, I began a document review and held several conversationswith Library Director Beth Elder.I made the first visit of my engagement on June 30 and July 1, 2010. During this visit, I met withLibrary Board Chair Hugh Gillilan; Library Director Beth Elder; Assistant Directors Deborah Ehrman andColleen McLaughlin; the Management Team; and the Board of Directors. I also toured the Main Libraryand visited all five branches of the Library on this visit.Following this visit, I held several phone call meetings with Ms. Elder. I also spoke to retiredLibrary Director Nancy Tessman. I continued to review documents pertaining to the strategic plan andthe reactions to the plan, including the recommendations of the expert committees for each of theoutcome groups.On August 23, 2010, my consulting partner Joan Frye Williams and I held a day-long meeting forthe Management Team and the Board of Directors. The purpose of this meeting was to focus attentionon the work that needed to be accomplished, to identify beliefs and practices that were getting in theway of moving forward, and to try to agree on specific roles and responsibilities for each of the key
groups of players involved in the Library’s operations. The first two objectives of this meeting were
accomplished, but the group remained divided about decision-making roles and lines of authority.After another series of phone calls, I returned for the final visit of my engagement September 8-
10, 2010 and shared both my observations about the Library’s current processes and my i
nitialrecommendations for moving forward. This visit included a three-hour meeting with the Management
Team that closed with general support for the Library’s strategy and a commitment to improve
communications across all sectors.RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATION 1
Reorganize the administrative and management structure of the Library.
The current structure of the Management Team is too large and unwieldy to be effective. Thestructure has given rise to a sense
—
perceived or real
—
of delayed decision-making, and frequentdisagreements over who has the authority to make which decisions.The Management Team is also a heavy overhead burden for the Library. If 30 people aremeeting twice a month for an average meeting of four hours, and the average hourly salary and benefitsof the people in the room is, for purposes of example only, $35, the annual cost of the ManagementTeam meetings to the Salt Lake City Library is over $100,000. This does not include travel time forbranch staff or the opportunity costs of what else these staff members could be doing during this time.
 
George Needham Report and Recommendations / Salt Lake City Public Library System Page 3
I recommend that an Administrative Team of five to six people
—
the Library Director, theAssistant Directors, and the Associate Directors
—
be created. This team will have the general authorityto car
ry out the instructions and tone set by the Board of Directors, under the Library Director’s
guidance. This includes decisions about the highest level of concerns for the Library, including theannual budget, staff deployment, creation of new systemwide library services, selection anddevelopment of new locations, approval of systemwide grants and other funding opportunities, andsimilar areas that affect the entire Library system.In this structure, the Assistant Directors will each supervise a group of Managers who reportdirectly to them. The Assistant Directors, with input and advice from their Managers, would holddecision making authority about systemwide programming, collection management and development,special events, and other, shorter term goals and objectives of the Library within the budget anddirections set by the Administrative Team. The Outcome Leads should also be represented in themeetings of the Managers with the Assistant Directors, to coordinate the day-to-day work of the systemwith the outcomes described in the strategy.To build trust and to ensure success, the Administrative Team should provide the Managers witha clear understanding of the overall strategy of the Library, the budget within which each unit andcommittee must work, and the metrics by which each Manager will have his or her work evaluated.The Assistant Managers will, in turn, work closely with their Managers to ensure propercommunication flow, from the front line staff, through the Managers and Assistant Managers, to theAssistant Directors and the Library Director. The cascading nature of accountability is described morefully in Recommendation 4.I recommend that the entire supervisory team, (Library Director, Assistant and AssociateDirectors, Managers and Assistant Managers) meet quarterly for informational and problem-solvingsessions. I also recommend that, at least every other year, this Team meet offsite for at least a fullworking day to review strategy and confer on direction.RECOMMENDATION 2
Update the Employee Manual and the Policy and Procedures to
remove references to “participative
management.
”
 
The term “participative management” appears several times in the Employee Handbook and the
Policy and Procedure manual. The term is frequently invoked, and underlies the culture of theorganization. However, this term is not consistently understood or applied, and has resulted inuncertain lines of authority.
“Participative management” has resulted in a snarl of decision making, or, more accurately,
decision implementation. In extensive discussion with the Management Team and other leaders in theLibrary, it was clear that there was no consistent understanding of this term.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...