College and Research Libraries ALBERT F. MAAG Design of the Library Director Interview: The Candidate's Perspective To provide information on current practices in designing and conducting the interview for the library director position, fifty-four directors who re- cently and successfully had gone through the job search process gave data on the composition of search committees, individuals and groups with whom they met, length and format of the interview, and IJackground documents they received. Suggestions for improvement in the overall search and inter- view process are made. THE CURRENT DECADE-LONG JOB CRUNCH affecting librarians has spawned numerous articles offering advice to potential job can- didates and to hiring institutions on how best to ~onduct their respective parts of the job search process. Christofferson summarized the hiring process for librarians at the University of Georgia and reported that it takes at least six months per position, involves twenty-six different steps, and costs a minimum of $1,750. 1 In her study of criteria used by 181 large academic and public libraries to select new staff members, Estabrook reported the most important part of the job .search process is the personal interview, a finding with which Peele agreed. 2 •3 Based on his survey' of job candidates and library employers, Clarke reassuringly ob- served: "There is growing evidence that the interview process is being steadily refined and a real effort is being made to treat can- didates with the respect and individual at- tention they deserve. "4 The purpose of this article is to examine how well colleges and universities looking for new library directors have followed ad- vice available to them in the literature. Albert F. Maag is uniJJersity librarian, Capital University, Columbus, Ohio. 112 I Specifically, have these institutions designed and executed the most important part of the time-consuming and expensive job search process-the personal interview-in accord- ance with recommended practice? Is Clarke justified in making his cheery observation, or are colleges and universities cheating candidates as well as themselves by con- ducting inadequate interviews for the most important position in an academic library? This article is concerned mainly with the library director interview from the perspec- tive of its design and structure. The litera- ture is replete with papers on what types of questions to ask candidates, how to phrase questions to elicit complete responses, and how to comply with equal employment op- portunity and affirmative action guidelines once the interview is under way. 5 In choosing a source of information on how library director interviews are designed and conducted, the writer eschewed the strategy of requesting from hiring adminis- trators or search committee heads state- ments of official guidelines and procedures. Instead, the writer solicited information from the announced successful candidates for a number of library director positions. This manner of information gathering allowed a unique perspective on the realities of interviewing for the director po- sition and permitted those people upon whom interviews were focused to evaluate the interview process and to make sugges- tions for improvement. Several items in the literature are worth special note because of their excellent treatment of interview design and structure (among other parts of the total job search process). All approach the person~} inter- view and the job search process from the perspective of the hiring institution. Sommerfeld and Nagely, two experienced higher education administrators, combined some very concrete and specific, step-by- step advice on organizing a search commit- tee and on conducting the search for faculty and administrators with some general thoughts on the rise and importance of search committees in higher education. The authors treated such topics as the proper size of a search committee, the specification of the committee's role and responsibility, guidelines for advertising the position, length of time for the on-campus personal interview, who should interview the candi- dates, and so on. 6 In an article summarizing search-~nd­ screen committee policies and practices in a number of American university libraries, Harvey and Parr treated many of the same points covered in the above article. Toward the end of their paper the authors enumer- ated several strengths and weaknesses of university library search-and-screen commit- tees and concluded such committees are here to stay. 7 In one of the few articles dealing with the search process for hiring an academic library director, Louise Galloway outlined the pro- cedure followed in 1970 by librarians at the University of Louisville Libraries. 8 Daniels, too, dealt with hiring a library director but proceeded on an entirely dif- ferent tack from that of the above writers. Reflecting on the botched job of hiring a di- rector at the mythical Erewhon State U ni- versity, Daniels made seven cogent and provocative suggestions for improving the process the next time around: 1. Library support staff should be repre- sented on the search committee. 2. Librarians and support staff should comprise a majority of the search commit- tee. 3. The role of the search committee should be well defined. Library Director Interview I 113 4. The search committee should undergo training before beginning its work. 5. As many candidates as possible should be interviewed. 6. Applicants should be given a chance to investigate the library and the university. 7. Candidates' current places of employ- ment should be investigated. 9 These four papers, as well as several others cited below, provide an excellent backdrop aga~st which to examine current interview practice. METHOD The author sent a twenty-nine-item ques- tionnaire to those sixty-three library direc- tors at accredited four-year colleges and universities whose new positions were an- nounced in library journals between June 1977 and February 1979. Directors of law and medical libraries and of U.S. service academy libraries were excluded, as were branch campus library directors (unless the - branches were fully developed institutions in their own right). Fifty-four directors re- turned usable questionnaries. SEARCH COMMnTEES Most articles written about procedures for hiring faculty and administrators in higher education either recommend use of search- and-screen committees or take it for granted that institutions use such committees as a normal practice. 10 The Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries endorses the use of search committees to fill all profes- sional library positions because their use "solicits a breadth and range of opinion ... facilitates objective consideration of the candidates' qualifications ... promotes a se~se of participation in the selection pro- _ cess" and also because committees afford candidates a "clearer and more balanced view of the institution. "11 The use of search committees for hiring library directors is almost universal among the libraries represented in this study. Only four directors (all at small private colleges) report that no committee organized and con- ducted the search process. In each case the chief academic officer conducted the search. These four directors also report their cam- pus visits generally were less than very well planned and that they received less than very accurate pictures of the library and tht? 114 I College & Research Libraries • March 1980 institution during their campus visits. Two writers less than sanguine on the use of search committees are R. Dean Galloway and Dale Shaffer, the former claiming such committees usually set unrealistically high criteria that attract the "pompous and the desperate," the latter castigating committees for their lack of representation from the li- brary staff and for their collective lack of knowledge of librarianship. 12, 13 Several of the directors in this study find fault with the committees that helped hire them and recommend that committees be better informed on equal employment op- portunity and affirmative action guidelines; that members have an interest in serving and that they acquaint themselves with the qualifications needed in a library director; that there be a better selection of people on the committee; and that they have a better understanding of their role in the search, screen, and recommendation process. One respondent notes: "In many cases the administration and the search commit- tee are working at cross purposes. It is im- perative that the hiring officer be absolutely candid with the committee in relation to the tYpe of person being sought." Membership On the number of members to be ap- pointed to the search committee, Sommer- feld and Nagely observed, "Too few and the committee is not likely to be representative; too many and co·mmittee action may be en- cumbered. " 14 Louise Galloway reported nine persons served on the selection com- mittee at the Univ.ersity of Louisville Li- braries.15 In this study the typical search committee has six to ten members, while seven committees have fewer members and six have more. The question of who should serve on the selection committee obviously is a critical one. The "ACRL Guidelines" and the Sommerfeld/Nagely article make relevant observations regarding the goal in forming the committee: "To create a body represen- tative of the constituencies affected by the position" and "To appoint those who have a real need to be heard because of their par- . ticular responsibilities or working relation- ships with the prospective appointee. "16, 17 Shaffer complained that too often there are no librarians on search committees used to hire directors, while Galloway reported the members of the committee at the U ni- versity of Louisville Libraries were all li- brarians. 18• 19 (In a personal communication Galloway reported she would now prefer institution-wide representation on the com- mittee, although she still would have librar- ians predominate.) Daniels recommended library support staff be represented on the committee (the present study does not ad- dress this point directly) and that librariaik and support staff compose a majority ("Fac- ulty, students, and administrators cannot hope to be as knowledgeable about the op- eration of the library-either actual or potential-as those who operate it"). 20 We have here a three-sided tension in- volving the desire to make the committee representative of the various constituencies to be served by the appointee, to include an adequate level of representation from the librarians, and to form a committee of work- able size (recall that most committees in this study have six to ten members). Clearly, not all interests can be satisfied with the final composition of the committee, and in this study the librarians come up on the short end of things. · Sixteen directors report there were fewer than two library employees on their com- mittees, and only four directors report more than half of the committee members were library employees. No one reports a com- mittee with only library employees on it, and orrly seven directors report a library employee was the chairperson of the com- mittee. In twenty-one cases the chairperson was a teaching faculty member, in eight the chief academic officer, and in fourteen cases some other academic administrator. (Four respondents report there was no search committee and hence no chairperson.) There are only four reported cases of the faculty library committee serving as the search committee, although several direc- tors report the search committee contained some or all members of the faculty library committee. In one way or another the interview process usually involves members of this standing faculty committee: forty di- rectors report having met with the faculty library committee during the course of their visits. judging the Applications Once the committee receives all applica- tions up to the submittal deadline and eliminates those applicants who do not meet the minimum qualifications, its next major task is to whittle down the applicant list to a more manageable size. Three possible ways of gathering information for this "second cut" are by contacting applicant references, conducting preliminary · interviews at profes- sional conferences, and conducting on-site inspections at the applicants' current places of employment. Although Daniels favored on-site inspec- tions of candidates' current places of em- ployment, he cautioned those hiring institu- tions that plan to conduct on-site visits: the initial advertisement should state that such visits will be conducted, and the search committee should be careful not to collect inappropriate information. 21 Whether it is the issues to which Daniels referred or such things as logistical prob- lems, expense, time constraints, or mainte- nance of confidentiality, the search commit- tees or officers responsible for hiring the fifty-four directors in this study did not use on-site visits very often: only four directors report their use. Only two directors report they attended preliminary interviews at pro- fessional conferences. In the University of Louisville Libraries search process described by Louise Galloway the committee conducted neither prelimi- nary interviews nor on-site inspections but relied instead on letters of reference re- quested by mail. 22 Genaway' s survey of search committee chairpersons and library and personnel directors revealed letters of recommendation are one of the most impor- tant factors, after vita and experience, in ob- taining an interview. 23 In this study, too, search committees re- lied on this more traditional means of gathering information for the "~econd cut" at the applicant pool. The committees con- tacted references by mail or phone and in a few cases in person. One-third of the direc- tors requested that their placement files containing letters of recommendation be sent to the hiring institutions. (Now that job applicants have greater access to their placement files-and in some cases to let- Librar::y Director Interview I 115 ters of recommendation from one employer to another-the value of such files to pro- spective employers may be diminishing. Self-confident applicants may consider waiv- ing their rights of access to their placement files.) Although the Sommerfeld-Nagely article and the ACRL policy statement on screen- ing and appointment of academic librarians both recommended the candidate receive a copy of the interview schedule in advance of the interview visit, only twenty-one direc- tors in this study report they received such a schedule before their arrival on campus. 24 • 2 5 INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WITH WHOM CANDIDATES MET Harvey and Parr recommended all candi- dates being interviewed for professional .po- sitions meet with "as large a nmfiber and as great a variety of campus persons as possi- ble for mutually beneficial exposure. "26 In the University of Louisville case, Louise Galloway reported library director candi- dates met with the president, the academic vice-president, the selection committee; the senate library committee, faculty members, and the en tire library · staff. 27 Almost all directors in this study report meeting with the president, the chief academic officer, and the professional li- brary staff. One of the two directors who did not meet the professional staff is an internal appointment; the other individual located in a small private college, report~ having met with no library employee other than his pr.edecessor, about whose level of cooperation this respondent notes: "As much as possible needs to be done to se- cure the outgoing director; s cooperation in discussing transition." This individual re- ports the chief academic officer, not a search committee, organized the search process. The next groups of people most fre- quently met by candidates are the non- professional library staff and 'the faculty li- brary committee. (Forty-three and forty di- rectors, respectively, report meeting these groups.) Galloway reported candidates interviewed at Louisville met the non- professional staff at an informal tea and that two staff persons were granted ' permission 116 I College & Research Libraries • March 1980 to question candidates at a meeting with li- brary faculty. 28 Daniels went much further and suggested nonprofessional staff mem- bers be represented on the search commit- tee.29 Thirty-three directors report meeting the academic deans of the institutions, while thirty-two report meeting the previous li- brary director. (fhe most likely explanation for why some directors did not meet their predecessors is that these librarians may al- ready have Left the campus. Since respon- dents were not asked why they did not meet any group or individual, however, no- thing definitive can be said on this point.) Although students usually can be counted on to give candidates their own special and valuable perspective on the library and the institution, only twenty-nine respondents report meeting students during their -visits. Twelve report they would like to have met students. In all but the most rigidly compartmen- talized colleges and universities one would expect the library director to have regular work-related contacts with such important institutional administrators as the chief financial , development, and student affairs officers. Consequently, one also would ex- pect candidates for the library directorship to be given the opportunity to confer with these individuals. In twenty-six cases, how- ever, directors report they met with none of these three individuals. In his interesting analysis of the kinds of activities to which academic library directors devote their time, Metz found a difference based upon size of library; i.e., directors of small libraries devote more time to the day-to-day internal operations in the library, whereas their counterparts at large libraries spend more time in such external, environ- mental activities as fund raising, professional activities, and representing the library to its public. 30 No such size-dependent difference is evi- dent in this study, however; among the twenty-six cases in which candidates did not meet with these three important institu- tional administrators representing part . of the library's environment, the proportion of small- to large-library directors is roughly the same . Twenty-two of the fifty-four respondents report meeting with the chief financial officer, while twelve indicate they would like to have met with this individual. Thir- teen report having met the chief develop- ment officer, and ten would like to have met that officer. Only eleven met the chief student affairs officer. Twenty-one respon- dents report conferring with the assistant or associate chief academic officer, seventeen with media center personnel, and fewer than ten with the computer center director and the institutional research director. That three candidates met with trustees ·or re- gents is interesting, because usually it is not considered in the purview of trustees or re- gents to interview candidates for such posi- tions as library director. Most of the responding directors report meeting with six to ten individuals and groups; six report as few as four or five; and another six report as many as eleven to six- teen. Those directors who met with the fewest groups and individuals generally feel their campus visits were less than very well planned and that they received less than very accurate pictures of the library and in- stitution during their visits. Those directors who met with the largest number of groups and individuals record just the opposite im- pressions. Of all the suggestions for improvement made by respondents, the largest number involves broader participation of institution-wide representatives in the interview process. Candidates would like to meet with more students, faculty, and ad- ministrators. A few directors express a de- sire to have librarians excluded from their meetings with students and nonprofessionals ·so that these people might not feel con- strained in providing information about the library and the institution. One director suggests the candidate meet with the local AA UP chapter president and another that he or she be allowed to arrange meetings with individuals of the candidate's own choosing. A little off the point but interesting is one director' s suggestion that the candidate's spouse accompany the applicant on the interview. Responding directors express concern not only about the number and kinds of indi- viduals and groups with whom they met but also about some interviewers' knowledge of librarianship. In response to questionnaire items asking them to evaluate the knowledge levels of teaching faculty members, the president, the chief academic officer, and the assistant or associate chief academic officer (if these people interviewed the candidate), fourteen directors report three of these four indi- viduals or groups displayed less than adequate knowledge . of academic librar- ianship in the questions they asked. More specifically, only seventeen direc- tors report faculty members displayed adequate knowledge of librarianship; twenty-one report presidents displayed adequate knowledge; thirty-three report chief academic officers and ten report assis- tant or associate chief academic officers dis- played adequate knowledge. Shaffer's in- dictment of search committees on the grounds of their ignorance of academic li- brarianship seems relevant to these inter- viewers as well. 3l · INTERVIEW FORMAT The interview format that consists of noth- ing more than institutional representatives questioning the candidate may fail to pro- vide the candidate with the opportunity to express some vital element in his or her ap- proach to the position and/or to academic librarianship in general. Sommerfeld and Nagely suggested asking the candidate to make a formal presentation during the visit (as long as the request is communicated in advance). 32 Only sixteen responding direc- tors report being asked to make such formal presentations; these directors tend more often to be in medium-size or large libraries than in small ones. One director who was not asked to make a presentation suggests candidates be given time to "express views, goals, aspirations, interests, and possible direction for the li- brary as the candidate sees them." LENGTH OF CAMPUS VISIT To "provide the candidate with adequate time to perceive the institution as a whole and the functional area in question in some detail," the typical recommended length of stay for the campus visit is two days. 33 More radically (and less practicably), Library Director Interview I 117 Daniels suggested each candidate be offered the opportunity to reside at the institution for a week or two so that better mutual evaluations can be made. 34 Louise Galloway described a visit lasting two days, and the subsequent first choice of the committee was invited back for a second two-day visit. 35 Eighteen of the directors in this study re- ported being invited back for a second visit, while sixteen report they spent a total of two days at the campus. Twenty-one direc- tors report visits of less than two days and fourteen report longer visits. Typically, those reporting the shortest visits inter- viewed at small libraries, while those re- porting the longest visits interviewed at medium-size and large libraries. Those directors who spent only one day on campus report their visits were not very well planned and that they did not come away from their visits with very accurate pictures of the library and the institution. Contrariwise, those directors who spent more than two days in total on campus were much more positive in their evaluations. Several directors say more time should be available for the candidates to acquaint themselves with the campus and less time should be spent by the institution in arriv- ing at a decision on the successful candi- date. It is apparent that as short a campus visit as one day is insufficient, even in small col- leges, for the candidate to get to know the library and the institution. Two days is a reasonable minimum with more time being necessary in larger, more complex universi- ties. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED BY CANDIDATES Properly considered, the personal inter- view is a twp-way encounter in which the candidate evaluates the institution and its representatives just as much as they evalu- ate the candidate. Before ever applying for a position and definitely before arriving on campus for the interview, the prospective candidate should use the various published sources available to conduct a personal investigation of the institution. A great deal can be learned 118 I College & Research Libraries • March 1980 about trends in institutional enrollment, curriculum, staff stability in the library and the institution, collection development, li- brary finances, and so forth by consulting successive editions of a few standard direc- tories. The institution, of course, has an obliga- tion to provide the candidate with a "full and honest picture of the local situation" by giving the interviewees pertinent back- ground documents. 36 Louise Galloway re- ported providing such things as "a brief statement about the structure and charac- teristics of the university, the cultural as- pects of the city, and the organization and the extent of the university library system," as well as various annual reports of the li- brary and the constitution and bylaws of the library faculty. 37 One item on the questionnaire used to gather data for this study requests directors to check which of nine items of background material they received. (Responses from the seven internal appointments are not consid- ered.) Three-fourths of the directors report receiving one or more catalogs of the in- stitution, the library's present or immediate past budget, and one or more annual re- ports of the library (all judged to be very useful in assessing the position and the in- stitution). About half report receiving a de- tailed job description (very useful), a list of library staff members, information about the local community, a faculty or student library handbook, and the personnel policies of the institution (the latter four judged somewhat useful). One-fourth report receiving the constitution and bylaws of the library fac- ulty. (Most likely only this many libraries had such documents.) Those directors who received the fewest documents are rather negative concerning the accuracy of the picture of the library and the institution they received during their interviews. ' Nine directors report receiving fourteen other items of background information such as a library organization chart, committee reports on current library problems, infor- mation on cooperatives of which the library is a member, a long-range campus plan re- . port, an organization chart of the institution, curricula vitae of library staff members, fund-raising campaign literature (all judged very useful), a "somewhat sketchy job de- scription" (somewhat useful), apd a history of the college (not useful). Several respondents express a desire for documents and information that get below the surface descriptions of things and reveal the problems, constraints, and frustrations existing in the library and the institution. Twenty-two respondents list a total of · forty-four documents or types of information they would like to have received, including financial and budget information about the library and the institution, the institution's endowment, current problems and future plans of the library, the status of academic planning in the institution, the caliber of the student population, one or more annual reports of the library, documents concern- ing personnel matters in the library, infor- mation about the local community, the li- brary handbook, an accreditation self-study report on the institution, and minutes of li- brary committee meetings. Some suggestions and comments made by individual directors are: "Information on internal library politics-especially the per-: sonnel situation which was considerably de- teriorated"; "information about the institu- tion's role and scope within the state uni- versity system and its implications on in- dependent management decisions"; an "ac- curate view of administration toward role of library and degree of support expected-not lip service-from academic deans"; "a good and thorough briefing by someone well- acquainted with library field, status in in- stitution, and institutional situation"; "a frank evaluation (orally of course) of each person currently reporting to the director"; and "The administration should be more straightforward and 'tell it like it is.' Perhaps they have insuffi"cient direct contact with the library to know how it is. Adminis- trations should refrain from glorifying the institutions and from attempting to "·intoxi- cate' candidates." One director sums up the feelings ex- pressed by several respondents: "I think it is important for the institution to realize that it is not only looking for the best can- didate, it is also looking for an employee who will be happy working there. By trying to hide problems or by sweeping less than desirable conditions under the rug, it will find that it will have a higher than average turn over and poor morale in the library." Whether documents are the proper vehi- cle for conveying such information as is sug- gested in the above statements is a local de- cision. In some cases oral reports by an in- formed person or group may be appropri- ate. In any case, it would behoove the search committee to get this information to the candidate in the most appropriate form. CANDIDATE EVALUATIONS Respondents' overall evaluations of their experiences suggest colleges and universi- ties must improve the design and execution of interviews for the library director posi- tion. Of the fifty-one directors who re- sponded to three evaluative items on the questionnaire, twenty-two report their cam- pus visits were less than very well planned; another twenty-two report they received only a somewhat accurate picture of the li- brary during their visits ; and twenty-nine report receiving only a somewhat accurate picture of the institution. About half of the directors respond with less than the highest evaluation for two of these three items. CONCLUSION How does Clarke's observation about the improving quality of the library interview · process stand now? For this writer the claim needs tempering. Consistently one-third to one-half of the responses made to the sev- eral evaluative items on the questionnaire are negative , or at least they indicate a need for improvement. In their solicited sugges- tions for improvement of the interview pro- cess as well as their unsolicited comments, many of these fifty-four librarians echo the concerns of Harvey and Parr: "Alerting can- didates to special campus pressure groups, physical plant problems, and the concerns of those to be supervised, as well as long- range library plans, will provide needed orientation information. Regrettably, the contrast between the mannered politeness of the screening routine and the blunt polit- ical reality of the position has caused many directors anguish. ":Js In comparing library and institutional conditions as they were presented during the interview with the realities as observed after some time on the job, several of these Library Director Interview I 119 directors decry the lack of candor evidenced by institutional representatives during the interview. Wesley's thoughts on the possible reasons for this lack of candor seem cynical, disin- genuous, and ultimately counterproductive: "The administrator may deliberately with- hold information in order to lure what he considers to be a good person into accepting a position. . . . The administrator may not consider some information important. . .. The administrator may not be able to give hiring his full attention .... The adminis- trator may want to ... [give] the candidate only the information the administrator feels he needs. " 39 (Wesley writes from the perspective of a library director hiring pro- fessional staff members.) As administrators who serve institution- wide constituencies and who are affected in their work and planning by events happen- ing throughout their institutions, academic library directors have broad concerns that transcend library boundaries narrowly con- sidered. The inadequacies in the design and execution of interviews noted in this article, however, may be indicative of limited per- ceptions on the part of search committees or chief academic officers of the scope of the library director's position. A few years ago College Management , a journal for higher education administrators and especially for finance officers, published an article by Daniel Gore, who at the time was director of the library at Macalester College. Gore discussed his solution to the problem of decreasing availability of wanted books despite the growth of library collec- tions, a matter of vital concern to higher education administrators as well as to librar- ians. 40 Perhaps we in the profession need to do more of such communicating with our colleagues in their own journals so that their perceptions of libraries and librarians may come to be more in line with reality. More immediately , however, there are several areas in the interview and overall search process that are in need of improvement: 1. More should be done to investigate candidates' current places of employment. Just as the student's high school grade point average is one of the most reliable predic- tors of academic success in college, so too is one's performance in his or her current po- 120 I College & Research Libraries • March 1980 sition a good indicator of future perfor- mance. 2. Campus visits should last a minimum of two days with more time available in large, complex institutions. 3. The interviewers should have a better understanding of academic librarianship. 4. The candidate should be provided with more and better documents and information about the library and the institution. Finan- cial and budgeting information, the status of academic planning, institutional self- evaluation and accreditation studies, library-faculty and library-administration relationships-all affect the library director in his or her work. Documents or informa- tion reflecting these areas should be made available to the candidate. (In a recent paper investigating the process for hiring an academic dean, Lutz reported similar findings and made similar recommen- dations.)41 5. There should be a greater number a.nd variety of institutional representatives with whom the candidate interviews. Candidates should meet with students and faculty and with representatives from the finance, de- velopment, and student affairs offices as well as major academic administrators. 6. More library employees should be members of the search committee. Search committees and hiring adminis- trators still have a long way to go in improv- ing the interview and search processes so as to do a better job in identifying the best candidate for the position and in candidly presenting the institution to the candidates. Just as the hastily arranged marriage based upon inadequate knowledge of one's be- loved may turn quickly to disillusionment and divorce, so too may the less-than- optimal union between librarian and institu- tion lead to an ad in the Chronicle of Higher Education and College & Research Libraries News. REFERENCES 1. Rea Christofferson , "The High Cost of Hir- ing," Library journal 102:677 (March 15, 1977). 2. Leigh Estabrook, "Job Seekers in the Buyer's Market," Library journal 98:386 (Feb. 1, 1973). 3. David Peele, "Fear in the Library," journal of Academic Librarianship 4:361 (Nov. 1978). 4. Jack Clarke, "Running the Gauntlet: The Job Interview in the Seventies," Idaho Librarian 28:175 (Oct.· 1976). · 5. See, for example, , Sheila Creth, "Conducting an Effective Employment Interview," journal of Academic Librarianship 4:356-60 (Nov. 1978); Ellen J. Kaplan, "Effective Interview- ing," Special Libraries 67:63-67 (Feb. 1976); Peele, "Fear in the Library," p.361~5; Barry E . Simon, "Personnel Selection Practices: Ap- plications and Interviews," American Librar- ies 9:141-43 (March 1978). 6 . Richard Sommerfeld and Donna Nagely , "Seek and Ye Shall Find; The Organization and Conduct of a Search Committee," jour- nal of Higher Education 45:239-52 (April 1974). 7. John F. Harvey and Mary Parr, "University Library Search and Screen Committees," College & Research Libraries 37:347-55 Guly 1976). 8. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate in the Selection of a Director of Li- braries," College & Research Libraries 33:220-27 (May 1972). 9. Wes Daniels·, "How to Hire a Library Direc- tor: The Erewhon Experience, " journal of Academic Librarianship 3:211-12 (Sept. 1977). 10. Ibid. ; Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate"; Harvey and Parr, "University Li- brary Search and Screen Committees" ; Sommerfeld and Nagely, "Seek and Ye Shall Find." 11. Association of College and Research Librar- ies , "Guidelines and Procedures for the Screening and Appointment of Academic Li- brarians," College & Research Libraries News 38:231 (Sept. 1977). 12. R . Dean Galloway, "Search and Screen Committees, " College & Research Libraries 37:551 (Nov. 1976). 13. Dale E . Shaffer, "Search Committees," Li- brary journal 97:3661 (Nov. 15, 1972). 14. Sommerfeld and Nagely, "Seek and Ye Shall Find," p.241. 15. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate," p.222. 16. Association of College and Research Librar- ies, "Guidelines and Procedures," p.231. 17. Sommerfeld and Nagely, "Seek and Ye Shall Find," p.241. 18. Shaffer, "Search Committees." 19. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate," p.222. 20. Daniels, "How to Hire a Library Director," p.211. 21. Ibid., p .212. 22. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate," p.224-25. 23 . David C. Genaway, "Bar Coding and the Li- brarian Supermarket: An Analysis of Adver- tised Library Vacancies," Library journal 103:324 (Feb. 1, 1978). · 24. Sommerfeld and Nagely, "Seek and Ye Shall Find," p.249. 25. Association of College and Research Librar- ies, "Guidelines and Procedures," p.232. 26. Harvey and Parr, "University Library Search and Screen Committees," p.351. 27. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate," p.226. 28. Ibid. 29. Daniels, " How to Hire a Library Director," p .211. 30. Paul Metz, "The Role of the Academic Li- brary Director," journal of Academic Librar- Library Director Interview I 121 ianship 5:148-52 (July 1979). 31. Shaffer, "Search Committees." 32. Sommerfeld and Nagely, "Seek and Ye Shall Find," p .249. 33. Ibid. 34. Daniels, "How to Hire a Library Director," p.212. 35. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate," p.226, 227. , 36. Harvey and Parr, "University Library Search and Screen Committees," p.352. 37. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate," p.223, 226. 38. Harvey and Parr, "University Library Search and Screen Committees," p .351. 39. Phillip Wesley, "Dignity and the S.P.C.A.; Or, We Too Are Human, Who Only Admin- istrate," California Librarian 33:38-40, 49 (Jan . 1972). 40. Daniel Gore, "Zero Growth for the College Library," College Management 9:12-14 (Aug./Sept. 1974). 41. Frank W. Lutz, "The Deanship: Search and Screening Process," Educational Record 60:261-71 (Summer 1979).