College and Research Libraries The Nature of Authority and Employee Participation in the Management of Academic Libraries Charles Martell Power and control are central forces in organizational life. Some researchers have even con- cluded that the control of behavior is often substituted for control of outcomes. This practice could lead managers to ignore relevant environmental changes in favor of strategies that rein- force and enhance their personal self-interests. This article examines the nature of authority as embedded in organizational and professional structures within an academic library context and its relationship to the fit between the organization and the environment. Who makes decisions about what is a key factor in how control is maintained? Traditional theories of management circumscribe the extent of employee participation in decision making. In practice, this may lead managers to limit participation because it threatens their control. In a dynamic environment, however, this strategy could be dysfunctional. Two alternative forms of decision making are introduced: self-regulation and formal participation. The subject was corporate transfer assignments. As the vice president for personnel turned to a map of the United States located on the wall, he remarked that employee transfers were simple. "All I have to do is lift a pin here in White Plains and place it in San Francisco. That's all there is to it." Shortly thereaf- ter my interview for a sales/marketing position at General Foods concluded. Because he rejected any personal or family consid- erations that might be involved in such transfers, I felt that the executive's remarks were callous. Today I also realize that he expected me to give him the power to control not just my work life but my per- sonal life as well. n academic librarianship our experiences with power are not usually so blatant. Power and control are, however, central forces in organizational life.1,2 Indeed, some researchers view the control of be- havior as a primary goal of traditional or- ganizational structures. 3 This is surprising since the most commonly held belief is that these structures are mainly oriented toward the control of outcomes, i.e ., to- ward better products and services. In li- braries, the desire to protect sources of power and control within the organization may lead some major stakeholders to ig- nore or minimize the needs of external constituencies. 4 To counter the negative manifestations of power and self-interest, new forms of involvement, such as self-regulation and formal participation, could be adopted by organizations (1) to focus attention on the development of better products and ser- vices rather than on the control of behav- ior, (2) to decentralize power so that a more equitable balance of interests can be Charles Martell is Associate University Librarian for Public Services at California State University, Sacra- mento, California 95819. 110 achieved, and (3) to change authority structures so that members throughout the organization can contribute to the decision-making process in a more mean- ingful way. This article examines the nature of au- thority as embedded in organizational and professional structures within an aca- demic library context and the relationship of these factors to the fit between the orga- nization and its environment. Special at- tention is focused on how various struc- tures may inhibit responsiveness to environmental changes. The concept of power is treated next. The third section ex- plores decision making, and in the final section two alternative forms of decision making are introduced: self-regulation and formal participation. If adopted, these alternative forms would necessitate changes in authority relationships and in the design of the organization. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES An organization is an open system. Its members interact with one another and with an outside system-an external envi- ronment. 5 The variety of self-interests, perceived goals, and environmental de- mands usually leads to a multiplicity of of- ten competing goals within the organiza- tion.6 In theory, the organizational structure, that is, the formal pattern of roles and rela- tionships, provides a common sense of purpose and direction so that diverse in- terpersonal, organizational, and environ- mental demands can be more efficiently reconciled. Complexity and uncertainty complicate the decision-making process and hinder agreement on goals. As a result, and in contrast to the past, there may be less internalization of work- related norms. This increases the diffi- culty of planning, directing, and control- ling organizational outcomes. Viewed in terms of classic organiza- tional theory, the lines of authority andre- sponsibility in libraries emanate down- ward from the head librarian through a process called delegation. Managers thus empowered control resources, access to information, and information itself. They also control decision-making processes. 7 The Nature of Authority 111 In theory, this hierarchical structure provides a basis for effective decision making. 8 In practice, the structural hierar- chy may constrain the decision-making opportunities of those who do not have formal authority or responsibility. 9 More- over, this system may encourage individ- uals in positions of responsibility to stress control of behavior through rules, evalua- tion, and the structure itself. The control of outcomes may become secondary. This would increase the likelihood of a mis- match between the organization and its environment. In their book, Organization and Environ- ment, Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch look at the problem of how ''different external conditions might require different organi- zational characteristics and behavior pat- terns within an effective organization. " 10 Mismatches occur when organizations are insensitive toward or otherwise fail to re- spond to relevant environmental shifts. According to Lawrence and Lorsch, or- ganizations structured along traditional lines are most successful when conditions are stable. In dynamic or turbulent envi- ronments, they tend to be overly rigid. In such environments, less hierarchical sys- tems that encourage participation are characteristically more adaptive and suc- cessful. The structures that we confront at work may constrain the scope of our actions and may limit responsiveness to users .11 How can we escape this bind? At the very least we can adopt a more critical posture to- ward these major structures, both organi- zational and professional. 12 This would al- low us to distinguish more clearly between those aspects of the structure that benefit our users and meet our obliga- tions to the environment and those as- pects of the structure that constrain such action. Organizational/Environment (0/E) Fit Significant organizational changes have occurred in libraries in recent years. Some have been driven by automated technolo- gies that unleashed a revolution in techni- cal service operations. Nevertheless, any monitoring of the library's responsiveness to relevant changes in user needs has been 112 College & Research Libraries slow to develop. Why? In an environment that most observers call turbulent and un- certain, why have libraries not taken more direct action to increase their adaptive ca- pacity through the creation of more user- oriented structures? Fiscal shortages can be cited, but we should also seek less obvi- ous factors because the passive service ori- entation identified by Gardner Hanks and C. James Schmidt also existed during pe- riods of fiscal strength. 13 Three key factors emerge. First, as a rule, academic librarians pay little atten- tion to environmental monitoring. Charles McClure finds that library middle managers generally distrust statistical measures and believe that such measures are ineffective as indicators of the quality of public services. 14 These attitudes and behaviors persist despite the general ac- ceptance of an open-systems model of or- ganizing that stres_s,es the close ties be- tween the organization and its external environment and the critical importance of empirical feedback. 15 Second, sociologists have noted the ten- dency of organizations to view the envi- ronment as alien and hostile and to treat clients as problems that interfere with the organization's efforts to create uniformity and order. 16 Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald Sa- lancik suggest that Organizations may purposely manipulate the illusion of satisfaction to avoid the open expres- sion of some demands. Patients in a psychiatric hospital may be drugged to reduce their de- mands on the staff. At the same time, relatives may be told about all the fine therapeutic activ- ity going on. 17 Hanks and Schmidt note the sometimes hostile reaction of our profession to direct user input. They offer suggestions for im- proving the design based on client- centered principles. 18 Changes in the design of academic li- braries are probably necessary if signifi- cant improvements are to occur in the or- ganizational/environmental fit. These changes would quite naturally include the organizational structure. However, struc- tural changes that would threaten privi- leged interests or status would meet re- sistance. March 1987 Organizational participants are in a contest for resources and their control. This contest is po- litical and is fought in many contexts within or- ganizations. One context is the structural ar- rangement of positions and persons within organizations. Design is an important factor af- fecting who controls organizations, who gov- erns.19 Here we have the third key factor that may limit the responsiveness of academic libraries to user needs: the self-interest of dominant officeholders and employee groups. Some researchers view the excessive re- liance on structure as a mechanism for protecting self-interests and organiza- tional prerogatives. In this context organi- zational change is threatening because it may alter authority relationships. Walter Nord suggests that major stakeholders ''seek to protect their interests and posi- tions of influence by moderating environ- mental pressures and their effects. '' 20 Pro- tective measures may take an even more active form as stakeholders seek and pro- mote those changes that will reduce the discretionary decision-making power of other organizational members. This prac- tice would be especially dysfunctional in dynamic environments that demand higher degrees of power sharing and in- creased responsibility with improved ac- cess to resources and information for members at lower levels in the hierarchy. PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURES Any examination of the nature of au- thority in academic librarianship should address professional structures, or the ele- ments that produce and support a profes- sional interest group in the library through both intra- and interinstitutional mechanisms, as well as the impact of these structures on organizational outcomes. This approach is recommended to redress weaknesses in the professional model of librarianship described by Hanks and Schmidt, and to counter recurring cri- tiques of the professions by sociologists. 21 Robert Reiff finds that professionals act as if ''the basis of professional power is not knowledge itself but the control of knowledge. " 22 As a result, members of professions may be reluctant to share their skills with the client, because they believe "the more knowledge the public acquires, the less firm the basis of the authority granted. " 23 Professional control in this sense may be extended not only to clients but also to other employee categories. Hanks and Schmidt highlight related weaknesses: (1) a tendency to restrict, dis- courage, and overlook interaction with the user environment; (2) elitism that fos- ters status differentials within the library between professional and nonprofes- sional employees; and (3) the potential ne- gation of the concept of community ser- vice by other elements of the model. Negation occurs when the pursuit of at- tributes such as professional autonomy becomes self-serving and gains for librari- ans are made at the expense of the user. 24 Robert Veatch's analysis of medical eth- ics leads him to conclude that profession- ally articulated codes are ethnocentric and do not relate to the needs of ordinary peo- ple. In the early 1970s, members of a grad- uating class from the Harvard Medical School refused to take the Hippocratic Oath because it neglected to mention the rights of patients, to acknowledge social responsibilities, and to face the issues of justice, equity, liberty, and autonomy. 25 Fortunately, the Librarians' Code of Eth- ics, adopted by the Council of the Ameri- can Library Association (June 30, 1982), is a noteworthy document that stresses ser- vice, social responsibility, due process, and equality of opportunity. 26 There is little reason to believe, how- ever, that the code exerts a strong influ- ence on the day-to-day behavior of librari- ans. The pressures of self-interest are strong and so we must remain skeptical. Certain aspects of authority as embedded in professional and organizational struc- tures may constrain our service orienta- tion until changes in libraries lead to the modification of authority relationships. 27 POWER: ITS USES AND MISUSES The actions of management have legiti- macy because we commonly assume that they are taken for the good of the organi- zation and its clients. 28 This assumption can disguise negative manifestations of The Nature of Authority 113 power. 29 Samuel Bacharach and Edward J. Lawler, for example, suggest that "orga- nizationallife is dominated by political in- teractions; politics in organizations in- volve the tactical use of power to retain or obtain control of real or symbolic re- sources. " 30 From this perspective, organi- zational decisions are often made to rein- force the status and prestige of individuals internally rather than to provide better products or services. Furthermore, changes to benefit users may be opposed because they interfere with internal sources of power. 31 This practice could im- pair the organization's ability to adapt ef- fectively to environmental changes, and thus could lead to mediocre standards of service. If staff conclude that the use of power at the managerial level has a deleterious ef- fect on the rationality of the decision- making process, a reduction in the legiti- macy accorded to management might occur. 32 Staff attempts to offset or to cope with the negative dimensions of power or self-interest could lead to the growth of in- formal decision-making channels. Staff who dramatize weaknesses in the organi- zation's service orientation, however, ex- pose themselves to the coercive and puni- tive power of officeholders. Power is a complicated phenomenon that continues to intrigue theorists in the fields of economics, political science, and organizational behavior. In libraries the lines of authority and responsibility create a structure that governs (1) who sets the goals, (2) how resources are allocated, (3) who makes decisions about what, (4) who evaluates, (5) who benefits, (6) who is to do what, and (7) what means are to be used. Because authority allows the office- holder to exert influence through control over resources and information, the struc- ture bestows power. The misuse of power in the organiza- tional setting and the relative inflexibility of both organizational and professional structures have led some researchers to examine alternative forms of power distri- bution. 33 Traditional theories of distribu- tion state that power emanates from the top of the administrative hierarchy which has an absolute right of delegation. Power 114 College & Research Libraries is treated as a fixed quantity (power amount of influence + amount of con- trol).34 Thus, any manager who allows a subordinate to make a decision experi- ences a net loss of power or influence. Or more simply, for every winner there is a loser. Current research emphasizes an ex- panding quantity of power. Studies at the Institute for Social Research at the Univer- sity of Michigan indicate that the ''total amount of power is generally a more effec- tive predictor of organizational productiv- ity and organizational morale than the hi- erarchical distribution of power.' ' 35 DECISION MAKING Effective decision making is an impor- tant theme in the field of organizational behavior. 36 In libraries, effective decision making should result in the ability to sat- isfy user needs over time, to help users make new sense for themselves in a vari- ety of situations, to provide a satisfying and rewarding work experience for all staff, and to obtain the resources neces- sary to meet the three criteria stated above. 37 However, sufficient evidence ex- ists to question the adequacy of traditional structures and the decision-making proc- esses that characterize them. Among the factors that have led re- searchers to conclude that we need new structures are the following: the effect of self-interest; the lack of agreement on goals; the deterioration of our formerly in- ternalized system of shared norms and values; decision complexity; the rate and scale of change, organizational size, tech- nological advances; the higher educa- tional levels of the workforce; social, cul- tural, and personal needs; and a broadened base for the expan&ion and at- tainment of various rights. Nevertheless, progress toward new structures has been slow. A survey of library literature in the areas of organizational structure, decision mak- ing, participation, and power was under- taken in order to guide further discus- sion. 38 Ten findings of this survey are cited here: • There is a general acceptance of tradi- tional bureaucratic forms but the discus- March 1987 sion of alternative forms has expanded in the 1980s. • Traditional views of authority and re- sponsibility are · usually accepted with- out question. • · The concept of power is seldom used, and the influence of power on the decision-making process is accordingly neglected. An article by Richard Eggle- ton on choice-shift strategies and arti- cles by Louis Kaplan on decision shar- ing are two exceptions. 39 • Power is treated as a fixed rather than an expanding factor. This provides one. ex- planation why traditional forms of orga- nizing remain entrenched. • The potential dehumanizing effect of an unequal distribution of power in aca- demic libraries is rarely mentioned. • A narrow view persists of the forms of participation possible in our libraries. Self-regulation and formal participa- tion, i.e., the right to participate as dis- tinct from privilege or delegated author- ity, are novel concepts. • Definitions of participation and the sub- ject of participative management are treated as relatively simple phenomena when, in fact, they are extremely com- plex. • The decision to permit or to deny partic- ipation is treated as a managerial right. Participation is viewed as a managerial tool or strategy. Management is free to determine (1) if participation will be per- mitted, (2) at what stage in the decision- making cycle participation will occur, (3) what the degree of participation will be, (4) who will participate, (5) within what time-frame participation will take place, and (6) what will be done with the product of the participation. • Decision making is discussed as a dis- crete event. There is little comment on the interrelationship of decisions over time. • There is no comprehensive framework for staff involvement in decision mak- ing from the problem identification stage through the implementation stage. For the library to be responsive to its us- ers, it is necessary to recognize when the users' environment has changed. Once a j change occurs and is recognized, the next issue becomes what to do. Ideally, this in- volves a statement of the problem, the generation, consideration, and choice of alternatives, and finally, implementation. Quality decisions are enhanced, there- fore, by a combination of environmental monitoring and attention to the several stages in the decision-making cycle. 40 Influences on the Quality of Decision Making In principle, libraries pursue a set of goals that serve to direct the actions of staff. It is assumed that there is agreement on goals and a cohesive framework of shared understandings. From this implicit consensus, management can build a rea- sonable case that it upholds and advances the interests of users, staff, and other con- stituent groups. In practice, a multiplicity of goals exists and the value structures un- derlying them are widely divergent. 41 Ac- cordingly, goal congruence may be atypi- cal and unresolved conflict may predominate. The tendency to avoid the examination of different value structures and professional or institutional goals may force organizational participants to increase their pursuit of self-interest. Rosemary Du Mont notes that 11 the lack of agreement on the significance of vari- ous techniques [i.e., approaches to view- ing library effectiveness] poses a serious problem both for library administrators and for analysis of the library as an organi- zation; it makes it difficult, if not impos- sible, to evaluate a library's success or fail- ure adequately.' ' 42 If management is unable to demonstrate meaningful prog- ress because of the lack of goal congru- ence, staff might conclude that self- interest rules and that an active orientation toward users is the victim. This could undermine the legitimacy ac- corded to management. Staff might infer that more direct participation in decision making would moderate and perhaps cor- rect weaknesses in leadership. 43 Lack of agreement on library goals and on what constitutes library effectiveness can lower the quality of decision making. If poor choices are made when consider- ing the appropriate decision-making The Nature of Authority 115 structures to address a problem, quality can be further eroded. 44 Use of inappro- priate structures can lead to a solution with limited innovative capacity (rigid search behavior) and low commitment (lack of staff participation in decision- making process). 45 Building ownership into decision outcomes can facilitate the implementation process by reducing the incidence of low commitment. 46 PARTICIPATION: PLACEBO OR PANACEA Employee participation in decision mak- ing was a widely discussed issue in the 1970s. Opinions on the degree of partici- pation to be permitted ranged from zero to 100 percent. In practice, the show-and-tell style of management so prevalent in the past has been replaced by a more consulta- tive style. Social changes external to li- braries are partially responsible for the adoption of a new style. Many individuals now feel entitled to more legitimate input into the decision-making process. Man- agement education has also changed, and employee involvement in decision mak- ing is encouraged. 47 Because decision making is increasingly complex, managers are being forced to rely more and more on the judgment and expertise of employees lower in the orga- nizational hierarchy. 48 Nevertheless, the classic principles of ultimate responsibility and delegation of authority persist. 49 For- mal participation is not viewed as an em- ployee right. According to Peter Dachler and Bernhard Wilpert, II one can hardly consider as an historical accident the fact that existing participatory systems in the United States, for example, characteristi- cally limit the access of participants to the decision-making process, restrict the range and importance of decisions to be included in the participatory system, tend to be direct and informal, and usually in- volve a limited social range.' ' 50 In academic librarianship the role of staff in decision making varies widely. 51 In addition, strong differences of opinion ex- ist between professional and nonprofes- sional staff, just as they do between the professional staff and the library adminis- tration.52 For example, Dennis Dickinson 116 College & Research Libraries calls for centralized decision making be- cause only those in upper-level positions "perceive and understand the organiza- tion as an integrated whole.' ' 53 The consultative approach decentralizes the deliberative process but does not nec- essarily change who makes the final deci- sion: it may merely formalize the advisory role. The effectiveness of the consultation in terms of staff interest can be determined by the number of times that the advice given on important issues is acted upon in proportion to the number of times it is not. Because consultation is a procedural and not a structural change, the sources of power remain almost the same. In consultative systems, the manager re- tains an enormous capacity to influence outcomes. Lammers cites five ways in which managers can obstruct joint consul- tation: 1. Use joint consultation for downward but not upward communication. 2. Treat members of a group not as rep- resentatives but as individual employees expressing personal opinions. 3. Send lower-level supervisors to meetings thereby lowering the hierarchi- cal level on which groups can exert influ- ence. 4. Deal only with unimportant matters. 5. Keep a free hand by not cooperating in drafting bylaws or by refusing to keep official or detailed minutes. 54 Weaknesses in the decision-making processes of organizations have led some to conclude that managers should adopt a less supervisory and more coordinative role. 55 In contrast to the win-lose, zero- sum gain calculations of traditional power theorists, such a change in managerial style could lead to a power gain for all par- ticipants. Lammers has demonstrated how the amount of influence available to any organization has the potential to ex- pand constantly if structures free the em- ployee to participate more in decision making. 56 An alternative view is that par- ticipation and power are so closely related that managers would only relinquish their current status and controlling influence if forced to do so. Decision sharing is one form of partici- pative management. 57 It goes well beyond management by consultation. For this March 1987 type of decision making to work, man- agers must avoid the creation of mock par- ticipative situations such as the five meth- ods for obstruction cited above. Otherwise, employees will soon realize that the actual sources of power are un- changed and may resort to action that causes a deterioration of the organiza- tion's effectiveness. 58 The work of Dachler and Wilpert, ''Con- ceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organizations: A Critical Evaluation,'' is a significant contribution to the literature on participation. The au- thors discuss ''the social theories underly- ing participatory social systems and the values and goals each of them implies for participation, the major properties of par- ticipatory systems, the outcomes of partic- ipation in organizations, and the contex- tual characteristics of participatory system which limit or enhance their potential. " 59 They list four social theories: 1. Human growth and development theory 2. Productivity and efficiency orienta- tion 3. Socialistic theory 4. Democratic theory Theories one and two comprise the tra- ditional perspectives that managers use. Human growth and development theory restricts any form of participation to issues surrounding the work itself (employee compensation and benefits, production methods, working time arrangements and hygienic factors such as coffee breaks and furnishings) rather than including issues such as the development and implemen- tation of services, the selection of top man- agement, wage and benefit policy, capital investment, reorganization, and choice of technology. The productivity and effi- ciency orientation ''conforms to a para- digm which seeks an instrumental under- standing of human beings and their capacities, and in which people are con- sidered to be manipulable toward maxi- mum output through appropriate social technologies. " 60 By limiting participation to issues surrounding task accomplish- ment, the traditional perspectives allow management to maintain control. Obviously, perspectives on participa- tion differ among the social theories. J • P. Bernstein suggests a means for under- standing participation independent of any particular social theory. He uses three di- mensions: (1) the degree of control em- ployees have over a decision; (2) the range of issues over which control may be exer- cised; and (3) the organizational level at which employees' influence is exercised. 61 NEW RULES, NEW STRUCTURES Few library managers subscribe to a value structure that calls for the distribu- tion of organizational authority along democratic lines. Participation is generally viewed not as a right but as a strategy to be used, or as a managerial style. Various forms of direct (face-to-face) participation are used at the workplace or shop level. Although this style of participation is fre- quent in the United States, it is almost nonexistent in Europe. Instead, the Euro- pean system of organizational governance stresses participation as a right at the high- est levels. Workers participate in national councils and on boards of directors. Nightingale lists eight degrees of partici- pation: 1. Employees need not be informed about decisions made by management (except as necessary to conduct their work). 2. Employees have the right to be in- formed after decisions are made. 3. Employees must be informed ex ante and given an opportunity to voice their opinions. 4. Employees are consulted informally before a decision is made. 5. Employees must be consulted before a decision is made. 6. Employees participat"e informally with management in decision making: management (through "residual rights") and employees (through the collective agreement) retain the right of veto over some issues. 7. Management and employees jointly make decisions. In some cases employee representatives have parity with stock- holder and management interests; in oth- ers, stockholder and management inter- ests dominate. 8. Employees have the final say in deci- sion making. 62 The Nature of Authority 117 Formal participation (as a right) and self-regulation (autonomy) are forms of decision making that conform to the ten- ets of democratic theory. They also con- form to theories of social justice, such as those developed by John Rawls, that "re- spect impartially the basic interests of par- ticipants in social systems.''63 Here equal- ity includes not only equal treatment but treatment as an equal. By adopting these forms libraries might be able to approach their problems from a healthier and more creative perspective. Employees might also be more challenged and find more meaning in their work. In addition to a new sense of power and competence, the employee might see a stronger connection between the values society espouses and the values it practices. 64 In New Rules in American Life: Searching for Self-Fulfillment in a World Turned Upside Down, Daniel Yankelovich states: "If the great choices that determine our destiny are made for us by others-by elites, by technicians, by elected officials-then we are not free, though we may be wholly lib- erated ... an employee in a hierarchical organization is not free within the work- place."65 Equity, fairness, and democracy should have a socially mandated role in the workplace. Formal Participation Formal participation extends the right to participate. Dachler and Wilpert define formal participation as an ''explicitly re- corded system of rules and agreements imposed on or granted to the organiza- tion. " 66 Nightingale describes it as power sharing with "structural arrangements which give 'formal' and documented decision-making rights to employees. " 67 Informal participation, on the other hand, is nonstatutory consensus. 68 The degree of informal participation varies with organi- zational traditions and managerial styles in use. Formal participation is legitimated through laws, collective bargaining con- tracts, and unilateral regulations that di- rect management action. A few academic libraries have moved in the direction of formal participation. At many institutions staff have direct input into hiring and peer review decisions. Full formal participa- 118 College & Research Libraries tion, however, might include staff in- volvement in the decisions leading to the adoption and implementation of new ser- vices or technologies, determining the al- location of resources, planning new facil- ties, establishing general policies, setting library budgets, and specifying library fac- ulty assignments. Decisions in these areas are often reserved for top management, whereas staff are likely to make decisions regarding production methods, schedul- ing, and other work-related arrange- ments. The most democratic form of decision making unites formal and direct participa- tion. Direct participation signifies the per- sonal involvement of individual staff members. Indirect participation is not per- sonal but is mediated through some form of representation. Nightingale indicates an important difference between super- vising styles that assume employees have the right to participate directly in decision making and those that offer only indirect rights through representation. 69 Most managers view direct participation as unfeasible or only useful for a narrow range of issues. 70 Time pressures, lack of expertise, and insufficient information are usually cited as constraints that inhibit the greater involvement of staff in decision making. These constraints can, however, be altered through the adoption of more effective management practices. 71 There are other important characteris- tics that can affect the nature of staff par- ticipation such as II the degree to which participants have access to the decision- making process, the range and impor- tance of issues, and the kind of decision rules to be included in the participatory decision-making process, the range of people or organizational units to be in- cluded in direct-participation systems, and the base of legitimacy on which the di- rect participation system is developed.'' 72 A standard that calls for direct formal staff involvement in all decisions irrespec- tive of the range or importance of issues may be ideal to some; however, the rou- tineness of many decisions precludes strict adherence to such a standard. The actual degree of involvement by staff should be negotiated carefully so that the March 1987 organization can be adaptable without sacrificing its ability to meet time con- straints and can maintain equity without diminishing its effectiveness. Major changes in the decision-making structure of academic libraries would re- quire corresponding changes in both man- agerial practice and staff behavior. 73 Man- agers would hiwe to move from a direct control mode to a coordinating role. 74 Moreover, as Dickinson notes, some staff may find it difficult to cope with increased participation. 75 Formal participation would surely affect the organizational de- sign of the library, because the nature of authority would be altered so dramati- cally. Self-Regulation Self-regulation in the workplace can be defined as control by the employee over those decisions that directly affect the work to be performed. 76 Self-regulation occurs most frequently in a team or group setting. The basic design feature is to give individual work groups the tools and re- sources to operate in a quasi-autonomous manner. Group members make many of their own decisions but do so within broad guidelines developed by the institution, usually in consultation with other mem- bers. Self-regulating work groups deter- mine work methods and task assign- ments. They also handle quality control, scheduling, evaluation, client problems and service enhancements. 77 This type of advanced work systems design has been developed during the past twenty years. 78 In The Client-Centered Academic Library, a prototype design is proposed that incor- porates the use of self-regulating work groups. 79 This design also calls for both the redesign of the systems of work and the redesign of the library as an organization. Formal participation and self-regulation are proposed. It provides a consistent and coherent philosophy of staff involvement in decision making throughout the li- brary~ Some researchers have observed a loose coupling between the actual work of the organization and the general structure that develops plans and policies. The the- ory of parallel organization is based on the .. principle of loose coupling.l!U The parallel organization does not replace the bureau- cratic hierarchy but supplements it. The conventional line hierarchy still performs those tasks for which it is best suited; however, the parallel organization is structured to be more responsive and par- ticipatory in problem solving. Flexibility and responsiveness are stressed. One goal of this type of organization is to provide the employee with more challenging and meaningful work. There is also increased employee control through a sense of enti- tlement, more rights and job autonomy, and less overall supervision. 81 Barry Stein and Rosabeth Kanter view the parallel or- ganization as one means to reform the tra- ditional organization while still taking ad- vantage of traditional capabilities. Within academic librarianship con- certed attention should be paid to alterna- tive work structures and their potential value. In the "Macropolitics of Organiza- · tional Change,'' Robert Cole describes an agenda for research on the comparative analysis uf participative organizational forms. 82 This and other published material provide the profession with an excellent starting point. CONCLUSION There has been steady progress in staff involvement in decision making over the past fifteen years. However, a slowdown has occurred in the 1980s. Part of this may be attributed to reduced staff interest in decision making. It may also be an indica- tion that outstanding staff issues in the 1960s and 1970s have been satisfactorily addressed. 83 The Nature of Authority 119 Early in the decade the economic situa- tion led management to use staff in solv- ing problems when major shifts in the al- location of resources or cuts in traditional wage and benefit packages were required. Corporate leaders relaxed restrictive work rules in exchange for wage freezes and the deferral of benefits. In distressed indus- tries, management gave unions consulta- tive rights regarding capital outlays and other investment plans, access to confi- dential data on company costs, expanded employee participation, decision-making involvement on plant and production problems and guarantees against plant closings. 84 The extension of rights to employees for formal and direct participation in key decision-making areas can provide orga- nizations with a valuable new resource to assist in coping with rapid change and technological complexity. That is, it makes · good sense. It can also lead to new organi- zational designs that make innovative use of decision-making structures and pro- cesses. Chris Argyris wrote: People create streets. Once streets are built, they coerce people to ride on them and not on sidewalks. People can create new streets and al- ter old ones; streets cannot create new streets. 85 Analogously, by breaking out of the strait- jacket of our traditional organizational structures, we will be able to explore and experiment with new designs. This may help us to cope more effectively with fu- ture challenges that now threaten to over- load us and that hamper efforts to create . more responsive libraries. REFERENCES 1. In The Anatomy of Power (Boston: Houghton, 1983). John Kenneth Galbraith describes the uses and misuses of power. 2. Samuel B. Bacharach and Edward J. Lawler, Power and Politics in Organizations: The Social Psychol- ogy of Conflict, Coalitions, and Bargaining (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980); Jeffrey Pfeffer, "Who Governs?" in The Sociology of Organizations: Basic Studies, 2d ed., ed. Oscar Grusky and George A. Miller (New York: Free Press, 1981); Charles J. Fombrun, "Structures of Organizational Gover- nance," Human Relations 37:207-23 (Mar. 1984); and William T. Markham, Charles M. Bonjean, and Judy Corder, ''Measuring Organizational Control: The Reliability and Validity of the Control Graph Approach," Human Relations 37:263-94 (Apr. 1984). 3. Jack R. Gibb, Trust: A New View of Personal and Organizational Development (Los Angeles: Guild of Tutors Press, 1978), p.245; Pfeffer, "Who Governs?"; William G. Ouchi, "The Transmission of 120 College & Research Libraries March 1987 Control through Organizational Hierarchy," Academy of Management Journal21:173-92 (June 1978); Nestor K. Orville II, "Organizational/Managerial Control Processes: A Reconceptualization of the Linkage between Technology and Performance," Human Relations 37:1047-62 (Dec. 1984); and Steven P. Feldman, ''Culture and Conformity: An Essay on Individual Adaptation in Centralized Bureaucracy," Human Relations 38:347 (Apr. 1985). 4. Eliot Freidson, Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge (Chicago: Univ. ofChicagoPr., 1986), p.177. 5. W. Richard Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981). 6. Bacharach and Lawler, Power and Politics in Organizations, p.4; Michael Keeley, "Impartiality and Participant-Interest Theories of Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly 29:3 (Mar. 1984); and Michael Blumstein, "Executives Being Challenged on Salaries and Self- Interest," New York Times (May 8, 1984), p.Al, D5. 7. George M. Prince, "Creative Meetings through Power Sharing," Harvard Business Review 50:47-48 Mj (July-Aug. 1972). 8. Fombrun, ."Structures of Organizational Governance," p.207-23. 9. Walter R. Nord, "Dreams of Humanization and the Realities of Power," Academy of Management Review 3:676-77 (July 1978); Bong Gon Shin and Elliot Zashin, "Management and the New Egali- tarianism: McGuire Revisited," California Management Review 24:7 (Summer 1982); and Fernando · Bartolome and Andre Laurent, "The Manager: Master and Servant of Power," Harvard Business Review 64:77-81 (Nov.-Dec. 1986). 10. Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (Homewood, ill.: Irwin, 1969), p .14. 11. Patricia Riley, "A Structurationist Account of Political Cultures," Administrative Science Quarterly 28:414-37 (Sept. 1983). 12. Gardner Hanks and C. James Schmidt, "An Alternative Model of a Profession of Librarianship," College & Research Libraries 36:184 (May 1975); and J. Kenneth Benson, "Organizations: A Dialecti- cal View," Administrative Science Quarterly 22:1 (Mar. 1977). 13. Hanks and Schmidt, "An Alternative Model of a Profession of Librarianship," p.177. 14. Charles R. McClure, "A View from the Trenches: Costing and Performance Measures for Aca- demic Library Public Services," College & Research Libraries 47:323-36 (July 1986). 15. In their article, ''Scanning the University's External Environment,'' in the Journal of Higher Educa- tion 56:420 (July/Aug . 1985), James C. H.earn and Richard B. Heydinger state that "the ideal orga- nization surveys its environment in general, selects certain key environmental issues, trends, and domains for concentrated tracking, and feeds useful clues into its ongoing strategic decision mak- ing." 16. Frederick Fox, Larry E. Pate, and Louis R. Pondy, "Designing Organizations to Be Responsive to Their Clients," in The Management of Organization Design, V.1, ed. Ralph H. Kilmann, Louis R. Pondy, andDennisP. Slevin(NewYork: Elsevier, 1976), p.64; and Allen B. Veaner, "1985to1995: The Next Decade in Academic Librarianship, Part I," College & Research Libraries 46:221-22 (May - . d, 1985). J{ 17. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald R. Salancik, The External Control of Organizations (New York: Harper, 1978), p. 98. 18. Hanks and Schmidt, "An Alternative Model of a Profession of Librarianship," p.183. * 19. Pfeffer, "Who Governs?" p.230. 20. Nord, "Dreams of Humanization," p.676. 21. Pfeffer, "Who Governs?"; Freidson, Professional Powers, p.174; W. J. Reeves, Librarians as Profes- sionals: The Occupation's Impact on Library Work Arrangements (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980); and William J. Goode, "The Librarian: From Occupation to Profession," Library Quarterly 34:306-18 (Oct. 1961). 22. Robert Reiff, "The Control of Knowledge: The Power of the Helping Professions," Journal of Ap- plied Behavioral Science 10:459 (1974). 23. Ibid., p.453. Brian Nielsen arrives at the same conclusion in "Teacher or Intermediary: Alternative Professional Models in the Information Age," College & Research Libraries 43:188 (May 1982). 24. Hanks and Schmidt, "An Alternative Model of a Profession of Librarianship," p.178. 25. H. Jack Geiger, "The Right Medicine," New York Times Book Review (Jan. 31, 1981). A review of A Theory of Medical Ethics by Robert M. Veatch (New York: Basic Books, 1980), p.llO. 26. "Librarians' Code of Ethics," American Libraries 13:595 (Oct. 1982). Adopted by the Council of the American Library Association on June 30, 1982. 27. Ralph M. Edwards, ''The Management of Libraries and the Professional Functions of Librarians,'' Library Quarterly 45:156 (Apr. 1975). The Nature of Authority 121 28. Bacharach and Lawler, Power and Politics in Organizations, p.39. 29. David Kipnis, ''Does Power Corrupt?'' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26:33 (Oct. 1972). 30. Bacharach and Lawler, Power and Politics in Organizations, p.l. 31 . Nord, "Dreams of Humanization," p.676. 32. Kipnis, "Does Power Corrupt?" p.38; and Shin and Zashin, "Management and the New Egalitar- ianism," p.12. 33. C. J. Lammers, ''Power and Participation in Decision-making in Formal Organizations,'' American JournalofSociology73:201-16 (Sept. 1967); and SarA. Levitan and Clifford M. Johnson, ' 'Labor and Management: The Illusion of Cooperation," Harvard Business Review 61:8-10,16 (Sept .-Oct. 1983). 34. Lammers, "Power and Participation in Decision-making in Formal Organizations," p.203. 35. Ibid. 36. John Forester, ''Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through,'' Public Administration Review44:23-31 Gan./Feb. 1984); and Anna Grandori, "A Prescriptive Contingency View of Orga- nizational Decision Making," Administrative Science Quarterly 29:192-209 (June 1984). 37. Douglas Zweizig, "The Informing Function of Adult Services in Public Libraries," RQ 18:240-44 (Spring 1979). 38. An attempt was made to survey all articles on relevant subjects that appeared in major library journals from the early 1960s to date. Citation tracking allowed the author to review the mono- graphic literature as well. Emphasis centered on forms of library governance, organizational struc- ture, decision making, power, and professionalism. 39. Richard Eggleton, ''Academic Libraries, Participative Management, and Risky Shift,'' Journal of Academic Librarianship 5:270-73 (Nov. 1979); and Louis Kaplan, "On Decision Sharing in Libraries: How Much Do We Know?" College & Research Libraries 38:25-31 (Jan. 1977). 40 . Lee Roy Beach and Terrence R. Mitchell, "A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies," Academy of Management Review 3:439-49 (July 1978); Grandori, "A Prescriptive Con- tingency View of Organizational Decision Making;'' and RobertS. Runyon, ''Some Principles of Eff~ctive Decision Making in Academic Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 8:144-50 (July 1982), p.146. 41 . Keeley, "Impartiality and Participant-Interest Theories of Organizational Effectiveness." 42. Rosemary Ruhig DuMont, "A Conceptual Basis for Library Effectiveness," College & Research Li- braries 41:104 (Mar. 1980). 43. Debra W. Stewart, "Managing Competing Claims: An Ethical Framework for Human Resource Decision Making," Public Administration Review 44:15 (Jan ./Feb. 1984). 44. Grandori, ''A Prescriptive Contingency View of Organizational Decision Making.'' 45. Sam E. White, John E. Dittrich, and James R. Lang, "The Effects of Group Decision-making Pro- cess and Problem-situation Complexity on Implementation Attempts," Administrative Science Quarterly 25:428 (Sept. 1980). 46. Runyon, "Some Principles of Effective Decision Making in Academic Libraries," p.147-48. 47. Maurice P. Marchant, Participative Management in Academic Libraries (Westport, Conn.: Green- wood, 1976); John M. Roach, Worker Participation: New Voices in Management, Conference Board Report, no.594 (New York: Conference Board, 1973), p.l.; and Prince, "Creative Meetings through Power Sharing.'' 48. Richard Butler, "Control of Workflow in Organizations : Perspectives from Markets, Hierarchies, and Collectives," Human Relations 36:433 (May 1983); and Barbara B. Moran, Academic Libraries: The Changing Knowledge Centers of Colleges and Universities, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report, no. 8 (Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1984), p.51-54. 49. Dennis W. Dickinson, "Some Reflections on Participative Management in Libraries," College & Research Libraries 39:254-55 (July 1978); and Levitan and Johnson, "Labor and Management: The Illusion of Cooperation,'' p. 8-10. 50. H. Peter Dachler and Bernhard Wilpert, "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organizations: A Critical Evaluation," Administrative Science Quarterly 23:23 (Mar. 1978). 51. Nicholas C. Burckel, "Participatory Management in Academic Libraries: A Review," College & Research Libraries 45:25-34 (Jan. 1984). 52. David G. E. Sparks, ''Academic Librarianship: Professional Strivings and Political Realities,'' Col- lege & Research Libraries 41:417 (Sept. 1980). 53. Dickinson, "Some Reflections on Participative Management in Libraries," p.258. 54. Lammers, "Power and Participation in Decision-making in Formal Organizations," p. 209-10. 55 . Y. K. Shetty, "Management's Role in Declining Productivity," California Management Review 25:33-47 (Fall1982). 56. Lammers, "Power and Participation in Decision-making in Formal Organizations," p.204. 57. Kaplan, "On Decision Sharing in Libraries"; and J. Todd, "Management Control: A Zero-Sum 122 College & Research Libraries March 1987 Game?" Management International Review 4:73 (1978). 58. Joseph A. Alutto and James A. Belasco, "A Typology for Participation in Organizational Decision. Making," Administrative Science Quarterly 17:122 (Mar. 1972). 59. I?achl~r and Wilpert, "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organiza- tions, p.1. 60. Ibid., p.8. 61. P. Bernstein, Workplace Democratization: Its Internal Dynamics (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1976). 62. Donald V. Nightingale, "Participation in Decision-making: An Examination of Style and Struc- ture and Their Effect on Member Outcomes,'' Human Relations 34:1130 (Dec. 1981). 63. Keeley, "Impartiality and Participant-Interest Theories of Organizational Effectiveness," p.ll; and Ronald L. Cohen, "Procedural Justice and Participation," Human Relations 38:643-63 Ouly 1985). 64. John F. Witte, Democracy, Authority, and Alienation in Work (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1980), p.160; and Gordon A. Walter, "Organizational Development and Individual Rights," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 20:423-40 (1984). A special issue entitled "Ethics, Values, and Human Rights ." 65. Daniel Yankelovich, New Rules: Searching for Self-fulfillment in a World Turned Upside Down (New York: Random, 1981), p.222. 66. Dachler and Wilpert, "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organiza- tions," p.10. 67. Nightingale, "Participation in Decision-making," p.1119. 68. Dachler and Wilpert, "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organiza- tions," p.10. 69. Nightingale, "Participation in Decision-making," p.1128. 70. John Rohrbaugh, Gary McClelland, and Robert Quinn, "Measuring the Relative Importance of Utilitarian and Egalitarian Values: A Study of Individual Differences about Fair Distribution," Journal of Applied Psychology 65:48 (Feb. 1980). 71. Shetty, ''Management's Role in Declining Productivity.'' 72. Dachler and Wilpert, "Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organiza- tions," p.12. 73. Edwards, "The Management of Libraries and the Professional Functions of Librarians," p.151. 74. Prince, "Creative Meetings through Power Sharing," p.52 . 75 . Dickinson, "Some Reflections on Participative Management in Libraries, " p.255. 76. William R. Torbert, "Educating toward Shared Purpose, Self-Direction and Quality Work," Jour- nal of Higher Education 49:109-35 (1978) . 77. Thomas G. Cummings, "Self-regulating Work Groups : A Socio-technical Synthesis," Academy of Management Review 3:625-34 Ouly 1978). 78. Charles Martell, "Improving the Effectiveness of Libraries through Improvements in the Quality of Working Life," College & Research Libraries 42:435-46 (Sept. 1981). 79. Charles Martell, The Client-Centered Academic Library: An Organizational Model (Westport, Conn. : Greenwood, 1983). 80. Barry A. Stein and Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Building the Parallel Organization: Creating Mecha- nisms for Permanent Quality of Work Life, " Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 16:371-17 (Sum- mer 1980); and Neal Q. Herrick, "Par~el Organizations in Unionized Settings: Implications for Organizational Research," Human Relations 38:963-81 (Oct. 1985). 81. Stein and Kanter, "Building the Parallel Organization." Articles calling for new organizational forms have also appeared in the field of education. In a recent article by Toby J. Tetenbaum and Thomas A. Mulkeen, "Designing Teacher Education for the Twenty-First Century," Journal of Higher Education 57:626 (Nov.-Dec. 1986), the authors note that "rigid and efficient organizations are no longer as efficacious as fluid and flexible ones in which experimentation and autonomy can thrive." 82. Robert E. Cole, "The Macropolitics of Organizational Change: A Comparative Analysis of the Spread of Small-Group Activities, " Administrative Science Quarterly 30:560-85 (Dec. 1985). 83. Alutto and Belasco, "A Typology for Participation in Organizational Decision Making," p.118. 84. New York Times, Business Section (Feb. 14, 1982), p.1. 85. Chris Argyris, "Personality and Organization Theory Revisited," Administrative Science Quarterly 18:141-67 aune 1973). J j 1 1 ~