College and Research Libraries DENNIS W. DICKINSON Some Reflections on Participative Management in Libraries Participative management is highly touted as a panacea for the ills~eal and imagined-afflicting libraries. Apologists for this managerial strategy often fail to define it adequately, proceed from a num.per of unwarranted assump- tions and suppressed premises in their arguments for it, and overlook some of the consequences that would follow from its implementation. This article examines these assumptions, draws out the premises, and considers some of the possible ramifications of participative management in its various forms in order to arrive at a clear and workable, albeit restrained, understanding of the concept. AT LEAST SINCE THE 1960s there has been a growing realization that the values, needs, and motivations of the work force in this country have been changing. Persons who make up this force are, on the average, better educated, more politically aware, and more socially and economically demanding than their predecessors, i.e., generally more sophisticated and, therefore, less easily managed by traditional controls. 1 The staffs of libraries, which as institutions have more in common with other service and produc- tion organizations than many librarians are willing to admit, 2 certainly have not been exempted from this general trend. At the same time that library managers have been attempting to devise strategies to deal with the changing nature of their labor force, there have been pressures from other quarters as well, the cumulative effect of which is manifest in a new and growing emphasis on library management. Among the problems with which library managers must deal are serious financial shortages; an increasing concern on the part of institu- tions in authority over libraries with ef- ficiency, cost-benefit ratios, and accountabil- ity; and growing patron dissatisfaction with library services. 3 Concurrently, many li- Dennis W. Dickinson is social sciences bibliog- rapher and head, social sciences group, Univer- sity of Chicago Library. brary administrators face demands from staff members for a more active role in the ad- ministration of the library. It is perhaps indicative of a failure to cope adequately with the circumstances de- scribed above that a number of articles have appeared in recent years deploring the pre- sent state of library management. Blame is fixed variously on library schools that fail to prepare students for administrative duties; the dearth of literature pertaining to the management of institutions employing large numbers of professionals; the fact that li- brary administrators shirk their respon- sibilities for providing goals, direction , and leadership in library management. 4 PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT Perhaps the most commonly offered solu- tion for such problems is one or another form of staff participation in the manage- ment of libraries. One of the first presenta- tions of the case for "democracy in libraries" was made in 1934, 5 and the number and va- riety of such arguments have been increas- ing ever since, resulting in a hodgepodge of disparate proposals generally glossed under the rubric of "participative management." One definition of this chimeric term is given by Flener, who states that participation .. . basically involves representatives of the staff working in task-oriented groups to recommend possible solutions of library problems to the li- I 253 254 I College & Research Libraries • july 1978 brary administrators, to provide for a prescribed system of communication throughout the library, and to promote the means for orderly change within the library system. 6 But this is by no means universally accepted and, indeed, many writers on the topic do not define the term at all. This mere lack of definition does not, however, dissuade the proponents of participative management from making a num her of claims for its efficacy in improving both the lot of librar- ians and library service as well. One problem, of course, with using any term as ill-defined as "participative man- agement" is that it is made to carry a tre- mendous amount of semantic baggage, and persons using such a term will unpack from it just what they want and no more. This has the unfortunate result that any number of people may use the term in question but mean very different things by it, even though at least some of the definitional sets will intersect to a greater or lesser extent. Thus "participative management" has been used indiscriminately to mean every- thing from a situation wherein the library management simply seeks information and/or advice from staff members to one wherein the library is governed by plebi- scite . To avoid the ambiguity, confusion, and emotion engendered by the term itself, it is advisable to do as Kaplan has done and speak of power sharing when one intends something less than an autocratic or dictato- rial managerial style, 7 realizing that the exact nature and extent of such sharing · must be specified on a case-by-case basis. Power sharing always involves delegation, which may range from merely asking for a presentation of the facts concerning a given matter, on the one hand, to instructing a subordinate to take completely independent action on the other. It is important to bear in mind that even though one must delegate both the responsibility for a particular job and the authority necessary for its accom- plishment, the delegator remains accounta- ble for the job being done. Since that indi- vidual retains the right to retract this dele- gation, he or she is not completely divested of authority either. Power sharing or delega- tion, therefore, results in the division of work between vertical levels of an organiza- tion and in shared accountability for such work between the delegators and delegates.· Delegation emphatically does not, however, simply transfer accountability from the former to the latter. s THEORY Y AS A MEANS OF SHARING POWER Power sharing, since it necessarily in- volves superior/subordinate relationships, may properly be seen as an organizational overlay on the super structure provided by the traditional, pyramidal, administrative structure of libraries;9 and it is naive to be- lieve or hope that it can extend to the com- plete abandonment of traditional, hierarchi- cal structure for a one-person/one-vote rule of management as advocated by some. 10 Put another way, "participatory management must become more than a euphemism for shifting responsibility to the members of a committee, or the science of management will not even be an art. "11 Fortunately, there is available a manage- rial theory that is fairly specific and steers a middle course between autocracy and anar- chy. This so-called "Theory Y" is described as a liberalized managerial philosophy pred- icated on the assumption that most em- ployees are motivated and responsible workers who will more likely respond to opportunities for satisfaction of personal goals and ego needs than .to the conven- tional carrot-stick management approach. The basic tenet of Theory Y is that such internal self-motivation can, in the proper context, satisfy the employer's organizational objectives more effectively than the usual external threats and inducements of conven- tional management, while increasing job satisfaction at the same time. The Theory Y environment is said to en- courage employees to feel trusted, ap- preciated, and responsible, and thereby predispose them to motivation toward ac- complishment of organizational goals. To a considerable extent this environment is created through the delegation of as much of the organization's decision-making pro- cess as possible, ie., a form of power shar- ing. However, any assumption that a Theory Y managerial approach represents a laissez-faire type of administration is con- trary to fact, since management by Theory Y necessitates the same authority structure J ' required by conventional, hierarchical, and top-down strategies. The difference between the two strategies is that in a Theory Y ap- proach the exercise of administrative author- ity is more remote, subtle, and carefully planned to insure an optimum balance be- tween authority and freedom so employees do not feel overly constrained in their pur- suit of personal and professional goals. 12 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF COMMITTEES Although staff morale may improve with the introduction of some form of power sharing, as assumed by Theory Y, it does not follow that high morale will automati- cally result in improved organizational ef- ficiency ; and there is more than a little in- dication that librarians are experiencing difficulty in dealing with their newfound freedom to participate in library administra- tion, particularly in policy making. In large part, this difficulty may be due to the mechanism often used to achieve such shar- ing, i.e. , the ubiquitous committee. This is particularly apparent in institu- tions undergoing a shift from a more or less autocratic regime to some sort of power sharing; for, even though many libraries have traditionally used committees to some extent in seeking solutions to library prob- lems, many librarians are neither familiar with nor comfortable in a group problem- solving situation. The result often is that the product of a committee effort is of lesser quality than what might be desired and what, in fact, could have been more easily achieved through other means. 13 Even taking what may be the most suc- cessful task-group in many libraries, i.e., the personnel or search and screen commit- tee, 14 management by committee is not without its drawbacks. It has been sug- gested that through serving as members or chairing committees individuals are honored and gain the recognition of their peers. But the process not infrequently suffers from lack of interest, knowledge, and administra- tive ability on the part of committee mem- bers. This lack prevents them from carrying their assigned task to a satisfactory conclu- sion, even though committee members may spend much time at meetings and away from their primary library assignments. Participative Management I 255 In spite of the acknowledged costs to the library in hours lost and services not ren- dered, Harvey and Parr admit that they found no evidence that appointees selected by a search-and-screen committee were in any way superior to those selected by some other means. In fact, it is alleged that some search-and-screen committees, rather than selecting the person best qualified for the position to be filled, opt for a candidate who displeases no one. 15 In addition to slowing down the selection process while ostensibly doing nothing to improve the result, Harvey and Parr remark that, like other committees , search-and- screen committees serve to diffuse respon- sibility as well . 16 This is especially interest- ing when one considers this statement. Unless a person can unmistakably identify with the fruits of his labor, there is little chance that any of his higher-level needs will directly motivate his productivity. Any sharing of respon- sibilities between employees dulls this motivation and increases the opportunities for dissatisfac- tion.l7 The above is of particular importance, for it suggests there is a very real danger that the alleged salutory effects of power sharing (i.e., higher staff morale, job satisfaction, and, hopefully, productivity) may well fall victim to the virtually universal committee structure employed to implement it. This seems likely, since if there is anything they consistently do, it is to diffuse responsibility. The literature . on participative manage- ment in libraries seems conveniently to overlook the counterproductive force that governance by committee can exert on a li- brary staff. It does not take adequate ac- count of the fact that the product of com- mittee work often may not completely please anyone on the committee, and no one can-nor in some cases would be will- ing to-take individual responsibility for the outcome. Thus the committee structure , while it facilitates consultative and advisory pro- cesses between staff and administration, 18 nonetheless, carried far enough, denies the feeling of individual responsibility and ac- complishment so important to morale and motivation. But, more than that, it places effective administration in double jeopardy. In addition to increasing opportunities for 256 I College & Research Libraries • July 1978 staff dissatisfaction, such collectivization makes accountability impossible. In the usual case there is no way in which a higher authority, such as a college or university administration, can effectively hold a com- mittee as such responsible for the conse- quences of its decisions, however unfortu- nate. This latter problem is particularly appar- ent in an especially pernicious model of power sharing whereby the professional staff of a library, acting as an assembly, would set policy but then formally turn over re- sponsibility for its implementation, i.e., ac- countability, to the library administration. 19 The effect of such a plan is, of course, to create a situation wherein the policy-making body can act with complete impunity since it will not and cannot be held accountable for the policies it sets. I shall not trot out the parade of horribles that contemplation of this proposal brings quickly to mind. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and imagination can, without effort, conjure up the dire consequences of such a strategy. LIBRARIANS AS PROFESSIONALS One reason why these arguments seem to have been consistently swept under the rug is that some form of power sharing is, at present, widely believed to be the only means of dealing with problems engendered by the presence of large numbers of "pro- fessional" employees in a heteronomous or- ganization. The mystique of professionalism serves as a cornerstone for most recent dis- cussions of managerial style in libraries. "Professional," like "participatory man- agement," is a term without a clear and univocal definition. Drucker, however, gives what is probably as useful a definition of "professionals" as any when he asserts that they are "people who are more in- terested, and should be, in their profession than the institution-people who look upon the institution very largely as a place that enables them to practice a profession. "20 In the same vein, Shaughnessy points out that professionals desire autonomy in mat- ters affecting their work and career and seek to identify with their occupational group as opposed to the institution or organization within which they practice. Attainment of these objectives, he points out, would necessarily give professionals "a real, as dis- tinguished from symbolic, voice in deter- mining some of the policies of the organiza- tion in which they work. "21 If librarians are, in fact, professionals, then it follows that some considerable amount of power sharing will constitute a necessary condition of their successful em- ployment in libraries. However, the major premise is at least open to question. Some authors22 argue that there are real and sig- nificant differences between the training re- quired of a librarian and that of profession- als in most other fields; e.g., to be a "pro- fessional" librarian one needs only complete a relatively brief formal training program, is not required to participate in an internship, and does not need to pass standardized ex- aminations before being admitted as a full- fledged member of the occupational group. When one considers the foregoing in con- junction with Drucker's judgment that, in general, many individuals in so-called pro- fessions are overtrained given the nature of their actual responsibilities, and specifically that librarianship may well have overdone the formal qualifications for membership, 23 then there is considerable justification for the view that librarianship, along with such fields as education , nursing , and social work, might better be categorized as a semiprofession. This argument is based on the fact that the vast majority of practition- ers in these fields work in organizational settings and are not independent, autono- mous agents as are those who have tra- ditionally been accepted as professionals . 24 The claim of librarians to professional status seems still less valid when one realizes that much of the work required to operate a library is little different from that which goes on along most assembly lines. Drucker speaks of the incredible amount of "donkey work" required to maintain order in a library, 25 while others have taken note of the routine, repetitive, detailed proce- dures that make up the bulk of work in most libraries. 26 Although Drucker's charac- terization of library work is, perhaps, un- necessarily pejorative and provocative, there is a good deal of truth in his assertion. Support for this heretical view of library work appears in a recently published study of the ways in which academic librarians are ' perceived by students. A survey of students at a midwestern university disclosed that they generally associated librarians with a reference function and most often believed that "the librarian is 'trained' or 'skilled' rather than 'educated' or ' professional.' " 27 In addition, the authors learned that al- though students assume that there are edu- cational requirements for academic librar- ianship they most often do not perceive li- brarians as possessing a specialized educa- tional background or subject expertise. Given this view, it is not surprising that the investigators also learned that students gen- erally found it difficult to differentiate be- tween professional and other staff in the li- brary and were indifferent to the distinction so long as their needs were met. It is also significant that even though the students in this study generally equated li- brarians with reference librarians-perhaps the paradigm of librarianship in the minds of librarians themselves-they still did not see librarians as "professionals. "28 This sort of evidence lends credence to the view that the professional status of librarians is largely only self-ascribed. COLLEGIALITY But whatever the merit, or lack thereof, of arguments proceeding from the premise of "professionalism," the movement toward power sharing of some sort in libraries con- tinues. One of the common strategies for achieving this end in academic libraries is that of a collegial organization of the library, wherein it becomes an academic unit of the parent institution and is organized accord- ingly, usually as prescribed by the faculty constitution or some other like document. While it is easy to understand why academic librarians might want collegiality as an organizing principle-being im- mersed, as they are, in an institution the most prestigious elements of which are so organized-this approach is nonetheless not without problems. The collegial model rep- resents a radical departure from organiza- tional principles which have governed and continue to govern libraries of all sorts (i.e., a hierarchical, bureaucratic model) and will, therefore, place a good deal of stress on the institution that must adapt to it. 29 Generally, the push toward collegiality is Participative Management I 257 predicated on the assumption that faculty in academic departments have considerable au- tonomy and exert a significant and direct ef- fect on the administrative decision making of the parent institution as well as their own departments. Evidence indicates that faculty members already operate in an environment that is hierarchical and considerably less than completely democratic, 30 and, more- over, that heteronomy in institutions of higher education is increasing. 31 From this it may be argued that librarians who look to the collegial model as a re- placement for hierarchical, bureaucratic structure and a mechanism for assuring in- dividual autonomy in matters pertaining to their employment will almost inevitably be frustrated and disappointed. On the other hand, insofar as the collegial model does facilitate individual autonomy, it has been argued that the effects can be deleterious even to the teaching function of an academic faculty. This comes about since such autonomy can, and often does, result in the student's exposure to an unintegrated body of information that he or she is left to tum into a liberal education. 32 Consider then for a moment the conse- quences of imposing a mode of organization on libraries that may have essentially the same effect on their mission as it has on the teaching faculty's. As a group the latter can function, to some extent, in a haphazard and uncoordinated manner, as most stu- dents are able to make up for themselves what is lacking in the system; i.e., they can, perhaps with the help of knowledgeable li- brarians, fill in the gaps in the information with which they are presented in their vari- ous courses and integrate the separate ele- ments into what can reasonably be called an education. The stuff of which libraries are made, however, i.e., non sentient records of knowledge, are inert in this respect and can do nothing to make up what may be lacking in the library's processing system, for exam- ple, nor to coordinate and integrate the manifold subsystems of which a modem li- brary is composed. Libraries are essentially complex and sophisticated logistic systems, and library materials are passive objects, not active subjects. This being the case, either materials are moved through a ~rdinated 258 I College & Research Libraries • july 1978 and integrated system from publisher to pa- tron, or nothing happens at all. Libraries, then, are nothing if not organi- zations; i.e., a library is or should be a "sys- tematized whole . . . a body of persons or- ganized for some purpose. "33 Thus, "organi- zation" as it applies specifically to libraries may be defined as "the means by which management channels and directs work flow through operating units; establishes lines of authority, supervision, and control; and coordinates relationships for the accom- plishment of the goals for which the library exists. " 34 Such a definition is inherent in the description of library management as "all those administrative and supervisory ac- tivities in which goals and policies are for- mulated for the organization or its subdivi- sions, in which organizational plans are made, and in which the work of others is directed, monitored , and corrected as needed."35 But the above can seemingly only be achieved by centralizing ultimate decision- making responsibility and authority; for, given the complexity of libraries, it is only persons occupying relatively high-level ad- ministrative positions who can perceive and understand the organization as an integrated whole. Such perception and understanding are necessary for realistic definition of the library's goals and objectives and for in- formed assessment of what each element must do to achieve these goals. Therefore, except for very small libraries, only cen- tralized decision making can provide the consistency, leadership, and direction nec- essary for the establishment and attainment of a library's goals. The requisite coordination and integration of the systems which taken together make up a library can only be achieved through a hierarchical authority structure; and it fol- lows from this that collegial organization is inappropriate to libraries since persons filling positions within a chain of authority as is required for effective administration of a library must submit to decision making, coordination, and control from above in the interest of organizational efficiency. 36 This is, of course, the antithesis of collegiality as usually understood. MANAGING CHANGE Yet another reason for centralizing the goal-setting and decision-making functions in libraries lies in the fact that the setting of goals, if they are meaningful, will necessar- ily involve some potential organizational change. Such change often poses a threat to staff members since, like many service or- ganizations that need not show a profit, li- braries tend to concentrate on adding new activities without giving commensurate at- tention to the elimination of old ones. Thus, especially in times of declining financial re- sources, the primary responsibility of an administrator should be to determine which activities in the organization need to be supported more adequately, which can be downgraded or completely eliminated, and where the resources gained through the lat- ter can be most effectively invested. A cardinal rule of administering service organizations should be that "one doesn' t start anything new unless one phases out something old." But if a staff member has spent a significant amount of time perform- ing a particular function, the natural, human tendency will be to argue for its con- tinuance even if it has become obsolete from the standpoint of the organization; 37 and there is reason to believe that an occu- pational group that considers itself "profes- sional'' will be especially vigorous in resist- ing any change that threatens its autonomy or security. 38 This understandable but unfortunate tendency to retrench when threatened with change is aggravated by the disparity be- tween the number of possible tasks in a li- brary on the one hand and the number ac- tually necessary to the operation of a library on the other. Gore avers that the possible tasks are infinite while the number of tasks necessary to operate a library efficiently is always less than the staff believes; and that, given this fact, it is not surprising that in a large number of libraries many necessary functions remain undone or done badly be- cause there is no differentiation of what is necessary from what is merely possible. 39 What it is necessary to accomplish can, of course, only be determined in light of the full scope of the library's goals, operations, and resources; and this decision-making context is, as pointed out above, only avail- able to library administrators. They are paid to be informed in these matters and to have the vision, leadership ability, and practical good sense to direct the library properly, as indeed many chief administrators' titles would imply. Not only do the various operations, functions, and tasks which constitute ele- ments of the formal structure of a library need periodic review and revision, but per- sons who fill the positions represented on an organizational chart and perform the tasks displayed in an operations algorithm should likewise be subjected to periodic re- view. Without the latter, the most carefully orchestrated library system will function at less than maximum efficiency, not due to any design defect in the system itself, but to the fact that some persons on the staff can- not or will not perform in a way required by the position they hold and its relationship to the rest of the organization. That libraries have not been notably suc- cessful in pre-employment screening of ap- plicants, assessing the strengths and weak- nesses of incumbents, providing in-service training and development programs, devis- ing strategies for placing employees in jobs for which they are suited, or, as a last re- sort, discharging those few individuals not suited for library work at all, is an acknowl- edged fact. 40 To the extent that they con- tinue to be unsuccessful in developing effec- tive programs for recruiting, assessing, anti developing a competent staff, libraries will be prevented from achieving their goals or will achieve them only at an excessive cost. In a recent article, a member of the British House of Commons and manage- ment scientist, commenting on the poor performance of British industry, lays much of the blame for the striking inefficiency of the latter on the lack of a systematic review and development program for managers in most British companies and the fact that, once recruited, an individual's promotion too often depends solely on "seniority and performance which is not unsatisfactory."41 There can be little doubt in the mind of anyone familiar with American libraries that this same analysis, mutatis mutandis, applies equally well to their problems also. As Drucker points out, there is a small number of people on any staff who perform well, and there is, consequently, a pressing need to identify these individuals and place them in positions that will make the most of their abilities. 42 Libraries have, in the main, Participative Management I 259 simply failed to do this. It seems clear, then, that a fairly strong, centralized administration will be required to plan, initiate, and direct the process of change. However, it is often argued by proponents of participative management that any administrative structure, as distin- guished from line librarians, becomes iso- lated from the realities of day-to-day library operations, that a strong, centralized admin- istrative structure automatically excludes li- brarians who are not part of the manage- ment elite from any voice in setting goals and determining policy_ for the library, and that such exclusion will and does preclude meaningful change in or adjustment of li- brary policy and procedure to bring the services offered into conformity with the needs of library clientele. 43 But there are indications that such state- ments are actually contrary to fact and rea- sons to believe that in most libraries staff recommendations and advice on a wide range of problems are actively sought and exert considerable influence on eventual de- cisions, even though there is a high total amount of control. 44 From the evidence available, then, it begins to appear as if the ills that power sharing is designed to cure are very likely only psychosomatic. There is also a counter argument to be considered that holds that libraries, espe- cially large ones, are not now providing ef- fective information services to their clientele because of a lack of congruence between the aims and attitudes of librarians and what should be the goals of libraries as organiza- tions. 45 The Theory Y approach to manage- ment, outlined above, offers one possibility for bringing these into coincidence; but however closure is accomplished it will, again, require significant changes in the situation and status of many librarians. Hence, the argument that increasing staff participation in management is the best means of improving service to library clien- tele is of questionable validity since the tendency on the part of staff members will be to make just and only such changes as would not diminsh their own autonomy, se- curity, or self-ascribed status. Very little real change and virtually no radical, organi- zational change would likely come about given the primacy of a desire on the part of staff members to secure the status quo . 260 I College & Research Libraries • july 1978 This line of thinking is reflected in state- ments such as that of Pierson, who asserts: Status comprises roles, symbols, and rewards, not just symbols and rewards .. .. Roles, symbols, and rewards should be judged in terms of institu- tional goals-not in terms of librarians' aspira- tions. One possibility is to identify those ele- ments of work which need doing and merit de- sired symbols and rewards and to confine librar- ians to those elements, thereby simultaneously achieving institutional goals and raising librarians' status-while , perhaps, reducing librarians' num- bers.46 It is certainly true that there are even yet many repetitive, clerical tasks necessary to the effective and efficient operation of a li- brary, and, in many instances, these tasks are assigned to librarians who are quite comfortable with them. However, what Pier- son is proposing is to propel librarians out of low-level, routine functions and confine them instead to a considerably smaller number of jobs deserving of the perquisites and status they seek. But expecting this kind of change-which would, in spite of Pierson's cautious phrasing, surely result in a substantial reduction of available profes- sional positions-to come about in any li- brary through the actions of just those people who would be adversely affected by it is much like expecting a hog to guard the cabbage patch. While change is necessary to the con- tinued viability of libraries, care must be taken to provide job security for persons displaced by technological or organizational changes that achieve economies in the li- brary's operations. This would be required for humanitarian reasons if for no others, but there is a practical aspect to such pre- cautions as well. That is, although initially most or all changes that will potentially dis- place staff may have to be at the initiative of management, the hope and expectation should be that staff members themselves may eve ually become secure enough to suggest such changes ; and one way- perhaps the only way--of fostering this feel- ing of security is to create an environment wherein staff members can be sure that they are not crawling out on a limb and sawing it off when they offer a suggestion that will improve operational efficiency but may, in the process, eliminate or sig- nificantly alter their own job. 47 MINIMIZING BUREAUCRACY There is a danger, however, that while overall staff size may be reduced through a strong, central administration , that very administrative structure may grow dispro- portionately large through the addition of associate and assistant directors, administra- tive assistants, and specialized staff posi- tions, etc. 48 The effect of such an increase in bureaucratic echelons is, more often than not, to simply remove the director from contact with the day-to-day operations of the library; and, continued long enough, this will indeed have the effect predicted by some advocates of participative manage- ment, i.e., the library director will be insu- lated from the realities of the organization he or she is charged with directing. There- fore, the hierarchical structure should have as few managerial levels as possible but still enough to insure a workable span of control at each level. The same problems of complexity and scale, which render it impossible for a com- plete and equal sharing of power in the management of a library to succeed, likewise give the lie to any claim that it can be run singlehandedly. No administrator can know enough about the details of each operation in a library to · make informed de- cisions without considerable advice from persons more intimately involved with the operations in question. Thus to be suc- cessful, a minimal administrative hierarchy will require frequent consultation with and considerable delegation of authority and re- sponsibility to subordinates. Such a strategy will avoid the extremes of uninformed au- tocracy on the one hand and an acephalous, popular democracy on the other, while in- suring that ultimate decision-making power and accountability remain squarely with the library administration. CONCLUSION Some library managers are unwilling to admit that they want and need control over the operations for which they are accounta- ble, while subordinates are usually desirous of more influence on the decision-making process in the organization than is actually permitted, no matter what the managerial strategy employed. 49 This combination of a manager's unwillingness to express undemo- cratic opinions and realization that staff members desire more influence on decision making within the organization than is or should be allowed combine to create a situa- tion in which management may turn to some form of putative power sharing in hopes of mollifying the staff without grant- ing them any actual decision-making power. 5° Such duplicity serves no purpose, of course, as staff members quickly see through the sham and become variously disenchanted, cynical, and/or hostile , and with the inevitable result that the attempt at mere passification will not only fail, but will prove dysfunctional for the organization as a whole when staff members' negative feelings manifest themselves in actions or inaction, as the case may be . The extent to which power will be shared in the organization will be influenced by a number of personal and organizational fac- tors, 51 but it needs to be carefully spelled out to all concerned. The library staff should never be led to believe that they have or will receive more decision-making authority than the chief administrator is, in fact, will- ing and able to grant. It should be made clear in both policy and practi<;e that the overall managerial style is one of consulta- tion and coordination, with decision-making authority being delegated to particular indi- Participative Management I 261 viduals for specific purposes when dictated by circumstances. This strategy should satisfy the needs of librarians for participation in the manage- ment of their institution as it will perforce require a great deal of delegation on the part of the library administration . It will do so, however, without a full surrender of decision-making authority or abdication of responsibility on the part of the director who will ultimately be held accountable for the performance of the organization as a whole. None of these remarks should be taken as in any way an argument for a dictatorial , au- tocratic, or oligarchic management style in libraries. Rather, what I have attempted to do is to provide an antidote for some of the more extreme and sometimes naive in- terpretations of participative management that appear from time to time in library lit- erature. That is, participative management or power sharing should not-and cannot, if it is to be successful-mean an abdication of responsibility for the library on the part of administrators and managers in the name of democracy. For all of the reasons men- tioned above this simply will not work . What seems to be required instead is exten- sive and intensive consultation between administration and staff, but with. the ulti- mate decision-making authority and atten- dant accountability unequivocally lodged with the library administration . REFERENCES 1. Fred C. Pearson, Howard A. Scilkin, and Wallace G. Lonegran, Managing Organiza- tional Improvement (Chicago: Industrial Rela- tions Center, University of Chicago, 1971), p.2. 2 . Louis Kaplan, "On Decision Sharing in Li- braries: How Much Do We Know?" College & Research Libraries 38:25-31 (January 1977). 3. Ralph M. Edwards, "The Management of Li- braries and the Professional Functions of Li- brarians," Library Quarterly 45:150--60 (April 1975). 4. Miriam A. Drake, "The Management of Li- braries as Professional Organizations," Special Libraries 68:181-86 (May/June 1977). Peter F. Drucker, "Managing the Public Service Institution," College & Research Libraries 37:4-14 Oanuary 1976) . Daniel Gore, "Things Your Boss Never Told You about Library Management," Library Journal 102:765-70 (April 1, 1977). Roger Horn, "The Idea of Academic Library Management," College & Research Libraries 36:464-72 (November 1975). 5. J. P. Danton, " Our Libraries-The Trend toward Democracy," Library Quarterly 4:16-27 (January 1934) . Cited by Amy Winslow, "Supervision and Morale," Library Trends 3:3S-51 Ouly 1954) . 6. Jane G. Flener, "Staff Participation in Man- agement in Large University Libraries," Col- 262 I College & Research Libraries • july 1978 lege & Research Libraries 34:275-79 (July 1973). 7. Kaplan, "On Decision Sharing," p.25. 8. Harvey Sherman, It All Depends: A Pragma- tic Approach to Organization (University: Univ. of Alabama Pr., 1966), p.82-84. 9. Flener, "Staff Participation," p.276. 10. "Library Administrators: Time to Show Them the Door," Wilson Library Bulletin 51 :63~ 38 (April 1977). 11. R. Dean Galloway, "Search and Screen Committees," College & Research Libraries 37:551 (November 1976). 12. Donald J. Morton, "Applying Theory Y to Library Management," College & Research Libraries 36:302-()7 (July 1975). 13. Flener, " Staff Participation," p.276. Gallo- way, "Search and Screen Committees," p.551. John F . Harvey and Mary Parr, "Uni- versity Library Search and Screen Commit- tees," College & Research Libraries 37:347- 55 (July 1976). Louis Kaplan, "Participation: Some Basic Considerations on the Theme of Academe, " College & Research Libraries 34:235-41 (September 1973) . "Participative Management is Working in California," Li- brary journal 100:248 (Feb. 1, 1975). Thomas W. Shaughnessy, "Participative Management, Collective Bargaining, and Pro- fessionalism," College & Research Libraries 38:14{}-46 (March 1977). 14. Flener, "Staff Participation," p.277 15. Harvey and Parr, "Search and Screen Com- mittee," p.349-53 . 16. Ibid., p.354. 17. Morton, "Applying Theory Y," p.305. 18. Kaplan, "On Decision Sharing," p . 29 . Shaughnessy, "Participative Management," p.143. 19. Kaplan, "Participation," p.239. 20. Drucker, "Public Service Institution," p.10. 21. Shaughnessy, "Participative Management," p.141. 22. Drake, "Professional Organizations," p. 182. Daniel Gore, "The Mismanagement of Col- lege Libraries: A View from the Inside," AAUP Bulletin 52:~1 (Spring 1966). 23. Drucker, "Public Service Institution," p.10. 24. Edwards, "Management of Libraries," p.153. Shaughnessy, "Participative Management," p . 144. 25. Drucker, "Public Service Institution," p.12. 26. For example: Drake, "Professional Organiza- tions," p.182, and Edwards, "Management of Libraries," p. 158. 27 . Peter Hernon and Maureen Pastine, "Stu- dent Perceptions of Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 38:129-39 (March 1977). 28. Hernon and Pastine, " Student Perceptions," p.132-33, 136. 29. Shaughnessy, "Participative Management," p.142. 30. Kaplan, " Participation," p.23~7. 31. Phillip W. Semas, "Collective Bargaining and Faculty Governance," Chronicle of Higher Education, July 5, 1977, p. 7. "Can an Ad- ministrator Find Happiness as the AA UP's New General Secretary?" Chronicle of Higher Education, July 27, 1977, p .3. 32. Drucker, "Public Service Institution," p.9. 33. Webster's New World Dictionary, (Concise edition; New York and Cleveland : World, 1960). 34. Connie R. Dunlap, "Organizational Patterns in Academic Libraries , 187~1976," College & Research Libraries 37:395-407 (September 1976). 35. Edwards, "Management of Libraries," p.151. 36. Drake, "Professional Organizations," p . 185. Peter F. Drucker, "The Professor as Feath- erbedder," Chronicle of Higher Education, January 31, 1977, p.24. Edwards, "Manage- ment of Libraries," p . 153. Gore, "Library Management," p . 768. 37. Drucker, " Public Service Institution," p.8. 38. Drake, "Professional Organizations," p.185. 39. Gore, "Library Management," p. 768. 40. Edwards, "Management of Libraries," p . 159. Virgil Massman, "If We Do Our Job Well," journal of Academic Librarianship 2 :284 (January 1977). Winslow, "Supervision and Morale," p.40. 41. Eric Moonman, "The Ineptitude of British Managers," New York Times, May 1, 1977, III, p.3. 42. Drucker, "Public Service Institution," p. 7. 43. "Library Administrators," p.~7. 44. Flener, "Staff Participation," p.279. Kaplan, "Decision Sharing," p .25-26. 45. Drake, "Professional Organizations," p.181. 46. Robert M. Pierson , "Roles, Symbols, Re- wards," Journal of Academic Librarianship 2:285 (January 1977). 47. For an example of how this may be achieved, see David W. Ewing, "Participative Man- agement at Work," Harvard Business Review 55:117-27 (January-February 1977). 48 . Horn, "Academic Library Management," p.469-70. "Library Administrators," p.~ 37. Phillip W. Semas, "Colleges Adding Ad- ministrators, Study Reveals," Chronicle of Higher Education, July 11, 1977, p. 7. 49. Kaplan, "Decision Sharing," p.28. 50. Harvey and Parr, "Search and Screen Com- mittees," p.350, 353. "Library Adminis- trators," p.637. 51. Kaplan, "Decision Sharing," p.25, 27.