DePew, John N. Allison, Anne Marie (1984) - Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration 1976-1981

Journal of Library Administration
ISSN: 0193-0826 (Print) 1540-3564 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjla20
Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration

1976-1981
John N. DePew MSLS, PhD & Anne Marie Allison MLS, PhD
To cite this article: John N. DePew MSLS, PhD & Anne Marie Allison MLS, PhD (1984) Factors
Affecting Academic Library Administration 1976-1981, Journal of Library Administration, 5:2,
13-57, DOI: 10.1300/J111V05N02_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J111V05N02_03
Published online: 26 Oct 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 6
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjla20
Download by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] Date: 09 June 2016, At: 02:41
SURVEY OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY
ADMINISTRATION
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 02:41 09 June 2016
Factors Affecting
Academic Library Administration
1976- 1981
John N. DePew
Anne Marie Allison
INTRODUCTION
The social unrest of the sixties was crystallized for librarians in the
revolt that took place at the American Library Association annual con-
ference in Atlantic City in June 1969. That event, which David Kaser
called "the revolution of 1969-1970," led to the clarification of the
sources and the flow of authority in library decision-making in the years
to come.' The driving force behind the "revolution" was the quest of li-
brarians for a share of the power held by administrators. Of course, not
all librarians were involved. In fact, only a minority of academic librari-
ans were actively pursuing this goal. Those who did soon came to iden-
tify two kinds of authority:
1) statutory . . . , flowing from the charter or other legislation,

with executive responsibility lodged in the president, and delegated
by him, with an appropriate segment allocated to the director, . . .
and 2) natural authority, (invested) . . . by the group in its leader
John N. Depew, MSLS, Ph.D.. is Associate Professor at the School of Librm and Information
Studies. Florida State University. Tallahassee.
Anne Marie Allison, MLS, is Director of Libraries at the Univcrsily of Central Florida.
Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 5(2), Summer 1984
0 1984 by The Hawonh Press, Inc. All rights resewed. 13
JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
to administer its affairs as the group proceeds in concert toward

protracted goals.
Statutory authority was not greatly affected by the revolution, but

natural authority became a primary target. A number of library staffs re-
trieved from their directors a portion of the power to govern, causing
many directors to become frustrated and ineffective, leading to early re-
tirements or replacement. These actions forced the redistribution of
power, often through implementation of group decision-making by com-
mittees, or as they were known in some libraries, "work" or "task
groups". Participatory management became the topic of numerous con-
ferences, workshops, books and articles, especially in the early and

middle seventies. By 1975, however, the movement had slowed some-
what and those who were seeking power discovered that it was not the
prize it once seemed. The library director was, in large part, already a
prisoner of both the staff and the institutional administration. Nonethe-
iess, participatory management remained the popular norm in many li-
braries and exists today in various forms. Although the peak of the "rev-
olution" has passed, the effect remains.
THE PROBLEM
In July 1976, the Committee on Comparative Library Organization of

the Library Administration Division of the American Library Associa-
tion sponsored a survey of academic libraries in the United States. The
purpose of the survey was to undertake a "general exploration and re-
view of the role of the library director" and the survey results were pub-
lished in 1979 in the University of Illinois Occasional Paper, Num-
ber 138, entitled "Factors Affecting Administration in United States
Academic Libraries During the Period 1971-75."3 The survey was
prompted by a general feeling at the time that the authority of library di-
rectors was declining and "a change was taking place in library adminis-
tration." The change had been described in the literature of the early
seventies and the Committee wished to determine the "size, speed and
direction of such ~ h a n g e . "In~ 1980, the Committee recommended that
a second survey be conducted and compared with the first in order to
detect any shifts in organizational characteristics or aspects of academic
libraries through the decade. Unfortunately, although the project was
approved in principle, funding was not available from ALA at the time.
The authors of this article, both past Chairpersons of the Committee
on Comparative Library Organization, believed that a second study
would generate useful information for the profession. An examination of
chain of command, span of control, role of committees, extent of union-
Survey of Academic Library Administration I5
ization, presence of faculty status, collegiality, or similar professional

staffing structures and the affect of budget cut-backs, etc., might help
determine how much administrative freedom the library director would
have in the eighties; thus helping professionals better understand the ac-
ademic library environment. ALA had preserved the original question-
naires and a few of the statistical worksheets in its headquarters library.
The ALA staff generously made them available for use in the new
study. Consequently, a unique opportunity existed to replicate the sur-
vey and compare it with information gathered five years later. Ap-
proaches to management that were offered in the 70s as solutions to or-
ganizational, functional and staffing problems have yet to be proven

correct and many are being challenged as inadequate and inappropriate
answers for the administration of academic libraries in the 80s. It would
be helpful for the profession to have a picture of what happened in the
seventies, before further changes took place. Therefore, the authors de-
cided to undertake the research themselves, and sought and received
funding from their institutions to implement the project in the Spring of
1981. This article is a synopsis of the data gathered in the survey.
The information reported here is a direct result of the third analysis
objective of the Committee's 1976 project, i.e., "to assist in planning
future research, in particular the Committee's projected study of the
same universe of libraries for the years 1976-80 . . . " 5 The current
study takes these same data, reformats them, and compares them to the
1976 data in order to detect changes that took place over the intervening
years. The 1981 survey went into much more detail than the earlier one
by analysing over 50 questions that were either in the 1976 survey, or
created as the direct result of answers received in the original study.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study were to:
Ascertain the extent to which academic library administrators had

control over their own libraries, and to what extent, if any, that
control had been diluted by internal and/or external groups, ad-
ministrators and staff.
Discover the extent of director turnover in academic libraries.
Determine the extent to which committees recommended policy or
made decisions.
Discover some factors which caused libraries to experience organ-
izational change.
Determine the extent of change in library organizational structure.
Discover the organizational status of academic library staffs and
the extent of participation by academic librarians in library gov-

ernance.
7. Determine the extent of faculty status.
8. Discover the extent of and change in unionization in the libraries
surveyed.
9 . Determine whether external factors have changed library organiza-
tional structure.
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 1981 survey was to ascertain any changes or shifts
that took place over the five years since the earlier investigation. There-
fore, the target population was necessarily limited to those 1032 aca-
demic libraries which responded to the initial study questionnaires in
1976.6 The population was closely examined for homogeneity. Single
purpose professional institutions, such as schools of pharmacy and the-
ology, which had responded to the 1976 survey, were excluded, reduc-
ing the survey population by 44 to 988 two year colleges, colleges, and
universities.
All of the original respondents were listed in the National Center for
Education's Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS)for
College and University Libraries of Fall 1977.' This was the latest
HEGIS information available in machine readable form at the time the
project was being developed and, therefore, was used to produce data
describing the population libraries. Each of the original questionnaires
was assigned the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE)
code in effect for that institution in the Fall of 1977. The FICE code was
used throughout the study to identify all information gathered about the
institution.
Libraries in the survey population were grouped according to highest
level of offering of the parent institution as categorized in Table 1. The
institutional categories the libraries fell within are those established by
the National Center for Education Statistics in the 1977 HEGIS Data
Base Documentation, and presented in "Table 8-Highest Level of
Offering," of that p~blication.~ "Table 9-Institution Type," of the
HEGIS Documentation was used to identify the Junior Colleges in the
pop~lation.~
There were disadvantages to readministrating the questionnaire used
in the 1976 survey, primarily because of its open-ended nature. Never-
theless, it was important to ask the same questions as in the original
study in order to preserve the integrity of the results and increase the
usefulness of the data. The earlier analysis had clearly demonstrated that
such an open-ended instrument was very difficult to tabulate and, with
Survey of Academic Library Administration
Table I
L i b r a r i e s I n The Survey P o p u l a t i o n
Total No. i n
Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n Pop. Sample Percent
Masters through Doctorate ( U n i v e r s i t i e s ) 1126 332 29.5

Assoclarion o f Research L i b r a r i e s (ARLI' (421 (47.21
U n i v e r s i t i e s w i t h 10.000+ students [lOOOOtla (198) (82) (41.4)
Four o r F i v e Year Baccalaureate (Colleges) 771 198 25.7
j u n i o r College (Two Y i a r Colleges) 1082 -
306 28.3
Total 2979' 836' 28.1
a . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h r e e p r i m a r y groups, several blocks o f new data were s o r t e d ac
cording t o those l i b r a r i e s which were members o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Research
L i b r a r i e s and those ~n i n s t i t u t i o n s which had 10,000 o r m r e FTE students.
b. This f i g u r e includes o n l y U . S . ARL l i b r a r i e s as o f 1977.
C. These t o t a l s do n o t i n c l u d e t h e ARL o r 10,000t l i b r a r i e s , i . e . , the figures i n
parentheses. Those c a t e g o r i e s are subsumed w i t h i n the U n i v e r s i t y category.
limited resources, would be almost impossible to analyze if reused in

1981. However, many of the responses in the earlier survey had been
converted and coded for analysis using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS). The 1981 questionnaire was designed to incor-
porate the analyzed responses of the 1976 study and use them as multi-
ple-choice answers for each of the questions. For example, question
number six in the 1976 survey asked:
6. Has this reporting line (path) changed within the last five years?
Yes- No-
a. If yes, how?
b. If yes, who or what was responsible for the change?1°
In the 1981 survey, question six was expanded into three new questions:
3. Has this reporting line changed since 1975? (Circle one number)
I YES
2 NO
4. How has reporting line changed? (Circle one number)
1 MORE DIRECT NOW
2 LESS DIRECT NOW
3 LATERAL SHIFT, CHANGE IN UNIT AFFINITY
4 OTHER (SPECIFY)
18 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
5 . Who or what was responsible for the change? (Circle numbers that
apply)
1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
2 CONSULTANT
3 IMPLEMENTATION OF LRC CONCEPT
4 SUPERVISOR OF LIBRARIAN
5 RECOMMENDATION OF LIBRARIAN
6 SELF STUDY
7 ACCREDITATION REVIEW
8 OTHER (SPECIFY)
These modifications facilitated tabulation and comparison of old and

new data using the SPSS package.
The Dillman "Total Design" survey method was used, which consis-
ted of following a field-tested formula in: cover-letter construction,
questionnaire formating, follow-up cards, and letters." In April 1981,
988 questionnaires were mailed; by the end of May, 857 responses were
received, of which 836 (84.6 percent) proved to be useable. Of the 131
non-respondents, 38 (29.0 percent) were two year colleges, 35 (26.7
percent) were colleges, and 58 (44.3 percent) were universities. These
comprised 11.0 percent of the two year colleges, 15.0 percent of the
colleges, and 14.9 percent of the universities in the surveyed popula-
tion. Geographical representation was fairly evenly distributed with the
highest return from the Rocky Mountain states (32.9 percent) and the re-
mainder falling within the range of 25.6 to 29.9 percent among the other
seven regions of the country. *
The responses on the completed questionnaires were compared with
the 1976 responses from the same 836 academic libraries. The data were
manipulated by the SPSS 6000, version 8.0, package. The number of
valid responses to each question for both 1976 and 1981 were counted,
the frequency of responses to each of the possible answers to the ques-
tion tabulated, and the percentage of responses to each answer com-
puted. The percentage was based upon the number of valid responses to
*These regions were those used in the HEGlS Data Base Uociimentatio~~. Table 6 , and are as
follows:"
I -New England 6-Southwest
CT ME MA NH RI' VT AZ NM OK TX
2-Mid East 7-Rocky Mountains
DE DC MD NJ NY PA CO 1 D W T UT W Y
3-Great Lakes 8-Far West
IL IN MI OH WI AR' CA HI' NV OR WA
4-Plains 9-Outlying Areas"
IA KS MN MO NE N D S D CZ GU PR VI
5-Southeast 0-U.S. Service Schools
AL AR FL GA KY LA' MS' T h e r e were no academic library responses
NC SC TN VA WV' from these states or areas.
Survey of Academic Library Administration 19
the question and did not include all of the possible responses for the cat-
egory of institution being analyzed. A further analysis, incorporating all
of the steps described above, was also done by type of institution.
The data for each question were then arranged into five general areas
for analysis and discussion:
1. Director of the Library

2. Committees
3. Organizational Trends
4. Organization and Status of the Staff
5. External Factors
The statistics produced by the SPSS package were arranged according

to these five categories, translated into tables and analyzed. Most of the
comments written by the respondents were grouped in this way as well,
and were referred to, quoted, or used to help explain the material exam-
ined. Unfortunately, because of the expense, follow-up interviews were
not possible. The statements in this article should be taken as tentative
generalizations and not be construed as indicative of the entire popula-
tion. Further research is needed to generalize these findings to all aca-
demic libraries.
THE DIRECTOR
Objectives one and two of the study were covered by this category,
i.e., the power of the director and length of time on the job. Certain
non-statistical inferences could be drawn from discovering: the distance
between the director and the chief administrative officer, the director's
immediate supervisor in the reporting line, whether that reporting line
had changed in recent years, and who or what was responsible for the
change. Other questions identified the superior of the director's supe-
rior, whether there was any change in that relationship, and why. The
questionnaire listed a number of changes that may have taken place
since 1975 in order to ascertain whether they had made differences in
the librarians' ability to carry out their responsibilities. The last question
in this group concerned turnover of directors during the decade.
One respondent said, "The role of the library director has become in-
finitely more complex with the passing years." Another wrote, "I be-
lieve that more and more, the authority of the library director is linked
to the person rather than to the office." Without an elaborate on-site in-
terview process, the study ,could not analyze such a personality-based
factor. It did isolate some measurable components of the directorship,
and traced changes in these components across the study period.
During the 1970s a series of palace revolutions took place, unseating

some highly visible directors with national reputations. This trend was
colorfully described in McAnally and Downs' landmark article on the
role of the library director." It continued to be discussed throughout
the ten year period. These revolutions and subsequent abdications did
not always take place in the most oppressive situations. Many of the de-
posed directors were actually far less dictatorial than some of the surviv-
ors. Certainly most of them could not be described as incompetent in the
traditional sense. One director who took part in the survey finished his
questionnaire with the comment.
Faculty and (library) staff have always been encouraged to make

recommendations and to be involved in policy formulation. But to-
day's decisions lend themselves less and less to group decision-
making . . . A political presence has always been essential . . . but
it has increased in importance.
As a means of gauging opportunities for directors to make their polit-

ical presence felt, the survey identified the number of positions report-
ing to the director, as well as the number of individuals separating the
director from the president. In any organization the accessibility or re-
moteness of the leader tells something about the organization. Some of
this is personal style, or perhaps the style of the parent institution. In the
1976 survey, the number reporting to the director was estimated by
counting positions named on organization charts. In 198 1 , this informa-
tion was gathered through the question, "How many positions report di-
rectly to you?'Apparent trends must be interpreted with consideration
of the different survey methods. Based on data available from 550 li-
braries in 1976, and from 810 in 1981, there seemed to be a trend to-
wards situations in which greater numbers of individuals reported to di-
rectors. In 1976, only 8.9 percent of t h e organization charts showed
eight or more reporting to the director. In 1981 this situation rose from
least popular to most popular, accounting for 27.8 percent of all replies.
In 1976 the numbers of positions most frequently identified in this re-
porting status were three, four, and five positions (a combined 54.2 per-
cent). By 1981, libraries with three, four, and five positions reporting to
the director accounted for only 40.5 percent. In 1981, following the
most popular "eight or more positions," the numbers mentioned most
frequently cited were four, five, and six positions (a combined 41.7
percent).
When examined by type of institution the results look somewhat dif-
ferent. In two year colleges, the most frequently mentioned reporting
patterns were three or four positions (each 22.7 percent) in 1976, and
five positions (17.5 percent) in 1981. Among the colleges, the reporting
Survey of Academic L i b r a q Adminisrrarion 21
pattern described most frequently was four positions (22.4 percent) in

1976 and it remained at four positions (17.7 percent) in 1981. In 1976,
among the universities, the most frequent pattern was three positions
(18.6 percent), followed by four positions (18.2 percent). By 1981, it
shifted to eight or more positions (33.1 percent). This reflects the legacy
of the sixties, and the demand of more personnel to be involved "at the
top." Some resulted from the addition of new staff advisory positions (in
addition to line supervisors). These people were automation or systems
personnel, planners, and budget specialists.
Some theorists might imply that being accessible to more people puts
the director in a more vulnerable position. However, it could be argued

that the director was becoming more influential as a power figure, with
a greater sphere of influence and greater numbers of contacts in a down-
ward sense.
The ,study also determined upward contacts. How far were directors
from presidents, and what was the nature of their access to these final
authorities? In 1976 there were 727 valid replies to this question. At that
time 76.8 percent reported there was just one position separating the li-
brary director from the president. By 1981 the picture changed slightly.
At that time there were 791 valid replies and 80.8 percent said there was
just one person separating the two officials. Most of the difference be-
tween the two periods was caused by a reduction in the number of in-
stances in which there was no one at all between the director and the
president. An examination of this trend among the different types of li-
braries shows the following:
-In two year colleges 12.0 percent of all directors reported to the
president in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 6.9 percent.
-In colleges 6.4 percent of all directors reported to the president in
1976. By 1981 this fell to 4.2 percent.
-In universities 8.7 percent of all directors reported to the president
in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 2.9 percent.
In the early seventies a popular maxim was that directors should per-
sonally report to presidents, with no intermediaries. This was also a ma-
jor conclusion of the Booz, Allen Hamilton study of the Columbia Uni-
versity Libraries, which recommended that, "Columbia's libraries
should be headed by a single executive officer with the title and status
of Vice President and University Librarian," and that, "He should be a
member of the President's cabinet and other top councils of the univer-
sity. "I4 Obviously, the suggestion was not widely accepted. Indeed, the
concept lost ground during the study period. If reporting directly to the
president is a measure of prestige, then the concern of the original ques-
tionnaire designers (that directors were losing prestige) was justified.
22 JOURNAL O F LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
The survey attempted to identify the specific position to which the di-
rector reported. Was it the principal academic officer (provost, execu-
tive vice-president, or academic dean) or another individual? Most li-
brarians believe that reporting to the academic officer is more desirable
than being administratively part of a support unit. In fact, some feel it is
critical if the library is to successfully defend its budget requests, etc.
One two year college librarian said:
With the resignation of the Vice President for Academic Af-

fairs, a change has occurred. It is not reflected in the organization
chart, but I now go directly to the college's only Vice President

(Budget and Financial Affairs). However, I go to him only on fis-
cal issues. Previously, I cleared things through the Vice President
for Academic Affairs, pretty much a formality, but an official ac-
tion nevertheless. The position of Vice-president for Academic Af-
fairs has been abolished (or downgraded) with the result that the
Assistant to the President (for Academic Affairs) takes on some of
the former official's responsibilities. However, this new office
simply does not have as much clout as was the case earlier. If I
were not an "old hand" with ties already established, I think it is
possible that the library's mission/place might be altered. Put an-
other way, there is no longer a top academic official as a friend1
bufferlboss to call on. I think I relate very well with the Vice Pres-
ident for Business, but guess who's going to win the argument in
case of a tie?
There were many such "special cases," but survey results showed that
most librarians reported to an individual wearing the mantle of chief ac-
ademic officer. In 1976, 84.4 percent of all directors said they reported
to the chief academic officer. This dropped to 78.1 percent in the 1981
survey. Distinguished by type of library, the results were as follows:
-In two year colleges 79.5 percent of all directors reported to the
chief academic officer in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 75.1.
-In colleges 90.7 percent of all directors reported to the chief aca-
demic officer in 1976. By 1981 this rose to 94.1 percent.
-In universities 87.4percent of all directors reported to the chief
academic officer in 1976. By 1981 this fell to 71.2 percent.
The most significant and interesting change seems to have taken

place among the universities. In slightly more than ten percent of these
institutions the director reported to "a vice president or dean other than
the chief academic officer," about two percent to a "vice president for
learning resources," and less than one percent each to a "dean of admin-
istration," or a "dean of support services." Just over 15 percent rejected

all titles suggested on the questionnaires, and checked "other." One di-
rector in a university library said:
We are operating under a "temporary" organization which has

lasted two and a half years. Theoretically, a search continues for a
Director of Library Services. In practice, the search has come to a
virtual halt twice as we broke in two new Executive Vice Presi-
dents. The library is now operating with the head cataloger as In-
terim Coordinator of Library Services, and she does this in addi-
tion to her regular professional duties . . . A staff member working

towards a Master's Degree in Business Administration is serving
20 hours a week as Library Administrator, handling management
functions such as scheduling, budget, and finance. The Director of
the Instructional Communications Center (that is, the Audio-Visual
Department), who reports to the Director of Library Services on
the organization chart, reports to neither of the interim administra-
tors of the library.
I
After charting the distance between directors and presidents of insti-
tutions, and identifying the official to whom the director reports, the
survey asked if this reporting line had changed in the five years preced-
ing the study. In 1976, 199 individuals, and in 1981 , 15 1 individuals in-
dicated the reporting line between the director and the president had
changed. These changes included variations in number, routing path,
and changes in the relationship itself. They were asked, "How has it
changed?'In 1976, 175 proposed descriptions of these changes, and in
1981 the number rose to 220. The descriptions were grouped as shown
in Table 2.
Comparing the number of description of changes submitted, to the
number of changes reported, there were more descriptions of change
than actual changes noted. In 1976 the number of directors who said
Table 2
Changes i n Reporting L i n e
Between L i b r a r y D i r e c t o r and President
1976 1981
Type of Change I I # I
Reporting l i n e had become l e s s d i r e c t 38 21.7 68 30.9

Reporting l i n e had become more d i r e c t 84 48.0 71 32.3
L a t e r a l s h i f t was made 22 12.6 31 14.1
Other 31 17.7 50 22.7
they felt their relationship with their superiors had become more direct
in the past five years was more than twice as great as the number who
felt it had become less direct. By 1981 this had changed. At that time
the number who felt the reporting relationship had become less direct
about equaled the number who felt it had become more direct. Were di-
rectors &joying fewer close associations with the upper echelons, or
were they merely giving new interpretations to old relationships? The
data must be viewed in light of the fact that almost one third of the di-
rectors had changed positions themselves during the time in question.
This is described later.
Analyzing the various types of university libraries revealed some in-

teresting difference~.Among all universities as a group, 32.2 percent in-
dicated the director's reporting relationship with his or her superior had
become more direct by 1981. However, questionnaires returned from
ARL libraries showed 40 percent claiming a "more direct" relationship,
with 20 percent claiming it was "less direct." Questionnaires returned
from institutions serving an enrollment of 10,000 or more (a class that
included many, but not all, the ARL libraries) cited a high of 42.9 per-
cent "more direct" relationships, while only 17.9 percent said they had
become "less direct."
The questionnaires asked respondents to check an array of descrip-
tions of who or what was responsible for the change (in the reporting re-
lationship) just described. In 1976, among all academic libraries, indi-
viduals or reasons were suggested in the following order:
1. chief administrative officer

2. supervisor of librarian
3. implementation of Learning Resources Center Concept
4, recommendation of librarian
5. self study
6. consultant
By 1981, answers to the question (on responsibility for change in re-
porting line above the director) were distributed in a different order. It
was:
1. chief administrative officer

2. recommendation of librarian
3. implementation of Learning Resources Center Concept
4. supervisor of the librariana
4. self studya
5. accreditation review
6. consultant
a. An equal number checked both these replies
Survey of Academic Library Administra~ion 25
The director seemed to be in the control of the chief administrator of

the institution. The greatest force identified as a creator of change in the
director-superior relationship continued to be chief administrative offi-
cers throughout the ten year period (109 instances in 1976, and 118 in
1981). It is encouraging to note that the librarian's own recommendation
rose from fourth place to second. However, the result of this manipula-
tion by executives seems to have resulted in some directors' relation-
ships with superiors becoming more direct, and an almost equal number
became less direct. There is a point here that should be considered by li-
brary staff who are sometimes disappointed in directorial performance.
One director commented that while her staff saw her as a senior man-
ager, she often moved in response to mandates from the provost. A pic-
ture emerged of the head librarian, seen by his or her own staff as a
powerful figure. At the same time, his or her self-image was more that
of a beleagured middle manager. Resolution of these conflicting views
might be a goal for academic librarians during the 80s.
The questionnaires asked participants to name the authority to whom
the chief institutional officer reported. The 1976 replies to this question
were not usable, but in 1981 there were 840 valid answers which pro-
duced the following results:
- 283 named a state or community board

- 361 named a private board
- 87 named a state chancellor
- 109 gave replies that were classified as "other"
They were asked if this person or body (to whom the institution's
president reports) had changed during the past five years. In 1976, 7 . 6
percent of those answering this question (59 libraries) said, "Yes" and
92.4 percent (721 libraries) said, "No. " There were 780 valid answers to
this inquiry. By 1981, there were 813 answers. At which time, 12.7
percent (103 libraries) said, "Yes" and 87.2 percent (709 libraries) said,
"No." With just a small rise in the total number of usable replies, (813
vs. 780), there was an increase in the positive replies. This amount of
change may well be normal. It is possible that a similar review of 836
other non-profit organizations in the same period would have shown the
same amount of change in governing body or board.
Those completing the questionnaire were asked for opinions on who
or what was responsible for change in the authority to whom the Presi-
dent reported. The replies are tallied in Table 3.
When asked to describe these changes, they named a change in the
governmental body involved, the addition of student representation on
the board, creation of a new, more or less autonomous board, and oth-
JOURNAL O F LIBRARY ADMINlSTRATION
Table 3
O r i g i n of Changes 70 The I n s t i t u t i o n ' s Gaverning Body
No. o f R e p l i e s
Cause 1976 1981
"Other," i . e . , various d e s c r i p t i o n s o f causual

factors
Legislature
General a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e u
Governor
ers. They were asked if any change in the authority to whom the presi-
dent reports was the result of recommendation from consultants. The
role of consultants was not significant. Only two institutions in 1976
and seven in 1981 said consultants had been involved in these adjust-
ments.
The director seemed to be a middle manager, firmly under the control
of the upper administration. His or her predicament may not be signifi-
cantly different from that of deans in academic departments, or division
managers in industrial settings. However those officials work in differ-
ent political climates. Deans operate in an atmosphere that stresses indi-
viduality, one that at least theoretically holds the dean is only "first
among equals." In industry, accountability and efficiency are "bottom
line" issues rather than standards for discussion. Library directors work
with a staff mix of professional, technical, and clerical personnel. They
must operate with all the constraints and hazards of the dean's opera-
tion, and they lack the real power of managers in the private sector.
There was little variation among the different types of libraries in the
responses to these questions. While institutions themselves and their re-
porting lines were changing, individual librarians began and finished di-
rectorial assignments. There was more stability in director tenure than
anticipated: 331 of the 836 libraries reported there was no new director
named between 1970 and the spring of 1981. Thus 37.5 percent of these
institutions operated under a single leadership figure throughout the
study period. The two year colleges provided the most stable environ-
ment for directors (41.4 percent reported no turnover). This is surpris-
ing, and somewhat in conflict with their image as rapidly changing insti-
tutions. One sub-set of the universities, the institutions with membership
in the Association of Research Libraries, proved to be the most volatile
in terms of executive turnover. Among those libraries, only 27.7 percent
indicated they finished the period with the same director who had been
in office at the start. Table 4 illustrates the number of changes in direc-
tors among the various types of institutions during the period from 1970
to 1981. There is evidence that some of these figures represent migra-
tion. Some individuals acted as directors in two or even three libraries
during the span of time of the survey. Some retired; others left the pro-
fession; some chose a return to non-administrative posts; some were
forced to leave by their staff or by institutional management.. The rate of
director turnover increased for all types of institutions during the five
year period from1976 through 1980, compared to 1970 through 1976,
and seemed to be accelerating in the first months of 1981. Turnover in-
creased in university libraries 57.9 percent, college libraries 42.2 per-
cent, and all institutions 40.3 percent, over the 1970-1976 time period.
In the 1976 questionnaire, respondents suggested changes that oc-
curred in the past five years that affected their ability to cany out their
responsibilities. Their replies were clustered and ranked as shown in Ta-
ble 5. These categories of change were offered to participants in the
1981 survey, and they were given the option of checking them by means
of this question, "Have any of the changes listed below occurred since
1975 and impacted on your librarians' ability to cany out their responsi-
bilities?" Their reponses produced the results depicted in Table 6. The
question was answered somewhat differently by class of library. This is
Table 4
D i r e c t o r Turnovers - 1970-81
1970-1975 1976-1980 1981b Total None

rrwa # % B % u % Change X X
- -
TWO year colleges 86 26.8 86 26.8 16 5.0 188 133 41.4
Colleges 54 26.0 64 30.8 18 8.6 136 72 34.6
Universities 91 25.6 120 33.8 18 5.1 229 126 35.5
~lO,ODO+l (28) (31.8) (26) (29.6) (2) (2.0) (561 (321 (36.61
(ARL members) (16) (34.0) (18) (38.3) (0) (0.0) (34) (13) (27.7)
All ~ibraries' 231 26.1 270 30.5 52 5.9 553 331 37.5
A l l percentages are based upon t h e 836 l i b r a r i e s and t h c i n d i v i d u a l numbers o f
l i b r a r i e s i n each category.
a . The 10,000+ and ARL l i b r a r y f i g u r e s are subsumed i n the u n i v e r s i t y f i g u r e 5 and
a r e n o t included i n the " A l l L l b r a r i e s ' t o t a l s .
b. Through A p r i l o f 1981 o n l y .
C. Some l i b r a r i e s i n each category reported rmre than one instance o f executive
turnover.
Table 5
Factors Affecting The A b i l ~ t yTo
Successfully Carry-Out Responsibilities - 1970-75
Repl ies No.
"Other," i.e., unique and institutionally specific

Change in college administration, i . e . . reorganization, turnover
Increase in bureaucratization. i.e.. affirmative action requirements
Collective bargaining o r faculty organization
Growth in size o f library or institution

Financial resources limited
Shrinking resources
Status o f librarian, i.e.. personal influence
Mcrger of media and library services
l n n o v a t i ~ e curricula and instructional strategies
Table 6
Factors Affecting The Ability To
Successfully Carry-Out Responsibilities - 1976-81a
Rep1 ies No.
Financial resources limited

Growth i n size of library o r institution
Shrinking resources
Change in college administration, i.e.. reorganization, turnover
Increase in bureaucratization, i.c., affirmative action requirements
Status of librarian, i.e.. personal influence
Merger of media and library services
Innovative curricula and instructional strategies
Collective bargaining o r faculty organization
"Othe~.'' i.e., unique and institutionally specific
a. More t h a n one factor could be checked.
illustrated by ignoring the "other" category, and listing the three most
frequent replies from each type of library:
Among two year colleges in 1976, the most frequent replies were:
increasing bureaucratization, followed by change in college admin-
istration, then growth in size.
By 1981, their most frequent replies were: financial resources lim-
ited, followed by shrinking resources and growth in size, then
change in college administration.
Survey of Academic Library Adminisrrnrion 29
Among colleges in 1976, the most frequent replies were: change in

college administration, followed by increasing bureaucratization,
then collective bargaining.
By 1981, their most popular replies were: financial resources lim-
ited, followed by growth in size, then shrinking resources.
Among universities in 1976, the most frequent replies were:
change in college administration, followed by increasing bureau-
cratization, then collective bargaining and faculty organization.
By 1981, their most frequent replies were: financial resources lim-
ited, increasing bureaucratization, then shrinking resources.
The variation in volume of replies between the two questionnaires is ex-

plained by the different approaches (open-ended vs. check-off). How-
ever, the agreement on the impact of limited financial resources is
surely an indication of one source of conflict that may have led to the
departure of many of the directors portrayed in the revolving door statis-
tics quoted above. It is worth noting that an ability to attract external
funding is increasingly found in advertisements for directorships appear-
ing in the professional journals. This may reflect the financial stringency
described by respondents. However, since there is a finite (and shrink-
ing) amount of federal and foundation support available for academic
libraries, this new arena of competition (fund raising) may only lead to a
new series of disappointments, and a new round of directorial "fail-
ures. "
Perhaps failure to attract outside contributions will be the tragic flaw
of the 1980s, taking its place with the 1970s failures to govern in an ac-
ceptably participatory manner, or to negotiate a satisfactory marriage
contract between print and audio-visual interests. Possibly by 1990 the
concept of "shared" academic directorship will have evolved, with ac-
ceptance of the idea that no one individual can master the variety of
roles needed. Peter Drucker suggested that "top management work is
work for a team rather than for one man," and envisioned the formation
of such a team or secretariat.I5The remarkable success of the Hewlitt-
Packard relationship might be a good example of the power of such a
team. Perhaps libraries, by the end of the eighties, will be directed by a
cluster of individuals, with different persons managing automation, bud-
gets, preservation-and-conservation, alternative information formats,
and other facets of the library gestalt.
Among the two year colleges, 174 (out of 267) said, "No," when
asked if their library was a member of a bibliographic utility. For the
colleges, this figure was 51 out of 190; and for the universities it was
only 40 out of 327. A focus on the "Yes" replies shows the following
totals: two year colleges, 93 out of 267; colleges, 139 out of 190; and
30 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMlNISTRATION
universities, 287 out of 327. It seems safe to assume that the on-line
networks will persist into the 90s. However, managing network partici-
pation will become a challenge to directors' administrative skills as the
utilities mature. The high cost of maintaining national (and interna-
tional) cataloging standards may price some institutions out of the mar-
ket, thrusting a director between what is "best" for the local library and
what is being demanded by the network. Presidents and provosts admire
directors who are able to negotiate cooperative inter-institutional agree-
ments, but they will become less than enthusiastic when the demands of
the network are not in harmony with local needs. It appears that technol-
ogy will not be the stumbling block to greater and more mutually-depen-
dent on-line affiliations. The difficulties will center on costs, taxation
without representation, and willingness to make concessions on political
and economic issues. Network membership is discussed again later, in
the section on organizational trends. It is worth noting that it was not
even considered as a point to be covered when the original questionnaire
was designed. If there should be a third survey in 1986, however, it
seems clear that computer literacy and the ability to manage technology
will be seen as major elements in directorial success.
In summary, quite often there were eight or more persons reporting to
the director, and indications were that his or her span of control was
broader than in earlier years. Generally, information about the power
structure in the chain of command above the library portrayed a typical
director who reported to a chief academic officer (vice-president or
dean), who was usually just one position removed from the president.
This president, in turn, reported to a state or private board that remained
relatively stable over the decade. There seemed to have been some shift-
ing of reporting lines. Decisions to initiate these shifts were most often
made by the president. The rate of director turnover was increasing by
the end of the report period, especially in college and university libraries
where it was rising significantly. Diminishing funds and institutional
growth affected librarians' abilities to successfully discharge their re-
sponsibilities.
COMMITTEES
Throughout the 1970s group participation in library administration,

governance, and policy setting grew to become an established and ac-
cepted fact of management. Committees have been a part of academic
library life since at least the 18th century, when in 1795 three faculty
members were appointed to supervise the expenditure of fifty dollars for
books at the University of North Carolina.I6 That faculty committee of
long ago immediately brings to light a major difference among comrnit-
Suwey o/Academic Library Adminisrration 31
tees then and now, i.e., the establishment of internal staff committees
created to examine, make recommendations, and occasionally, decisions
about the matters brought before them. During the last two decades
American academic libraries have established numerous internal policy-
making and recommending committees in addition to the traditional ex-
ternal faculty committees. Therefore, the survey included questions on
internal and external decision and recommendation making committees.
Seventy-three percent of the libraries had traditional faculty library
committees in 1976. This figure declined slightly to 70 percent in 1981.
The committees were, for the most part, composed of teaching faculty,
some with librarians and students represented, and almost all included
the head librarian.
Most faculty library committees operate in an advisory capacity and,
in fact, work best when they do not deviate from that role and carry out
the functions enumerated by Rogers and Weber.17 They should not in-
tervene in the administration of the library and that tradition was alive
and healthy in 1976 and 1981. Over 610 faculty library committees re-
stricted their activities to policy recommendations in 1976, but this fig-
ure declined to 586 in 1981. Those which were active in decision-mak-
ing rose from 42 in 1976 to 83 in 1981.
The number of faculty committees declined by about 10 percent in
colleges, but rose by 14 percent in universities over the period of the
study. However, as seen in Table 7, the number in two year colleges
had declined to a point where just a little over half had standing faculty
committees in 1981. The rapid growth of two year institutions was a re-
cent phenomenon in the seventies and there may have been insufficient
time for the tradition of the faculty library committee to grow. Perhaps
for that reason (and the feeling of some that community college librari-
ans were more integrated into campus life than librarians in other types
of academic institutions) the need for a liaison group linking the faculty
and the library was obviated.
Some faculty library committees recommended policy as well as
Table 7
FBcultY L i b r a r y Committees 8y Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n
1976 1981
Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n # 1 B 9;
TWO y e a r c o l l e g e s
Colleges
Universities
All Institutions
making decisions. The total number of decision-making faculty library

committees were relatively few in number, comprising only 18.5 per-
cent of the total responding schools in 1976 and 25.6 percent in 1981.
However, their numbers were increasing, especially in the two year col-
leges and to a lesser extent in the universities. This undoubtedly compli-
cated the life of the director, for it would appear that he or she would be
forced to share power in some areas.
Most of the internal library groups which examined matters concern-
ing promotion and tenure, new appointments to the library staff, book
selection, building programs, etc. were recommending bodies and did
not make decisions. These groups changed in scope and stability

throughout the decade. Almost 60 percent in 1976 and 54 percent in
1981 changed in some way: e.g., 20.9 and 22.3 percent were created in
1976 and 1981, respectively; 4.9 percent and-4.4 percent were dis-
solved; 13.6 percent and 14.5 percent had their scope changed; and very
few became inactive in 1976, though there was a discernible increase in
this area in 1981.
Overall, in 1976, 78.9 percent of all libraries reported the existence
of one or two policy recommending committees (including faculty li-
brary committees). By 1981, the percentage had dropped to 62.0 per-
cent. Those having six or more recommendation-making committees
rose from sixth rank (18 libraries, or 2.3 percent) to fourth rank (41
libraries, or 5.1 percent). This growth pattern invites speculation. Can
an administrator realistically deal with six or more committees, consid-
ering time alone? Is one committee more influential than six or more?
Does a mass of six or more committees actually dilute their power? Raw
numbers in questionnaire data do not answer questions like these, and it
was unfortunate that the research team could not develop this line of in-
quiry further.
In contrast to the results on committees that made recommendations,
the majority in both surveys reported that they did not have any commit-
tees that made decisions (72.5 percent in 1976, and 78.7 percent in
1981). About 25.2 percent in 1976 and 19.2 percent in 1981 reported
the existence of one or two decision-making committees, though in in-
stitutions which had a decision-making committee, the majority had
only one. The trend in all institutions was toward a decline in such com-
mittees. Respondents were asked to describe the composition of their
decision-making committees. In 1976, 83 libraries (36.6 percent) indi-
cated library professional staff were members of such committees, and
47 libraries (20.7 percent) reported the decision-making committee was
the same group described earlier as a recommendation-making commit-
tee. The third-ranked description was that the committee included mem-
bers of the faculty (42 libraries, 18.5 percent). By 1981, "professional
staff" remained the most common overall description (with the exception
Survey of Academic Library Adminisfration 33
of two year college libraries), but the second and third characterizations
changed places. In both 1976 and 1981 these committees included li-
brary professional staff, tended to include faculty members, and were
often the same committee that made recommendations. Most of the de-
cision-making committees remained fairly stable throughout the decade
with 76.1 percent of the directors reporting no changes in 1976 and 60.3
percent no changes in 1981. Where change did occur, it was most often
in the area of composition and function, which was expected.
It is probable that committees that make decisions are more signifi-
cant than those that only make recommendations.. The former may be
more limiting to a director. These committees place more burdens on

their librarian-members, and may give these professionals more real
power. They can be a negative force, placing the director in the position
of implementing a decision he or she did not make. There is some evi-
dence these committees seek the power of deciding, but then decline to
carry out actions demanded by the decisions just made. One university
director added the following remarks:
Only I as Dean make decisions. Any decision made below me is

made through delegation of authority. All committees are advi-
sory. They recommend, I decide. Of course, if I consistently re-
fuse to follow their recommendation, they are free to seek a new
Dean. I serve as Dean at the pleasure of the Board. Neither I, nor
my faculty, who have full faculty rights and privileges, find this
administrative style inimical to academic freedom. They have full
authority, not I. It works.
As noted earlier, there were not very many of these committees,

though'they were gradually increasing. Each type of library experienced
growth in the establishment of this kind of committee, with the college
libraries leading the way, forming nine new committees in the period
between 1976 and 1981.
In summary, most libraries, with the exception of the two year col-
leges, had traditional faculty library committees which acted in an advi-
sory capacity. These groups did not change radically, although their
numbers were in decline in 1981. There were a small number of internal
decision-making committees, with the nuinber dropping from 27.5 per-
cent of the responding libraries in 1976, to 21.3 percent in 1981. Most
internal committees were limited in their responsibilities to policy rec-
ommendation, though the total number of such committees fell from
690 in 1976 to 612 in 1981. A drop in both types of committees may in-
dicate a weakening of the participatory mode of management in librar-
ies, at least in-so-far as the committee approach is concerned.
ORGANIZATIONAL TRENDS
The study revealed the academic library as an organization under

stress. It identified and measured organizational trends in several areas.
They were: 1) change in internal organization, 2) characteristics of that
change, and 3) cause of that change, as described by the person com-
pleting the questionnaire. The number of positions reporting to the di-
rector, changes in internal organization, causes for such change, and
membership in a utility, were factors which could signal and/or influ-
ence change in organizational structure.
Participants were asked, "Has the internal organization of the library

changed in the last five years?" There were 779 valid replies to this
question in 1976, and 828 in 1981. These replies brought out two facts:
first, library organizations were experiencing change; and second, the
pace of change was accelerating. Among all the libraries, 34.6 percent
reported organizational change in the five years prior to 1976, while
59.2 percent reported such change in the five years prior to 1981. Table
8 shows the relative percentages of change reported by the different
types of libraries. The figures show that across the decade universities
continued to be the institutions whose libraries experienced the greatest
organizational change, followed by the two year institutions, then the
colleges. The pace of internal organizational change was especially ap-
parent in the universities. The situation in the larger universities, i.e.,
those serving 10,000 or more FTE students, was the most fluid, with an
increase from 48.2 percent in 1976, to 72.3 percent in 1981. An even
more dynamic (or unstable) environment is seen in the figures reported
by the ARL institutions with an increase from 62.5 percent in 1976 to
81.0 percent in 1981.
Table 8
I n t e r n a l Organization Change
I n Academic L i b r a r i e s
1976 1981
Type of I n s t i t u t i o n ff % W 2
Two year colleges

Col leger
A l l Institutions
A. The 10.000t and ARL l i b r a r y figures are subsumed i n the u n i v e r s i t y figures and are
not included i n the "A11 I n s t i t u t i o n s " t o t a l s .
The survey attempted to learn about the nature of the internal organi-
zational shifting that had been tallied. Participants were asked to de-
scribe it. Their replies were assigned to one of eight general categories,
and to an "other" classification. The general categories are listed below,
in rank order, by frequency of appearance in the 1976 survey:
I. more administrative positions defined

2. addition of staff
3. fewer report directly to the director
4. more report directly to the director
5. addition of functions
6. learning resource center unified under library director
7. learning resource center unified under new position
8. reduction in staff
By 1981, rankings of the different types of changes shifted slightly.

The eight categories are listed below in rank order by frequency of ap-
pearance in the second survey:
1. addition of staff
2. addition of functions
3. reduction of staff
4. more report directly to the director
5. learning resource center unified under library director
6. more administrative positions defined
7. fewer report directly to the director
8. learning resources center unified under new position
As had been the case in 1976, respondents described some unique

changes, or combinations of changes, that did not fit into one of the
general categories above and were placed in an "other" classification.
Some of these focused on consolidation as a key element in organiza-
tional redesign, while others reported increase and decrease in staff.
One that eluded classification was the director who explained, "We have
a new osteopathic school whose librarian reported to me first, but now
reports to the graduate school dean."
When the 1976 study was in its original design phase, there was in-
terest in problems related to the media explosion in higher education.
Members of the committee that developed the first questionnaire ex-
changed reports of librarians who were demoted to second class admin-
istrative citizenship, and reassigned to subordinate roles under a media
specialist of some kind. On the basis of answers to this particular ques-
tion, the situation did not appear to be as pervasive as was feared. It was
clearly an issue in the two year colleges however.
After characterizing changes that took place in the preceeding five

year period, respondents were asked to identify causes of that change.
The causes of change specifically cited by participants in the two sur-
veys are listed below in rank order, according to the frequency with
which each was cited in 1976. They were:
1. general reassessment for efficiency

2. learning resources center concept adopted
3. budget cuts
4. personnel conflicts
5. position unfilled
6. self study
7. new facility
Over ninety percent of all replies fit into the first two categories. The
last three specific causes were suggested by equal, but very small num-
bers of participants. In 1981 the frequency with which various catego-
ries were selected changed somewhat. At that time, the order was:
1. general reassessment for efficiency

2. budget cuts
3. learning resources center concept adopted
4. self study
5. new facility
6. position unfilled
7. personnel conflicts
Ln 1976, the open-ended questionnaire elicited replies in participants'

own language, and they were later sorted into the categories described
above. In the 1981 questionnaire, the reply options were offered to par-
ticipants who checked statements they felt appropriate. This method
produced more replies, and a smaller number of answers that had to be
categorized as "other." However, there were a significant number of
unique reasons given for change in both periods. They covered a spec-
trum of issues, and there did not seem to be much difference between
causes reported in the two periods.
However, an especially wide variety of "other" causes, that could not
fit into one of the categories, were submitted by two year colleges.
These ranged from an on-going planning process for upgrade to four
year status, to an enrollment growth of 200 percent. One of the four
year college librarians said, "Organizational changes were caused by our
need to make room for a tenured faculty member no longer wanted in an
academic division." Reasons submitted by the universities were varied,
and included such factors as: a new director, computerized cataloging,
and "a court order to hire minority staff." One director said:
Survey of Academic Library Administrurion 37
I have had to "force" a lot of answers into your questions where

they don't really fit, because you don't seem to provide for our sit-
uation. Many actions (whether OCLC or RLIN, what kind of cir-
culation system, etc.) are determined by systemwide administra-
tion, not local campus or the library. That fact has, in turn,
increased the importance of the Library Council (of Library Direc-
tors of all Campuses).
While the issue of the Learning Resources Center was not reported as
a major description of change, it figured prominently as a cause given
for change. Of the 94 institutions citing the Learning Resources Center

concept as a cause of change, 52 were two year colleges, 13 were col-
leges and 29 were universities. Among these 29 universities only four
were institutions with FTE enrollments of 10,000 or more. It is signifi-
cant, though not unexpected, that budget cuts rose from third to second
place in the array.
In 1976, self studies accounted for 1.6 percent of all causes sug-
gested. In 1981, self-studies accounted for 9.2 percent. (The 9.2 per-
cent, for all academic libraries, included 8.3 percent self-studies other
than MRAP or ALDP.I9 These ARL-assisted self-studies accounted for
0.9 percent). Comments by participants indicated that a relatively small
number of these self-studies were undertaken with reorganization as a
goal. Most of them seemed to be the cyclical study required by regional
accreditation associations. Table 9 shows the data on these studies for
all libraries surveyed. Despite the fact that, by 1981, less than 10 per-
Table 9
S e l f S t u d i e s Conducted i n Academic L i b r a r i e s
TWO Year Univer- All

Type o f College Colleges ties Institutions
S e l f Study U % # % U % I %
MRAP' s i n c e 1975
MRAP b e f o r e 1975
A L D P ~s i n c e 1975
ALDP b e f o r e 1975
O t h e r s i n c e 1975
O t h e r b e f o r e 1975
None
V a l i d cases
a . Management Review and A n a l y s i s Program
b . Academic L i b r a r y Oevelopment Program

cent of the respondents cited self-studies as a cause of change; more

than half reported that they had been involved in the self-study process.
A number of participants made remarks such as, "I can't figure out what
MRAP means!" One junior college librarian said that although his staff
did no self study, they were making changes "almost daily."
The 1981 survey asked participants about membership in biblio-
graphic utilities, although this issue was not probed in 1976. It was as-
sumed networking would affect internal organization, workflow, staff-
ing patterns, and relationships with other libraries. It was apparent that
boundaries between public and technical services functions were shifting
with network membership, and new levels of interaction with personnel

from different types of institutions permitted exchange of ideas on gov-
ernance and satisfactions, as well as on issues that were directly related
to the networks themselves. In the early days of the OCLC Advisory
Committees, the sessions were open to all who chose to attend. While
only the Ohio participants could vote, everyone spoke; and new avenues
of communication were developed. One east coast librarian said,
"OCLC has become my professional organization." A number of li-
braries developed a new staff position, titled something like "OCLC Li-
brarian." Sometimes this was filled by someone who rose from the para-
professional ranks. The new utilities surely affected organizational
climate, if not structure. Of the 836 institutions in the study, 265 re-
ported no membership. They were chiefly small institutions in the col-
lege and two year college categories. Some respondents apparently did
not understand the term "bibliographic utility," and gave answers
such as "Dialog," or "Lockheed," or named a regional inter-library
loan consortium (other than one linked by telecommunications). There
were 477 libraries naming OCLC as their utility, 21 claiming RLIN
membership, and 21 "other" replies. (This figure of 21 does not include
those who made the comments just described, only those who specifi-
cally wrote "other.") The OCLC members included 80 two year col-
leges, 136 colleges, and 261 universities.
A picture emerges of academic libraries increasingly experiencing
change, with the pace accelerating in universities, especially the ARL
group. The major cause was the need to become more efficient and lack
of money. Neither self-studies nor bibliographic utilities affected organi-
zational structure significantly during the period under examination.
ORGANIZATION AND STATUS OF THE STAFF
The existence of a collegial structure, when it was organized, who

made up its membership, the type of decisions made, and whether li-
brarians had faculty status, were elements in describing the professional
staffing structure of a library. In addition, information about staff

unions, who belonged, which unions were represented, when they were
formed, had they replaced any others, and finally, were the librarians el-
igible for tenure, would give a good idea about the position and power
of librarians.
The collegial form of organizational structure became increasingly
popular during the seventies, perhaps because of the acceptance by the
profession of the ACRL standards for academic status, which practically
mandated such a structure; and the increased popularity of participatory
management which facilitated the collegial approach to staff govern-
ance. Whatever the reason, many institutions, with the exception of two
year colleges, indicated that more of them were collegially organized in
1981 than in 1976. Since no attempt was made to provide a definition of
collegiality in the 1976 survey, none was offered in 1981. Thus its defi-
nition was left to the interpretation of the respondents.
The larger academic libraries increasingly embraced this type of orga-
nization during the decade. Institutions with student bodies of 10,000 or
more indicated that 75.9 percent in 1976, and 80.0 percent in 1981,
were collegially organized. The next largest group were ARL libraries
with 63.4 and 69.0 percent respectively, followed by university libraries
in general, with 58.2 and 64.8'percent respectively. The collegial form
of government declined in two year institutions, dropping almost six
percent between 1976 and 1981 (from 50.3 to 44.9 percent). Many
community college libraries were organized in parallel with the institu-
tions' media centers under a dean of instructional services. The small
size of the professional staff and a more structured hierarchical organi-
zational design may have inhibited two year college libraries from easily
assuming the more flexible interactive approach to governance that the
collegial model encourages. The collegial model was even less popular
among college libraries (39.4 percent in 1976), perhaps for the same
reasons as two year colleges. Although, they too increasingly embraced
this form of governance until in 1981 they were almost even with two
year colleges with 43.5 percent.
The next question addressed was the status of collegiality. Was the li-
brary collegial organization considered a unit within the total academic
faculty, did it meet as a separate faculty body, was it actually active as a
governing body, was it an internal council or something else? A re-
sponse was also supplied for those who may have confused "collegial"
with faculty status, i.e., did the group have faculty status, but not meet
as a unit?
Figure 1 shows that the number of libraries which stated that the
group was inactive dropped from 1976 to 1981 in almost all cases, the
exception again being the two year colleges. Less than half of all li-
braries indicated that the collegial body operated as a unit within the
0
1976 1981 1976 1981 1976 1981
U n i t Within N o t A c t i v e as a Meet as a S e p a r a t e
the faculty Collegial b d y F a c u l t y Body
STATUS OF COLLEGIRL ORGANIZATION

Figure 1
faculty body. Most types reported that that was slowly changing, with
the exception of those libraries in institutions with a student population
of 10,000 or more. The number of library groups meeting as a separate
faculty body rose for ARL, 10,000+ and university libraries, but
dropped for two and four year college libraries. The average of all insti-
tutions remained the same for both 1976 and 1981 at a little over 11
percent.
Most of these collegial bodies were created before 1971. The only
exceptions were in ARL libraries where 44.1 percent were organized
from 1971 through.1975. The rate of creation of collegially oriented li-
brarians' groups dropped for all types of libraries between 1976 and
1981. Perhaps participatory management had reached its peak in the
early 1970s and the.reduction in the creation of collegial forms of gov-
ernance was one manifestation of a change in that trend. However, the
types of decisions made by these bodies may throw some light on
whether they are indeed retaining their effectiveness as vehicles for par-
ticipatory management. A precipitous drop took place between 1976 and
1981 in the number of organizations reporting that these bodies partici-
pated in all decisions relating to library policy. In 1976, 35.9 percent of
the responding institutions indicated they participated in all such deci-
sions; in 1981, only 8.0 percent so reported. On the other hand, there
was also a drop from 35.9 percent to 22.2 percent of those reporting that
they did not participate in any policy decisions. This parallels the expe-
rience of committee activities reported earlier.
Promotion and tenure recommendations were the most frequent type
of activities these groups were involved in, followed by planning and
operational policy decisions. However, as seen in Figure 2, a curious re-
versal of this flow took place in the university and 10,000+ groups.
In the former, promotion and tenure activities dropped from 32.0 to
21.3 percent, and in the latter operational recommendations fell from
12.7 percent to 8.7 percent. In contrast to this, Figure 2 shows that li-
brarians' participation in promotion and tenure decisions in both the
ARL and the 10,000+ groups rose considerably, from 21.7 percent in
1976 to 50.0 percent in 1981 for the former, and from 2.0 percent in
1976 to 36.9 percent in 1981 for the latter.
Libraries were becoming less democratic and more exclusive in al-
lowing staff members to participate in'these collegial bodies. In 1976,
67.3 percent of all academic libraries in the study extended membership
to all staff members. This dropped to 39.6 percent in 1981. Administra-
tive staff, including directors, as well as staff members in non-librarian
categories, were increasingly excluded over those years.
FACULTY STATUS
Faculty status has been analyzed ad nauseum in the literature of li-
brary science and the question of whether it is justified will not be dis-
cussed in this article. However, the question was asked, "Do your li-
brarians have faculty status?" and Figure 3 shows that 78.7 percent of
all librarians responding to the survey had some sort of faculty status.
This percentage correlates with other studies done recently."
No attempt was made to define faculty status, thus responses were
made in terms of the environment and the perception of the respondent.
If the question was answered in the affirmative, the respondent was

asked to describe the status at his or her institution in the comments sec-
tion of the questionnaire. A very large number of comments were re-
ceived and the following selections are typical:
Two year colleges:
-Librarians have faculty status. They are employed for the same
time periods and on the same salary schedule. All sick leave, retire-
ment, health benefits, etc. are the same. This is typical of California
community colleges.
-Librarians' salaries are the same (considering experience1
qualifications) as faculty members, i.e., the same salary schedule is
used for both. Librarians are considered faculty. They serve on fac-
ulty committees. They have all the privileges and responsibilities
which pertain to faculty.
-Librarians have the same benefits and privileges as teaching fac-
ulty. They are on 11-month contracts.
-Librarians have same responsibilities and privileges as faculty with
exception of equal economic rewardslacademic year appointments.
Salary equalization now being accomplished. Chance of academic
years appointment appears dim.
-Faculty status means that Librarians follow the same academic cal-
endar as other faculty, and are paid according to the same schedule.
-Professional library staff members are considered non-instructional
faculty. We are paid on the faculty pay schedule and have the same
holidays and other benefits that instructional personnel have.
-Faculty status-yes, but we work a 12 month year without added
pay. We no longer have academic rank and cannot be promoted.
We do get sabbaticals.
-In (the) North Carolina community college system, faculty status
for librarians only provides for representation on the faculty senate,
sabbaticals and travel allocations. Salaries are excluded from
faculty profiles and are "lumped" with supportive personnel.
PERCENT
LIBRARIANS HAYING FACULTY STATUS

I n 1981
Figure 3
About half of the community college comments included statements

to the effect that community college librarians' salaries were the same as
those for teaching faculty.
Colleges:
-Librarians have a vote in faculty meeting. Treated as faculty for

contract, tenure, fringe benefits, but not on faculty salary sched-
ule. Do not have faculty rank.
-Librarians are members of the faculty with full voting rights at fa-
culty meetings. They do not have faculty rank or tenure.
-Librarians have full faculty status on ten month contracts: vote in
faculty meetings on committees, are eligible for tenure and sabba-
Survey of Academic Library Admitzisrrafion 45
tical leave, advise students, have all faculty benefits and pre-
requisites.
-May hold membership on faculty committees; voting privileges in
faculty meetings; same fringe benefits and school vacations as
teaching faculty; same salary scale.
-Faculty status is full and exactly like that of teaching faculty.
-Apparently based on the person-present librarian was hired as
Assistant Librarian with rank, present Assistant Librarian was
hired without rank.
-"Faculty status" meaningless. Can serve on all but important (i.e.,
steering) faculty committees, can vote in faculty meetings, but not

eligible for tenure or sabbatical.
-Faculty status includes everything except promotion and tenure.
-Administration says "Yes." Librarians have faculty rank entered in
the college catalog. They do attend faculty meetings. They may
vote on some issues; they may not vote on others. They are issued
12-month contracts . . . Salary schedules are according to a State
Board of Regents pay scale, which has no relation to the College's
faculty rank. Library staff are not eligible for sabbatical leaves.
Publication is not required. Faculty rank, therefore, is an empty
gratuity granted by the local administration only on the Board of
Regents suggestion as a means to placate those who have openly
pushed to obtain faculty ranking for librarians. Not eligible for ten-
ure.
Universities:
-Full faculty status with nine-month appointments and eligible for

rank and tenure.
-Librarians have separate faculty status with own rank, criteria, no
tenure.
-Faculty status includes voting in meetings, committees, but no
faculty contracts, different pay scale, different calendar. Work a
12 month contract. They have the option to elect a 10 month con-
tract with a decrease in salary. They lost faculty status in the 70s.
Librarians are now eligible for promotion and tenure, serve on all
faculty committees, including the faculty senate, are also eligible
for sabbaticals, research money, etc. The main difference is an
economic one-faculty on a 10 month contract make more at all
levels than librarians on 10 month contracts.
These statements echo responses reported in the literature by others

concerning this subject over the last several years."
JOURNAL O F LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
UNIONS
Professional librarians formally influenced directors in three ways.

They held positions in the functional hierarchy (subject specialist, de-
partment head, assistant director). They shared in governance through a
collegial body. In recent years however, they also began wielding power
through collective bargaining, although unions appeared on the aca-
demic library scene later than collegial organizations, and thus were sig-
nificantly less well represented in the survey data. In 1976, 50.9 percent
of all respondents indicated librarians were organized in collegial bod-
ies, and 69.6 percent of those bodies were mature (defining mature as
having been organized more than five years ago). In contrast, during the
same period (covered by the 1976 survey) only 18.2 percent indicated
that library staff was organized in unions; and 65.2 percent of those
units had been formed during the preceeding five years. By 1981 the
proportion reporting unionization rose from 18.2 to 25.4 percent over-
all. However, in this later period only 38.9 percent of them were ,new
(i.e., organized during the previous five years). It appears there were far
fewer unions than collegial bodies, and they were newer organizations.
Comparing this data froin the different types of libraries shows the fol-
lowing patterns.
In two year college libraries:
-in 1976, 50.3 percent reported collegial bodies; 26.2 percent re-
ported unions and 61.9 percent of those with unions said they had
been organized during the past five years.
ported unions; and 36.3 percent of those with unions said they had
In college libraries:
In university libraries:
-in 1981; 64.8 percent reported collegial bodies; 23.6 percent re-
ported unions; and 48.4 percent of those with unions said that they
had been organized in the past five years.
To compare union activity in the different types of libraries, one

might review the following array from the 1976 data:
-University libraries, members of ARL: 28.6 percent unionized.

-University libraries, institutions with FTE enrollments of 10,000
or more: 28.6 percent unionized.
-Two year college libraries: 26.2 percent unionized.

-All universities: 18.9 percent unionized.
-College libraries: 5.1 percent unionized.
By 1981, the array had shifted, with the following results:
-Two year college libraries: 38.8 percent unionized.

-University libraries in institutions with FTE enrollments of 10,000
or more: 34.5 percent unionized.
-University libraries, members of ARL: 31.0 percent unionized.
-All university libraries: 23.6 percent unionized.
-College libraries: 7.7 percent unionized.
As might be expected, the two year colleges, with their close associa-
tion with public school districts, showed a high incidence of unionized
staff.
Discrepancies among the university libraries as a group and its sub-
groups (those with larger enrollments and/or ARL membership) might
be accounted for by the fact that the latter groups included a higher pro-
portion of tax supported institutions, many of which were parties to col-
lective bargaining agreements on a state-wide basis, while the former
group included greater numbers of privately-funded schools.
After supplying information on the existence and age of unions, re-
spondents were asked to name the specific unions to which members of
their staff belonged. Table 10 tabulates the distribution of the most pop-
ular unions in libraries.
Between 1976 and 1981, most of the national unions appear to have
retained their relative position in the rankings. The exception is NEA,
which made a noticeable leap from third rank (13 institutions), to first
rank (66 institutions), replacing the AFT. In addition to instances in
which specific national groups were identified in the 1976 returns, 80
other unions were described by a local name or by generic type, such as
"teachers' association." In contrast, there were one hundred and sixty-
one of these mentioned in 1981. It is likely that some of them (e.g.,
Survey of Academic Libray Administranon 49
TEA") are affiliates of one of the nationals. In some institutions, li-

brarians and other staff were involved in a bargaining group that func-
tioned as a local unit of more than one national union.
The survey asked, "Who on the library staff belongs to unions?Be-
cause of the overlapping nature of some of the reply options, a number
of respondents selected more than one descriptive category in answering
this question. Their choice presents an insight into the way directors
viewed their union structures, although it resulted in a larger number of
descriptions than the total number of unions being described. Member-
ship configurations differed among the different types of libraries and
between the two survey periods. For example:
Among the two year colleges in 1976, 78 were unionized and there
were 82 patterns of membership described. Those most frequently
mentioned were:
-Librarians and staff belong to separate unions 16
-Non-administrative librarians belong to unions 13
-None excluded (everyone can belong); and classified staff (non-
librarian, non-administrative staff) belong to unions 11
-All staff (except administration) belong to unions 10
By 1981, among the mo year colleges, 116 were unionized and there
were 149 patterns of membership described. Those most frequently
mentioned were:
-Librarians, with MLS or equivalent, belong to unions 28
-Classified staff (non-librarian, non-administrative staff); and all
staff (except administration) belong to unions 20
Among the colleges in 1976, ten were unionized and there were. 12
patterns of membership described. Those most frequently mentioned
were:
-Librarians and staff belong to separate unions; and classified
staff (non-librarian, non-administrative staff) belong to
unions 4
-All except administration belong to unions 2
By 1981, among the colleges, 15 were unionized and there were 21

were:
-Librarians, with MLS or equivalent belong to unions 5
-None excluded (everyone can belong); and librarians and staff

belong to separate unions 4
Among the universities in 1976, 62 were unionized and there were 63

were:
-Classified staff (non-librarian, non-administrative staff) belong
to unions 14
By 1981, among the universities. 77 were unionized and there were

95 patterns of membership described. Those most frequently men-
tioned were:
-Librarians with MLS or equivalent; and "All" except adminis-
tration belong to unions 16
-None excluded (everyone can belong); and classified staff (non-
librarian, non-administrative) belong to unions 12
Despite the fact that unions were young in comparison to the estab-
lished collegial forums, 34 (14.8 percent) of the 230 libraries respond-
ing to this question in 1981, reported a shift in affiliation from one
union to another. These changes encourage speculation on the cause of
the move. Were expectations unrealistic? When a union did not produce
anticipated results, professionals may have shifted allegiance. In the
1981 questionnaire, participants were asked to identify their former
union. Replies to this request are listed below and ranked according to
the frequency with which each was listed as a "former" union:
I . "Other," including instances where the former union was de-

scribed as a faculty or teachers' association.
2. NEA
3. AFT
4. AAUP
5. AFSCME, and AFL-CIO (each named by just one institution as
the former union)
The director at one college was apparently disgruntled, saying: "The

entire faculty is unionized and librarians are members of the bargaining
unit. The agent is AAUP and it is a total loss. The national office prom-
Survey of Academic Libraiy Administration 51
ised us a world of support and has given us none. Bureaucratic require-

ments have multiplied with no increase in benefits. Those choosing a
union would be better off with one with guts (UAW or Teamsters) or
without any at all."
The collegial form of governance was in place in about half of the
surveyed libraries during the seventies, although there was confusion as
to just what the term meant. Most institutions, with the exception of the
larger universities, including the ARL group, had incorporated this form
of governance before 1971. However, it had seemed to be losing some
popularity among the two year college libraries as the decade closed.
Group participation in decision-making dropped during the late seven-

ties, except in the areas of promotion and tenure. Almost 79 percent of
the libraries reported their staffs had some form of faculty status. Union-
ization was on the rise, with 208 libraries reporting unions of one type
or another in 1981, in contrast to 150 in 1976. The National Education
Association was growing in strength in 1981.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
Academic librarians faced internal problems, and were externally

challenged by increasingly vocal faculty and student bodies. During the
seventies these groups became more self-concerned, more vocal, and
more demanding. Students sought immediate career payoffs from their
educational experience. Faculty faced more stringent demands for pro-
ductivity as their marketplace declined. They insisted that the library
help them in their search for personal security, and the serious business
of finding or protecting a job. The director in an academic library had
two articulate constituencies: staff and clientele. Both told him or her
how, how much, and clamored to know when.
These pressures grew as higher education was shifted downward in
the list of national priorities. From Proposition 13 through Reagonom-
ics, money for grants to faculty members, student loans, and to institu-
tions grew scarce. Budget cuts came at the same time libraries tried to
cope with significant increases in costs for materials. Between 1970 and
1980, prices for scholarly journals rose at a rate that resembled the na-
tional debt, rather than the cost of living index. On the national scene,
electronic networks appeared, followed by progress toward international
consensus on formats for bibliographic control and a new code under
which cataloging became cataloguing. Superimposition, desuperimposi-
tion, and even un-desuperimposition, worked their way from the arcane
recesses of technical services departments onto central administrative
agendas. As technology developed, library applications of data process-
ing progressed from the in-house systems of the late sixties, through a
national network crescendo, and finished the decade with the appear-
ance of viable mini and micro-computer systems, that once again made
local automation an opportunity and a challenge. Administrators of aca-
demic libraries faced automation choices that would have been called
make-or-buy decisions in an industrial setting. Many elected to buy from
OCLC, RL[N or others. Some, like the University of Chicago, North-
western, or Virginia Polytechnic, chose to make. In the areas of circula-
tion there was considerable buying from turnkey vendors as well as the
creation of local systems, in cooperation with campus computing facili-
ties.
Information in formats other than traditional print (and its micro-re-

production) solved and created problems. Selection, purchase, process-
ing, and use of non-print materials became critical issues. New compe-
tencies, vendors, and use patterns placed new demands on directors,
particularly in the still-emerging or just-maturing community colleges.
In some universities, there were years when the audio-visual officer out-
ranked the principal librarian, and there were periods when the budget
for a Learning Resources Center or Center for Educational Media re-
ceived a larger share of capital funds than was given to the library. Se-
lection policies responded to demands for special materials on women,
minorities, the peace movement, and the underground press. These re-
quirements were partially met by "instant" libraries in microformat, of-
ten unindexed, or poorly cataloged by their vendors. Some were as ex-
cellent as the New York Public Library's Schomberg Collection of
Black History materials available on film or the Oberlin College anti-
slavery collection. Unfortunately, many were cut-and-paste packages,
hastily compiled, with profit rather than scholarship as a goal. Increases
in materials funds were usually not accompanied by corresponding
growth in personnel budgets. The seventies began at the end of the era
in which the Master's in Library Science was a magical entree, and va-
cancies exceeded applicants. In just a few years the situation reversed.
There was an increase in the number of accredited Master's programs in
library science, the number of graduates rose, and then employment op-
portunities became scarce. These factors determined some of the power
exchanges that took place in academic libraries, and in turn, were influ-
enced by them.
Those who completed the questionnaire were asked, "Who, outside
the library makes decisions on library policy?'in both 1976 and 1981,
the Board of Trustees were the most influential, followed by "none," in
1976, and the supervisor of the Library Director in 1981. The replies are
tabulated in Table 11.
Next, they were asked to describe change in those (outside the li-
brary) who made decisions on library policy. In both periods, the major-
ity indicated no change (460, or 84.4 percent in 1976; and 637, or 86.1
Table 11
External P o l i c y Decision-making Groups
NO. o f Replies
Group 1976 1981
Board of Trustees
Supervisor o f the L i b r a r y Director
o one'
Faculty o r Campus Assembly
Executive Council (Academic A f f a i r s )

D i s t r i c t of State Body
A l l Others
~ a t a l ~
a . This i s a count of those who a c t u a l l y s a i d , "none," and does not include those who
l e f t t h i s question blank, g i v i n g no answer a t a l l .
b. Many l i b r a r i e s l i s t e d r a r e than one group. therefore the number of t o t a l responses
i s more than the number o f l i b r a r i e s i n 1981.
percent in 1981). Results from both questionnaires showed that when a

change was described, it was that relationships had become more for-
mal. Replies from all types of libraries were similar.
Respondents were next asked to describe the kinds of decisions on li-
brary policy that were made by persons or bodies outside the library. In
1976, the types of decisions identified were, in rank order: 1) financial,
2) personnel, 3) operationalfpolicy, 4) facilities, 5 ) services and hours,
6) collection, and 7) other. By 1981 the rankings shifted slightly. At
that time the array was: 1) financial, 2) personnel, 3) facilities, 4) ser-
vices and hours, 6) operationallpolicy, and 7) other.
After labeling the kinds of decisions made by external power groups,
directors were asked about change in the decision-making process itself
during the previous five years. The process remained relatively stable
during the period, with 75.7 percent saying no change took place in
1976. and 82.7 percent in 1981. Where change did take place, the direc-
tors were asked how it affected their authority. There was not a signifi-
cant shift: 9.1 percent of the 548 institutions in 1976, and 11.2 percent
of the 634 institutions in 1981 felt the library director had more deci-
sion-making authority than had been the case earlier; 6.8 percent in
1976, and 10.1 percent in 1981, felt the director had less authority.
The most influential body outside the library was the Board of Trus-
tees, which concentrated primarily on financial and personnel decisions..
The decision-making authority of the director was not significantly af-

fected by external groups, remaining about the same throughout the de-
cade.
SUMMARY
Organizational structure in academic libraries, as measured by the

survey, was changing during the seventies. By 1981 the amount and the
rate of change had increased from that reported in 1976. In all but the
smallest operations, hierarchies were realigning themselves and greater

numbers of staff appeared to be reporting to the director. In two year
colleges, colleges, and universities the most popular response to the
question on the number of individuals reporting to the director was
"eight or more," by 1981. The primary cause of organizational change
described in both 1976 and 1981 was a general reassessment for effi-
ciency. Between 1976 and 1981, the incidence of a self-study as a cata-
lyst for change rose from 1.6 percent of the replies to 9.2 percent. Most
of these were part of the periodic institutional study mandated by re-
gional accreditating associations. Consultants did not seem to play as
dominant a role as had been anticipated.
Approximately one half of the returns indicated that professional li-
brarians were part of a collegial organization. This remained stable
across the decade with only a slight increase. Faculty status emerged as
a critical issue in comments on collegial organizations and their sphere
of influence. Much of this confinned the theory that there are as many
definitions of faculty status as there are librarians discussing the concept
and the value of such status was seriously questioned. Collegial organi-
zations were becoming increasingly mature, defining "mature" as not
having been organized or re-organized in the previous five years.
Unions proved to be a more recent medium for staff involvement in
governance. While 18.2 percent reported unionization in 1976, this rose
to 24.5 percent in 1981. University libraries showed the greatest degree
of unionization (28.6 percent), and they were followed by two year col-
leges (26.2 percent) in 1976. By 1981, the two year colleges were 38.8
percent unionized, followed by universities serving 10,000 or more stu-
dents (34.5 percent).
In 1976, in addition to 80 unions identified by a generic term such as
"teachers' association," there were 84 instances in which specific unions
were named. By 1981 numbers increased significantly. At that time 161
described their unions using generic terms. Another 213 named specific
national groups, with the following distribution: 1) NEA, 31.0 percent;
2 ) AFT, 25.4 percent; 3) AFSCME, 16.0 percent; 4) AAUP, 15.5 per-
cent; and 5 ) AFL-CIO, 12.2 percent. When asked if they had changed
union affiliation between 1975 and 1981, 85 percent answered, "No,"

and 15 percent answered, "Yes." Tenure remained stable for profes-
sional librarians in the seventies (57.2 percent of the surveyed libraries
reported that their librarians enjoyed it in 1976 and 60.3 percent in
1981). Comments indicate that many other have it de facto if not de
lure.
In 1976, about 80 percent of all libraries reported one or two commit-
tees that made recommendations on library policy. In 1981 the number
with just one or two such committees decreased about ten percent. The
number citing zero committees increased from 11.8 percent in 1976 to
22.7 percent in 1981. Far fewer libraries reported committees that made
decisions, as opposed to those that made recommendations, but even the
latter were dropping in numbers. Participants described the influence
that persons or groups other than library staff had on library policy.
Analysis of comments and replies indicates a slight downward trend in
the share of library decisions made by outsiders (75.7 percent said, "no
change in the last five years," in 1976; and 82.7 percent in 1981). The
effect of external input on the actual power of the library director appar-
ently changed very little, with similar percentages reporting that he or
she had more and had less decision-making control than had been the
case five years earlier.
Fewer directors reported directly to their institutional chief executive
officer (usually the president) in 1981 than had been the case in 1976. In
addition, fewer reported to the chief academic officer. Director longev-
ity was surveyed across the study period and this data can be summa-
rized by saying that although there were 836 libraries in the sample,
there were 553 instances of director turnover between January of 1970
and March of 1981. This, in spite of the fact that 331 institutions re-
ported there had been no new director appointed in that period.
Two year colleges provided the most stable environment for directors
(41.4 percent reported no turnover). One sub-set of the universities, the
institutions with membership in the Association of Research Libraries,
proved to be the most volatile in terms of executive turnover. Among
these ARL libraries, only 27.7 percent said they finished the period with
the same director who had been in office at the start. Since the ARL in-
stitutions prepare so many faculty members and library directors who
eventually pursue their professional careers in other colleges and univer-
sities, these administrative environments seem especially significant to
the future of all academic librarianship.
Even though this study used purposive sampling techniques and thus
the data cannot be generalized to all academic libraries in the United
States, the patterns are so strong in many of the cases that it would be
difficult to deny they do not extend beyond the segment of the popula-
tion in the study. There are certain conclusions which can be drawn, for
56 J O U R N A L O F LJBRARY ADMINISTRATION
example: 1) more people were reporting to directors, 2) very few direc-

tors reported to the president of the institution, 3) consultants and self-
studies did not have much impact on reorganization, and 4) director
turnover was occurring at an almost steady rate during the seventies.
A number of questions were raised which need further research. They
include: 1) Does the director enjoy more real power, as opposed to the
nominal power portrayed by the higher numbers of directly-reporting
subordinates? 2) What is the cause for the apparent trend away from the
pattern in which the director reports to the chief academic officer? 3)
What is the director's perception of him or herself in the organization?
4) What is the actual role of the internal library committee, and what ef-
fect will this have on administration? 5) Is the rate of director turnover
in college libraries increasing? Why? 6) What is the future of participa-
tory management in academic libraries in the 1980s? 7) How do these
factors relate to the quality of service provided for the library's parent
institution?
In 1973, McAnnaly and Downs said,
In the 1960s . . . an increasing number of incidents occurred
which indicated that all was not well in the library directors' world
. . . in one year, 1971-72, the seriousness of the situation became
dramatically evident: seven of the directors of the Big Ten libraries
(plus the University of Chicago) left their posts, only one a normal
retirement for age.'"
Apparently very little has changed. In the spring of 1983, as this report
was being completed, there were three directorships open in ARL li-
braries, in which the incumbents resigned under pressure, not because
of a "better job" offer, or, to use the McAnally and Downs terminology,
because of a "normal retirement for age." Another director, who inter-
viewed for ten directorships in early 1983 (and received five offers), re-
ported that in one case the previous director had died, one chose to re-
tire, and all the others stepped down because of dissatisfaction on the
part of the staff, administration, or faculty with his or her management
of the library. This is a serious problem, and is costly in terms of per-
sonal unhappiness, organizational upheaval, and financial loss to insti-
tutions. Knowing the "why" issues would surely benefit the profession
and perhaps, prevent further instances of undesired turnover in libraries.
Has the profession (or at least its administrative contingent) learned
nothing since 1973? This study has tried to identify and quantify some
factors affecting answers to the questions just outlined. What is needed
now is adequate funding to support research that will assign values to
these factors, relate them to "good" library service, and assist the pro-
fession in planning wisely for the future.
-
REFERENCES
I . Kaser. David. "The Effect of the Revolution of 1969- 1970 on University, Library Adminis-
trdtion." In Academic Libraries by the Year 2000: Essays Honoring Jerrold Orne, edited by
Herben Poole. Ncw York. R. R. Bowker Co.. 1977, p. 64.
2 . Ibid.. D. 66.
3. Allison, Anne Marie. Facror~Affcring Admimbrisrration in Uniled Srales Academir Libraries
Daring the Period 1971-75. Occasional Papers. No. 138. Champaign, II., University of Illinois.
Graduate School of Library Science. 1979, p. 3.
4. Ibid.
5 . Ibid.. p. 2.
6. Ibid.. p. 5 .
7. Depannlent of Health. Education, and Welfare. Education Division. College and University
Libraries. Fall 1977; Dala Base. H E G . U B I 2 . Edition A77-78. Washington. D.C.. National Cen-
ter for Educational Statistics. 1978.
8. Depanment of Health. Education, and Welfare. Education Division. College and University
Libraries, Fall 1977; Dala Base Documerrrarion. Washington, D.C., National Center for Educa-
tional Statistics. 1.978. p. M)I I.
9. Ibid.
10. Allison, op.cit.. p. 27.
II.Dillman. Don A. Mail and Telephone Survey: the Total Design Merhod. New York, John
Wiley & Sons. 1978.
12. Data Base Documentation, opsit.
13. McAnally. Anhur. and Downs. Roben B. "The Changing Role of Directors o f University
Libraries." C o l l e ~ e& Research Libraries. 34:103, March 1973.
14, Booz. Allen, and Hamilton, Inc. Organization and Stoflng of the Libraries of Columbia
Universit~:A Case S t u b . Westpon. Ct.. Redgrave Information Resources Corp., 1973, p. 8.
15. Drucker, Pcter F. M a n a ~ e m m l :Tasks. Responsibilities, Practices. New York. Harper &
Row, 1973. pp. 618-19.
16. Powell. Benjamin E. "Development of Libraries in Southern State Universities to 1920."
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1946, p. 16.
17. Rogers. Rutherford D., and Weber. David C. Universiry Library Adminisrralion. New
York, H.W. Wilson, 1971, p. 13.
18. Smith. Barbara J. "The Impact of the Community College on Academic Libraries and Li-
brarians." The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 3:340, January. 1978.
19. MRAP (Management Review and Analysis Program) and ALDP (Academic Library Devel-
opment Program) are assisted self-study programs developed by the Council on Library Resources.
MRAP focuses on larger inslitutions, while ALDP was developed for small or mid-sized academic
libraries. The program i s described in Edward R. Johnson and Stuart H. Man. Organization Devel-
opmenr for Academic Libraries. Westpon, Ct.. Greenwood Press. 1980.
20. For example. Dennis Reynolds ciles figures of 72.8 to 89.6 percent in his chapter. "A Sur-
vey of Libraries in American Four-Year Colleges," I n College Librarianship, edited by William
Miller and Stephen Rockwood. Metuchen, N.J., The Scarecrow Press, 1981, pp. 20-21. ACRL
conducted a survey in 1981 which revealed 75.4 percent had some son of faculty status. See Asso-
ciation of College and Research Libraries. Academic Status Survey. Chicago, ACRL, 1981.
21. A convincing case is made by Cieslicki for "librxian" status, which may enable librarians
to attain most of the objectives of the ACRL standards without creating the barriers raised by seek-
ing "faculty" status. See Cicslicki, Dorothy H. "A New Status Model for Academic Librarians."
The Journal o/Academic Librarianship. 8230-81, May 1982.
22. McAnally, op.cit.. p. 103.

DePew, John N. Allison, Anne Marie (1984) - Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration 1976-1981

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DePew, John N. Allison, Anne Marie (1984) - Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration 1976-1981

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Library Administration

ISSN: 0193-0826 (Print) 1540-3564 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjla20

Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J111V05N02_03

Published online: 26 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

1) statutory . . . , flowing from the charter or other legislation,

to administer its affairs as the group proceeds in concert toward

Statutory authority was not greatly affected by the revolution, but

ferences, workshops, books and articles, especially in the early and

In July 1976, the Committee on Comparative Library Organization of

ization, presence of faculty status, collegiality, or similar professional

ganizational, functional and staffing problems have yet to be proven

The objectives of the study were to:

Ascertain the extent to which academic library administrators had

the extent of participation by academic librarians in library gov-

Masters through Doctorate ( U n i v e r s i t i e s ) 1126 332 29.5

a . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h r e e p r i m a r y groups, several blocks o f new data were s o r t e d ac

cording t o those l i b r a r i e s which were members o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Research

L i b r a r i e s and those ~n i n s t i t u t i o n s which had 10,000 o r m r e FTE students.

b. This f i g u r e includes o n l y U . S . ARL l i b r a r i e s as o f 1977.

C. These t o t a l s do n o t i n c l u d e t h e ARL o r 10,000t l i b r a r i e s , i . e . , the figures i n

parentheses. Those c a t e g o r i e s are subsumed w i t h i n the U n i v e r s i t y category.

limited resources, would be almost impossible to analyze if reused in

These modifications facilitated tabulation and comparison of old and

1. Director of the Library

The statistics produced by the SPSS package were arranged according

During the 1970s a series of palace revolutions took place, unseating

Faculty and (library) staff have always been encouraged to make

As a means of gauging opportunities for directors to make their polit-

pattern described most frequently was four positions (22.4 percent) in

the director in a more vulnerable position. However, it could be argued

With the resignation of the Vice President for Academic Af-

chart, but I now go directly to the college's only Vice President

The most significant and interesting change seems to have taken

istration," or a "dean of support services." Just over 15 percent rejected

We are operating under a "temporary" organization which has

tion to her regular professional duties . . . A staff member working

Reporting l i n e had become l e s s d i r e c t 38 21.7 68 30.9

Analyzing the various types of university libraries revealed some in-

1. chief administrative officer

1. chief administrative officer

The director seemed to be in the control of the chief administrator of

- 283 named a state or community board

O r i g i n of Changes 70 The I n s t i t u t i o n ' s Gaverning Body

"Other," i . e . , various d e s c r i p t i o n s o f causual

1970-1975 1976-1980 1981b Total None

A l l percentages are based upon t h e 836 l i b r a r i e s and t h c i n d i v i d u a l numbers o f

a . The 10,000+ and ARL l i b r a r y f i g u r e s are subsumed i n the u n i v e r s i t y f i g u r e 5 and

a r e n o t included i n the " A l l L l b r a r i e s ' t o t a l s .

C. Some l i b r a r i e s i n each category reported rmre than one instance o f executive

Repl ies No.

"Other," i.e., unique and institutionally specific

Growth in size o f library or institution

Rep1 ies No.

Financial resources limited

a. More t h a n one factor could be checked.

Among colleges in 1976, the most frequent replies were: change in

ited, increasing bureaucratization, then shrinking resources.