ACQNET v2n088 (September 14, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n088 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 88, September 14, 1992 ========================================== (1) FROM: Joe Barker SUBJECT: ALCTS re-organization (217 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 12:18:00 PDT From: Joe Barker (University of California) Subject: ALCTS re-organization ALCTS REORGANIZATION -- DISCUSSION AND A PROPOSAL Since San Francisco, we have heard awesome, almost deathly silence in ACQNET about the ALCTS reorganization. Richard Jasper, Ann O'Neill, Arnold Hirshon, Christian Boissonnas, and very few others have spoken out. It's rumored that no one cares about the reorganization, but I think that's utterly false. I think we care enormously, but each of us for slightly different reasons. The Organizational Structure Task Force has kicked the ball into the air (more precisely, it has sent up several balls at once), and we don't know where they are, what damage or good they'll do if they come down, where they'll land, or what kind of game this is and our individual roles in it. Comments such as Christian's suggesting that the problem is not ALCTS, but ALCTS' tie to ALA, complicate the discussion even more by shifting the focus outward, away from ALCTS and its sections and members. Certainly, it is true that ALA conferences, both Midwinter and Annual, have become humongous. It isn't possible to get out them all that one seeks, because there is so much going on and, equally important, because may of our jobs have such broad responsibilities that we have many interests. I am far from alone when I feel I need two clones of me plus myself to attend the concurrent and equally vital discussions and committees that relate directly to my jobs in monographic and serials acquisitions, gifts, exchanges, and govern- ment documents. But aside from the fact ALA's size makes us have to meet in big and sometimes uncomfortable cities, I see no problem with ALCTS being tied to ALA. The problem is ALCTS's failure to appeal to many of its members, its failure to attract as many new members as it thinks it could, and its worries that it is old-fashioned and not appearing to keep up with, or help envision, the library of the future. We need our professional organization (ALCTS) to help us envision the future and position ourselves, both as individuals (our jobs) and as professionals (our roles in information and library work), and our institutions (diverse as they are) for survival -- and, better yet, for greatness. In my observations, most of what goes on in the ALCTS and Section-level committee meetings in ALCTS does not attempt to do this. The Exec Committees are all absorbed in approving, nay-saying, turf-protecting, boundary-staking, and passing platitudinous resolutions we all agreed with before they bothered. Those outside those committees view them as prestigious and essentially closed or elitist. In truth, however, the meetings of those committees are hard work with little glory, and those who work at that level are, with few exceptions, among our hardest working members. But they work within an old-fashioned bureaucracy worse than anything that exists in most of our libraries. If we ran our libraries like ALCTS, with sluggish re-review of decisions, referral among units and committees that add no value, delays because of a rigid ritual of approvals, and lack of authority for anyone to take initiative, on-the-spot action, or independence -- we should have our administrations fired. But fortunately, the Exec Committees are not the whole show in ALCTS. In some of ALCTS and Section-level committees and in some discussion groups, we have the future and the present being forged, envisioned, and reviewed in a vibrant and wholly promising way. There's something very exciting here. Unfortunately, there are also a number of highly predictable, boring, and vision-less discussions and committees too. The problem is to get an organization of Execs that will energize and renovate the weak discussion groups and committees or have the right to axe them -- get rid of them, pare down the menu, and make what's left highly stimulating. And then add new discussion groups and committees and enforce high expectations for their appeal to the membership, lest they too be axed. SO, WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE? The administration of ALCTS and its Sections, NOT the committees and discussion groups. The question is: WHICH PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION? It is my view that the Sections are each doing good things, and that the discussion groups and committees and sub-committees are too. One of the great hindrances to their being able to do it in a more lively and timely manner, however, is the HORRID need for almost everything to have to pass under the review of ALCTS-level or higher approval. This causes two problems: (1) such long lead times that a hot topic when conceived becomes ho-hum when finally put in action; and (2) long delays during which the fast pace of changing technologies and perceptions drives us to hammer the discussion out on e-mail and not wait for ALA's semi-annual affairs. The need for these delays also makes being a committee chair frightfully tedious. ALCTS Exec (and to a lesser degree the Section Exec's) is guilty of micro- managing at its very worst! (Like a Library Director that keeps his/her department heads from making any decisions without referral upward for approv- al. How old-fashioned!) Christian and Arnold both recognized the need for EMPOWERMENT in ALCTS. We need to linger on that idea, because they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE NEED A MECHANISM TO EMPOWER. That mechanism is NOT going to come from disbanding the Sections and creating a looser organization with ALCTS Exec "coordinating." All such a change would do is to perpetuate the micro-managing and increase the need for nay-saying from ALCTS. ALCTS would be in the position of telling those with discussion topics or bright committee-level initiatives that someone else is doing it and to work with them. Things will be slower than ever. ALCTS will respond with lots of policies and guidelines "explaining" their bumbling as part of a carefully designed scheme. If the sub-professions (i.e., acquisitions, serials, collec- tion management/development, preservation, etc.) are no longer represented by Sections, gradually they will re-consolidate themselves despite ALCTS's reorganization. They might do this underground within ALCTS or in LITA or LAMA, or perhaps separate conferences outside ALA would proliferate (many of us in Acquisitions look forward to the liveliness, timeliness, and spontaneity of Feather River, NASIG, Charleston, etc.). IN MY LIBRARY, EMPOWERMENT TAKES A POWERFUL AND EFFECTIVE FORM. I'd like to describe some of its elements here, because they suggest a dynamic model for the ALCTS organization. Empowerment, as I have come to know it at Berkeley, is delegation with the authority to take action within a very broad and clearly defined span of responsibility. Empowerment means minimal referral, delays, and re-thinking of ideas and problems, because the delegated authority comes with responsibility to evaluate, make decisions, and take appropriate action or refer laterally (rarely upward) if beyond authority boundaries. The authority and its limits are made clear to those who wield it and those who rely on it by policies and policy interpretations. Authority for running things is thus at or below the department head level, and the higher administration handles general direction and commitments to the future, values, policies needed to enable empowerment to flow, and similar things. Empowerment also means that those who do a lot of the actual work are out there interacting with the real- time world, moving ahead, tapping their intelligence and creativity, and feeling in control and useful. By being empowered to work directly with those served and offer solutions to problems on the spot within widely understood policies, people tend naturally to measure whether they are doing the right thing in terms of those they serve and interact with. It's a dynamic quality-generating process, with quality tied to events in the present and the future. SO WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH ALCTS?? -- A PROPOSAL... What if the ALCTS Exec in the future behaved as a policy setting body, that also provided ALCTS-wide policy interpretation, guidelines, and guideline updating, and then delegated to the ALCTS committees and to the Sections' Execs the tasks of running things, empowering them to make decisions and act, and to work with other Sections freely without ALCTS Exec's permission or go-ahead at every turn? Within a broad span of possibilities laid forth in pre-established policies, no referral for Exec approval would be necessary. What if the Sections' Execs were in turn empowered to empower their Section- level committees to create discussion groups, to brainstorm and coordinate topics, to work laterally across Section boundaries for issues that straddle the lines? Little or no review upward at the Section Exec level would be necessary, although there would have to be FYI reporting to all the Execs of what goes on, so that members of the various Execs won't get out of touch and can keep its policies current and useful. ALCTS Exec would be charged with making the Sections a success with "success" defined in terms of their users, their members, those that attend their discussions, programs, and meetings. Committees and discussion groups that have no or dwindling audiences and/or no need to exist for policy/administrative purposes would be purged. That should be one of the first and strongest policies, clearly understood by all. No more of these discussion groups in virtually empty rooms! No more waiting for a committee or a group to volunteer to be disbanded, and having to justify being allowed to do so! If the group isn't exciting enough to draw an audience, ZAP! I think we could probably do without members-at-large on the Execs, and instead make every position linked to one or more of the discussion groups and other committees, where the "action" for our membership will unfold. If we did this, I imagine the ALCTS membership will grow, and individuals will find a fairly easy-to-use organization. If so-and-so wants to propose a hot topic for discussion, he/she addresses the Section Exec or, just as well, a discussion group leader or committee chair. The latter would all be empowered to quickly respond by saying what can be done, and plugging the idea into the Section. No one would need to wait for Midwinter or Annual to get ALCTS Exec approval before this plugging in, by the way, because just about everyone is on the net, and everyone is accessible by phone. Section-level groups and committees can communicate laterally with related groups in other Sections via e-mail too, so that everyone can see what's coming together. With the requirement for participation for everyone uniformly applied, cooperation, not proliferation, will naturally be stimulated. DECISION-MAKING IS SO MUCH EASIER AND FASTER THESE DAYS! LET'S CREATE AN ORGANIZATION THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THIS FACT. WHAT DO THE REST OF YOU THINK? I don't believe that ALCTS or the Sections are broken and should be discarded. I think they need modernization. The Sections reflect how libraries work, the affinities we are still organized under. These affinities will not change quickly, no matter how quickly electronics evolves. Electronics will be another dimension, and the old dimension won't slip away soon. If I'm wrong and the paper library with walls is destined for imminent extinction, not one of us honestly knows how it will look. I think we're idiots to believe we can model ALCTS to be of value to a future library whose looks and needs are beyond anyone's power to envision. I think we are also selling the sections short if we believe they are not each doing a great job of struggling to pull a highly professional vision of our future into focus. One more point on this line. It is nature that no one will submit without a fight to self-amputation. So, as the ALCTS Organizational Structure Task Force proposals to end of the Sections and their committees, will inevitably be met with much resistance. That is cause enough for the ALCTS Task Force not to forge ahead. The resistance also stems from real need for these Sections which represent distinct sub-professions with Technical Services and Collections, each with their own perspectives and therefore with their own visions of the future. We need to encourage each of these to take form. ALCTS's role is to provide the screen on which they can all project someday -- NOT to control the projectors. To disband the Sections would, in effect, fire or lay off some of ALCTS's most hard working and loyal members. Let's try to be less revolutionary and destructive, less fracturing, less amputating. Let's make the Sections and ALCTS Exec function better through effective empowerment and success measured by involvement of those we are supposed to serve. JOE BARKER, Acquisition Department Head, UC Berkeley, Chair, ALCTS PVLR Committee, Chair, AS Nominating Committee, Member and past-Chair of AS Foreign Book and Serials Directories Subcommittee of the Publications Committee (NOTE: These are my own professional views, and do not reflect the views of PVLR, AS, or any other ALA group. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 88 ****** END OF FILE *******