ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries November 1987 / 631 counts of how they teach and how they w rite, we can begin to see our work as p a rt of a creative pro­ cess, making something new, original, never be­ fore seen or understood in th a t particular way. Because a focus on process is central to both crea­ tive w riting and creative research, we can each find help for our work when we hear and read w rit­ ers on w riting and teachers on teaching writing. Stafford’s particular approach m ay not be appro­ priate or helpful for everyone, bu t I believe all li­ brarians working w ith researchers can find inspira­ tion and help in the experiences of creative writers and teachers of creative writing. As the im portance of creativity for librarians is recognized, we may even see some new and creative subject headings in Library Literature. Managing innovation and innovators B y F red M. A niram Professor o f Speech Communications, General College University o f M innesota-Tw in Cities Lots of tim e and money are spent fostering crea­ tivity in the workplace. Witness ACRL President Joanne Euster’s article, “Creativity, Innovation and Risk-Taking” in the July/August 1987 issue of C& RL News. Special efforts are m ade to help li­ brarians, teachers, engineers, social w orkers— most employed persons—to invent new products and processes. W e are told to “find a better w ay .” Much of the effort will be wasted, however, if the work environm ent in which employees find themselves is not conducive to new ideas and risk­ taking. No am ount of employee skill and attitude development will enhance creativity unless the en­ vironm ent supports this effort. Three key factors in the w ork environm ent have special influence on creativity: people, space, and time. W hile all three are interrelated, each will be discussed independently. There are three categories of people in the envi­ ronm ent who m ay enhance or inhibit creativity— the self, peers, and supervisors. The self is certainly the most severe critic. W ho knows better which “pu t dow n” will be most effective? W ho rem em ­ bers best, consciously and subconsciously, the en­ tire life history of failures? Training works best when it teaches the individual to try, to risk, to dare. T raining works best w hen it demonstrates to the individual how one blocks creativity w ith un­ necessary habits, fears, conformity, fixations, and all the other self–inhibitors. Innovation requires self-confidence—the “I think I can ” a ttitu d e — which comes largely from rem em bered success ex­ periences. Ultimately the m otivation to risk (to w ant to try) requires feeling good about oneself and th a t comes from rem em bered success experiences. Good tra in ­ ing and good m anagem ent help people to feel suc­ cessful and discover personal strengths. A rew ard system th a t endorses effort as well as winners will help ensure success experiences. It is notew orthy th a t not every idea is a good idea, but w ith o u t new ideas there is no innovation. Not every oyster contains a pearl. Reward systems should allow for individual dif­ ferences and preferences. Just as we each know our failures we also know best w hat makes us feel suc­ cessful. But the encouragem ent of rewards m ay not be enough. A lim ited am ount of pressure m ay bring out the best. “I expect you to be creative” says th a t I believe in you. N o th in g en h an ces self- confidence more than the confidence of others. O ther people in the work environm ent affect the individual’s creativity as well as oneself. Peers surely have more influence on one’s sense of crea­ tivity than bosses, and they provide a real opportu­ nity to collaborate as well as a sense of our self- w orth. American culture is often not conducive to col­ laboration. W e are a competitive people. In the ac­ adem ic as well as the corporate setting we are afraid th a t the other person m ay get the patent, the rew ard, the step up the elusive ladder to success. Again and again scholars report th a t they dare not share an idea until it’s in “final form .” Scientists re­ port th a t they dare not ask advice—technical or procedural—for fear th a t an idea will slip away. And yet none of us is expert in all things. W e need our colleagues to develop our ideas, to enhance our ideas, and to test our ideas. Consequently, Ameri­ can libraries must develop a collaboration system th a t encourages and teaches individuals to use one another’s inform ation, insights, and skills. For one thing, libraries should develop group re­ w ard structures. If two or three individuals partici­ pated in an innovation, each should share in the rew ard—either equally or in proportion to their contribution. In some cases whole departm ents m ight be rew arded even though not all individuals contributed to the idea. Such group rewards recog­ nize the im portance of peers as emotional support 632 / C&RL News for innovators and emphasize an organizational com m ittm ent to a creativity program . In some cases peers are the best judges of who should receive rewards and w hat forms they should take. Bosses may not have as im portant an impact on creativity as peers do, but supervisors, managers, and directors are an im portant part of the work en­ vironment and do have a major opportunity to en­ hance or inhibit innovation. Bosses have “referent pow er.” That means they act as models of how to behave. Bosses can be models of creativity, risk­ taking, and intellectual daring, or they can be models of stagnation, self-protection, and intellec­ tual boredom. This is not to say th at bosses must be exceptionally creative; it means th a t they must model an openness to new ideas, an enjoyment of challenges, and a tolerance for ambiguity. Super­ visors who enhance the creativity of others do not insist th at their solutions are best. Creativity re­ quires the freedom to design innovative ways to meet objectives. The second key factor is place. The library, like the laboratory, is usually a place for testing ideas— not for having them. Perhaps a “think space” needs to be provided. A recent survey in one of this coun­ try’s top 50 corporations asked technical and scien­ tific employees to identify what, in their work envi­ ronm ent, inhibits creativity. The num ber one response was noise, visible as well as audible. Not all employees need private offices, but they do need private think spaces—quiet places where they can formulate hypotheses and incubate ideas. Quiet spaces are, however, not enough. Public spaces are necessary for the complex process of cre­ ative problem-solving that involves collaboration, testing, and implementation. The third critical factor is time. Going to a file cabinet to pull out last m onth’s solution may seem time-effective, but last m onth’s solution may not solve this m onth’s problem. File cabinet solutions rarely provide an innovative product, process, m anufacturing system, or sales program. Time management programs are often helpful and may bear repeating periodically. Such pro­ grams generally require participants to document in detail exactly how time is spent. Unnecessary ac­ tivities, unwanted interruptions, and inefficiencies are brought to light. Creativity applied to personal work habits and work distribution can save sub­ stantial time th at may be reinvested in more crea­ tive efforts. Employees report greater benefits from large blocks of time (an afternoon, a day, a retreat) than from occasional random snatches of time. Creativity is not easy nor is it cheap; however, it is a good investment. The rewards are twofold: in­ creased employee satisfaction, and the ability to improve service in a world of radical change and incredible technological development. ■ ■ November 1987 / 633 WESS Florence Conference ACRL’s first overseas conference within recent memory will take place April 4-8, 1988, in Flor­ ence, Italy, where the ACRL Western European Studies Section will consider: “Shared Resources, Shared Responsibilities: Libraries and W estern European Studies in North America and Western Europe.” The conference will focus on aspects of li- brarianship involving European materials and li­ braries, including acquisition of European m ateri­ als; online databases of E u ro p ean m aterials; European government documents; translations; non-book formats such as microformats and films; European political and social movements; and fine arts library resources from Europe. The organizers of the Conference are Assunta Pi- sani, H a rv a rd U niversity; C harles F in em an , Northwestern University; and Anna Perrault, Lou­ isiana State University. They have planned both an ambitious program w ith outstanding European and North American speakers and a travel package that makes attendance at the conference attractive in price as well. Arrangements for air travel, hotels, and ground transportation must be made separately. Inform a­ tion will be sent to you upon receipt of your regis­ tration. Although the travel package is not yet firm, the estimated cost of the airfare will probably be $555 (New York departures) or $655 (Los An­ geles departures), depending on the exchange rate. The estimated cost of the hotel and ground trans­ portation package, including seven nights lodging (double occupancy) will be approximately $500. Registration for the four-day Conference will be $150 until December 31, 1987, and $225 after Jan­ 634 / C&RL News uary 1, 1988. Partial payment for these arrangements will be due December 31, 1987; full payment will be due in February 1988. JoAn Segal, ACRL executive di­ rector, is staff liaison for the Conference. To register, complete the form on the previous page and send it to ACRL/WESS Conference, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. ■ ■ N eed a ch an ge? Try a n ex ch a n g e By Nancy J. K eane Cataloger University of Vermont Trading places w ith one’s counterpart in the Republic of Ireland. As I began to pack my bags and prepare to leave for a one-year exchange, it seemed that this mo­ ment had been a long time coming. As a matter of fact, it had been almost two years. There were times when I felt as if it never would arrive. When I mentioned my plans to colleagues, the most fre­ quently asked question was not why I was going, but how I went about arranging an exchange. Each exchange is a unique situation with its own problems. However, I hope my experience will shed some light on the process for those of you who are contemplating an exchange. Let me first touch upon the “why” of exchanges. Job exchanges have been around for a long time and have taken many forms. Exchanges range from international to intralibrary. They benefit the li­ brarians who are involved in the exchange, those who have dealings with the guest librarian, and the institutions involved. Exchanges foster inter- institutional cooperation, information sharing, networking, and standardization. They offer an exciting way for the librarians involved to “re­ charge” their batteries. Now that you are convinced that exchanges are worthwhile, how do you arrange one? The first part of the process requires one to think long and hard about this idea. Are you prepared to leave your job, home, friends, relatives, etc., for an ex­ tended amount of time? Do you really want to go through with this experience? Then there are the arrangements to deal with. Not only do you have the frustrations and costs involved in setting up an exchange, but you must also be able to convince your administrators that the exchange will benefit both librarians and institutions. Without strong support from your administrators, you may not be able to get through the arrangements. They will be called upon time and time again to provide docu­ ments, recommendations, phone calls, etc. The University of Vermont has no formal mechanism for a job exchange so I was left to find my own way through the process. This was both good and bad. It was good in that I did not have strict guidelines that must be followed so I was able to tailor the ex­ change to meet my needs. It was bad in that I had to work by trial and error. After I had convinced myself of the advantages of the exchange, I then sought approval from my supervisor. The major stipulation set out by the University was that the exchange partner must be an experienced cataloger from an academic library. W ith my goal set and approval from my supervi-