College and Research Libraries Academic Library Committees: Their Role in Participative Management Mary Ann Sheble and Debra W. Hill The growing number of committees in academic libraries has been equated with the rise of participative management as a way of organizing library operations. But there is little empirical evidence to support this assumption. This study examines this issue through survey data from a random sample of librarians in U.S. academic libraries. The study shows that not all libraries use committees in significant roles, and that the presence of committees does not guarantee that librarians will have a significant voice in their organization. Librarians who serve on committees with policy-related functions were positive about their committee service and about the ability of committees to benefit the organiza- tion. Librarians serving on fact-finding and information-gathering committees tended to be negative about their committee service and conservative in their belief about the ability of committees to influence the management of their organization. Smaller libraries were much more likely than larger libraries to involve committees in significant decision-making roles. ccording to Louis Kaplan, while participative manage- ment "made its debut in the . third decade of the 20th cen- tury ... in an industrial plant in ... Illinois," it was not until the seventies that the management style became ac- ceptable in academic libraries.1 Refer- ring to the student revolts of that decade as well as to management theories es- poused by Rensis Likert, Maurice Mar- chant, and David Kaser, he stated that "it was the combination of violence and managerial theory that provided the combustive material" that precipitated the acceptance of the new management theory in American academic libraries. 2 Participative management is an ap- proach that stresses worker involve- ment in management decision making.3 Many have embraced this theory of management because it offers a multi- tude of benefits to individuals involved as well as to their institutions. According to Maurice Marchant, "Group decision-making has two ma- jor advantages over decision-making imposed unilaterally by management; these are that group decisions tend to be of superior quality and they tend to be more readily accepted by the group."4 The literature supports the theory that those who participate in the decisions involving their work are much more sat- isfied than those who have little input. This theory certainly applies to aca- demic librarians who thrive on their ca- pacity to work out problems that are Mary Ann Sheble is Associate Director for Technical Services and Systems at the University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan 48219-0900. Debra W. Hill is Head, Monographs Unit, and Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama Libraries, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0266. 511 512 College & Research Libraries "not neat, not well formed" but are ex- actly the type of problems faced by ad- ministrators.5 As professionals, often with faculty status, academic librarians expect to be involved in decision making at the goal- and policy-formation levels. What evidence do we have of deci- sion making by nonmanagerial profes- sionals in American academic libraries? Maurice Marchant noted in 1971 that no study of library staff participation in de- cision making had been reported prior to that time.6 In 1988 Louis Kaplan re- ported that the number of libraries in which participative management was being practiced was still unknown. 7 While the use of committees in academic libraries has become common, there is limited evidence that they are functioning as a mechanism for rank-and-file librarians to significantly influence the goals and structure of their libraries. Perhaps one significant piece of evi- dence is the widespread use of commit- tees. Richard Eggleton noted in 1979 that "academic libraries ... have found the committee process an attractive means of implementing a form of participative management."8 He said that "academic libraries have found the co~ttee structure extremely useful in studying and recommending action on a variety of technological, social, and policy is- sues facing libraries. "9 Stanley Seashore is another advocate of committee use in libraries and views the committee as an important component of participative practices. At the seventy-fifth meeting of the Association of Research Libraries, Seashore suggested steps for imple- menting participative management in academic libraries. His suggestions in- clude "increasing the frequency of use of committees ... with membership includ- ing lower-rank people, for the prepara- tion of proposals for technological, policy and program changes."10 Although the committee is often cited as a mechanism through which partici- November 1994 pative management is implemented, there is little systematic research to sup- port this application in libraries. Casual observation leads us to conclude that committees have become an integral part of most American academic librar- ies, but the role that they play in the management of these libraries is not clear. More specificall~ while the use of committees in academic libraries has be- come common, there is limited evidence that they are functioning as a mechanism for rank-and-file librarians to significantly influence the goals and structure of their libraries. The purpose of this study is to investigate this issue through examining the following questions: 1. Who is serving on committees? Are committees in academic libraries in- volving professionals of all ranks, in- cluding line-level employees? 2. Are committees being used in sig- nificant ways in academic librar- ies? Are participants satisfied with the role that committees play in their libraries? 3. How do committees benefit their host organizations? Do partici- pants derive any personal benefits from committee service? 4. Does committee use and effective- ness vary systematically across different types of libraries? For ex- ample, are there differences be- tween small and large libraries, and libraries with different degrees of physical centralization? In addition to exploring these ques- tions, the study attempts to document the extent of committee use in academic libraries. Through this, we hope to pro- vide a base on which other research can build to assess future directions in com- mittee use. STUDY DESIGN In January 1993 surveys were mailed to a random sample of potential re- spondents in U.S academic libraries. The return rate was 57 percent.U Since respondents were assured of anonyrnicy, there were a limited number of variables on which we could compare respon- dents and nonrespondents to look for possible sources of systematic bias. An analysis of library size and position did not show any systematic differences be- tween those responding to the survey and those who did not return their surveys. Items for the survey were selected from the literature on committees and participative management, and from the experience we have gained by serving on committees in academic libraries. The survey instrument was pretested with a group of thirty-two academic librarians at the University of Alabama Libraries. WHAT TYPES OF LIBRARIES/ SITUATIONS EMPLOY COMMITTEES? The initial phase of our analysis ex- plored the extent that committees are used in academic libraries, and identi- fied variations in this use.12 As expected, all respondents reported that their li- braries use committees and all but three respondents (4 percent) reported that they had served on one or more commit- tees within the past year. All but ten re- spondents (14 percent) were serving on at least one committee at the time they com- pleted the survey. On the average, the li- brarians in our sample reported serving on between four and five committees dur- ing the past year (X=4.52 percent). One of the most frequently cited dis- advantages of committees is their signifi- cant cost to organizations, primarily in terms of staff time. Salaries paid to indi- vidual participants for time spent in meet- ings and preparing for meetings are one of the direct costs. Indirect costs include time away from regular duties and responsi- bilities, as well as personal costs to indi- viduals for time spent on committee activities outside of regular work hours. Despite the prevalent use of commit- tees in academic libraries, librarians do not appear to spend as much time in committee meetings as their corporate counterparts. A survey of 1,200 corpo- rate employees conducted by the Har- vard Business Review found that their respondents spent an average of 14.6 hours per month in committee meet- ings.U This compares to 6.7 hours per Academic Library Committees 513 month reported by the librarians in our sample. In fact, over half (55 percent) of the librarians who responded to our sur- vey reported spending less than 5 hours per month in meetings. But for librarians, the time spent in meetings is only the be- ginning of the commitment required for committee work Respondents estimate that they spend a similar amount of time each month on committee-related work, with 61 percent of the respondents report- ing that part of this work is completed outside of regular work hours. In addition to an overview of commit- tee participation, we looked at vari- ations by several organizational and personal variables. The two main organ- izational variables tapped by our survey are the size of the library and the degree of physical centralization. Libraries were classified as having a central li- brary only or a decentralized arrange- ment. Library size was determined on the basis of ARL collection categories.14 For our analysis, we collapsed the initial categories into "small" (under 300,000 volumes), "medium" (300,000, but less than one million volumes), and "large" (one million and over). Our results show that faculty status does not influence the level of committee activity in libraries. The degree of physical centralization does not appear to influence the extent of committee use in libraries. Librarians report a similar number of committee assignments per person and time spent in committee meetings and on com- mittee-related work regardless of the organization of their libraries. Our analysis of the relationship between li- brary size and committee participation shows some interesting variations (table 1). The highest level of committee par- ticipation was reported in medium- sized libraries with collections between 300,000 and one million volumes. Ap- proximately 75 percent of all respon- dents working in libraries of this size reported that they had served on four or 514 College & Research Libraries November 1994 TABLEt COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION BY LIBRARY SIZE Committee Participation 4 or more committees in past year 3ormore committees Small N % 38 22.2 currently 25 11.1 Library Size Medium % 75.0 55.0 Large % 58.3 36.1 For committees in past year: :r? = 9.7987; df = 4; p = .0439. For current committee: x2 = 8.1147; df = 4; p = .0875. more committees within the past year. Respondents working in libraries with collections exceeding one million vol- umes reported a slightly lower level of committee participation. Respondents who work in smaller libraries reported serving on fewer committees. We also looked at the relationship be- tween faculty status and committee par- ticipation. Our results show that faculty status does not influence the level of committee activity in libraries. Those without faculty status reported serving on almost as many committees as did their colleagues with faculty status, and reported spending slightly more time in committee meetings and on committee- related work. This finding did not support our ex- pectations. Committee service is fre- quently required as part of the criteria for tenure in academic libraries. In fact, 84 percent of our respondents in librar- ies with faculty status indicated that committee activities are considered in tenure decisions. We also expected that those with faculty status might demand a greater degree of self-governance, and that this would be reflected in a high level of committee participation in li- braries with faculty status. Neither of these expectations was supported by our analysis. WHO IS SERVING ON COMMITIEES? One of the major tenets of participa- tive management is the structured op- portunity for employees to participate in significant organizational decision mak- ing outside of their own subordinate pyramid. If committees in academic li- braries are serving in this capacity, they will show evidence of involving person- nel from a variety of service areas and position levels. The level of our respon- dents' committee participation was meas- ured through the following survey items: • Number of committees served on dur- ing the past year • Number of committees respondents were serving on at the time they com- pleted the survey • Number of hours per month spent in committee meetings • Number of hours per month spent on committee-related work (excluding time in committee meetings). Who is serving on committees and to what extent? The answer is just about everyone to some degree. Respondents in technical services reported serving on fewer committees than those in public services, special division departments, and administration (table 2). However, the relationships between service area, and time spent in committee meetings and time spent on committee-related work are highly nonsignificant. While technical services personnel may not be involved in as many committees as others, our analysis suggests that their time-commitment for committee-re- lated work is just as intensive as their colleagues in other service areas. An analysis of committee participation vari- ables by position level does not show any significant differences. Managers, Academic Library Committees 515 TABLE2 COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION BY LIBRARY SERVICE AREA Committee Participation 4ormore committees in past year 3 or more committees currently 5ormore hours/month in committee meetings 6 or more hours/month on committee- Tech Services N % 39 50.0 26 20.0 35 50.0 Library Service Area Public Special Administration Services% Departments % % 63.0 56.3 100.0 40.7 56.3 66.7 55.5 56.3 66.7 related work 25 33.4 46.9 37.5 66.3 For committees in past year: x?a = 10.2030; df = 6; p = .0332. For current committees: xl-= 10.2996; df = 6; p = .0049. For hours in committee meetings: x?a = 7.216; df = 6; p = .1719. For hours on committee-related work: x?a = 2.6912; df = 6; p = .3250. supervisors, and line-level employees reported serving on a similar number of committees and spending a similar amount of time on committee-related work. HOW ARE COMMITTEES BEING USED? An additional tenet of participative management is the involvement of rank- and-file employees in significant deci- sion making that impacts the goals and standards of their organization. To as- sess the extent that committees provide this opportunity for academic librarians, we asked respondents to list up to six functions that committees perform in their libraries. Responses were grouped into five categories: (1) exchanging in- formation and ideas, (2) problem solv- ing, (3) advising and recommending, (4) establishing policy, and (5) implement- ing policy (table 3). The most frequently cited function of committees is "advising and recom- mending." In fact, over 98 percent of the respondents reported that committees are used in their libraries for this pur- pose. "Problem solving" is second in fre- quency and was cited by 86 percent of the respondents. This is followed by "ex- changing ideas and information" (nearly 70 percent), "establishing policy" (al- most 67 percent), and "implementing policy" (52 percent). This overview shows that a number of libraries are using committees for sig- nificant activities and suggests a shift in library management policy over the past twenty years. Maurice Marchant began his 1976 publication of Participative Man- agement in Academic Libraries with the following statement: "The normal man- agement style in today's American uni- versity libraries is authoritarian, charac- terized by a director who makes deci- sions regulating the library but usually allows staff reaction before formalizing them."15 That approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicate that committees are used for establishing policy and over a half cite "implementing policy" as a committee function indicates that, at least in some libraries, committees are perform- ing roles that were typically reserved for administrators in previous years. 516 College & Research Libraries November 1994 TABLE3 FUNCTIONS OF COMMITTEES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES Committee Functions N of Responses % of Responses %of Cases Exchanging ideas and information 48 18.7 69.6 Problem solving 59 23.0 85.5 Advising and recommending 68 26.5 98.6 Establishing policy 46 17.9 66.7 Implementing policy 36 14.0 52.2 Percentages for cases add up to more than 100% because most respondents listed multiple functions. TABLE4 COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS BY SIZE OF LIBRARY Library Size Committee Functions N Small% Medium% Large% Exchange ideas and information 47 50.0 71.4 73.0 Problem solving 58 80.0 85.7 86.5 Advising and recommending 67 90.0 95.2 100.0 Establishing policy 45 90.0 61.9 62.2 Implementing policy 35 70.0 38.1 54.1 Respondents could reply to multiple categories of the dependent variable. Percentages are based on the number of respondents replying to each category. Our interest centered on libraries where committees are being used for policy-related functions because this indi- cates a strong role for committees within the library, and suggests that committees are promoting employee involvement in the management of library operations. To better understand this relationship, we analyzed the five committee functions across organizational variables. It appears that committees in small academic libraries actually are being used more often in significant roles than in medium-sized and larger libraries. Library size was the only variable on which significant differences were found (table 4). The smaller the library, the more likely the respondents were to mention stronger roles for committees. Approximately 90 percent of all respon- dents from smaller libraries mentioned "establishing policy" as a committee function, compared to about 62 percent of respondents in medium and large li- braries. The difference among libraries of different sizes is even greater for the "implementing policy" category. Ap- proximately 70 percent of respondents in small libraries mentioned "imple- menting policy" as a committee role, as compared to 38 percent of those in me- dium-sized libraries and 54 percent in large libraries. In. an attempt to explain these find- ings, we analyzed the relationship be- tween committee participation and position level, controlling for library size. If management is overrepresented on committees in the smaller libraries in our sample, it may be that the repre- sentation of management, rather than the size of the library, is accounting for the stronger role of committees in smaller libraries. This reasoning was not supported by our analysis. It appears that committees in small academic li- braries actually are being used more Academic Library Committees 517 TABLE 5 PERCEPTIONS OF HOW COMMITTEES SHOULD BE USED Strongly Agree/ Agree Committee Functions N % The main role of a committee should be to exchange ideas and information. A committee should be able to recommend, but never to decide. Committees should be used to establish library policies. Committees should be used to implement library policies. 19 21 31 34 31.1 31.8 50.0 54.0 Percentages are based on the number of valid responses received. often in significant roles than in me- dium-sized and larger libraries. HOW SHOULD COMMITIEES BE USED? The previous section describes com- mittee performance in libraries. But we were also interested in respondents' opin- ions about the roles that they would like to see committees play in their libraries. Respondents' perceptions were meas- ured through the use of a Likert-type scale on the statements in table 5. Re- sponse categories were: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The combined responses in the Strongly Agree and Agree categories are shown in table 5. An overview of the responses shows that the majority of librarians in our sample are dissatisfied with the use of committees solely for fact-finding and advising. Only about 31 percent of the respondents believe that the main role of a committee should be information ex- change. A similar percentage agreed with the statement" A committee should be able to recommend, but never to decide." Our respondents were split on their opinions about giving committees the authority to establish and implement policy. About 50 percent of our respondents would like to see committees establish policy and 54 percent would like committees to have the authority to implement policy. To better understand these relation- ships, we looked for variations across organizational and personal variables. We were especially interested in the re- lationship between library size and re- spondents' opinions on committee use, since our analysis showed that smaller libraries are using committees for policy related decisions more often than larger libraries. While none of the relationships between library size and the five com- mittee function variables was statisti- cally significant, our analysis shows some interesting trends. Respondents in smaller libraries like the role that com- mittees are assuming in their libraries and would be dissatisfied with the use of committees in less significant ways. Only 12.5 percent of the respondents from small libraries agreed with the statement, "The main role of a committee should be to exchange ideas and informa- tion." The positive response rate of these librarians rises at each level of increased authority for committees, with the policy- related functions showing the highest level of agreement. In fact, nearly 56 per- cent agree that committees should be used to establish policy and 71 percent believe that committees should have the author- ity to implement policy. While respondents from medium- sized and large libraries show dissatis- faction with information-exchanging roles, they are split on their opinions about the use of committees for estab- lishing and implementing policy. While the majority of these respondents seem to want committees to play a more sig- nificant role in library management, about half indicate reluctance to give committees the authority for imple- menting and establishing policy. PERSONAL BENEFITS OF COMMITIEE SERVICE As discussed, the literature is full of information supporting the idea that in- dividuals who participate in decisions 518 College & Research Libraries November 1994 TABLE6 ATTITUDES OF LIBRARIANS TOWARD PERSONAL BENEFITS OF COMMITTEE SERVICE Very /Somewhat Important Benefits of Committee Work N % Chance to influence library policy and operations. 63 94.0 Gaining knowledge of operations in other departments of the library. 63 91.3 Becoming better acquainted with co-workers 55 82.1 Learning about the library's administrative policies and management philosophy. 52 76.5 Chance to influence hiring decisions. 49 75.4 Chance to learn about new products and resources for libraries. 47 74.6 Gaining recognition for knowledge and abilities 39 60.9 Learning about library operations within my department. 32 51.6 Relief from routine job duties. 20 30.3 Percentages are based on the number of valid responses received. involving their work are more satisfied than those who lack this input. This has been documented by a number of stud- ies that have correlated dimensions of job satisfaction with levels of employee participation in workplace decision making.16 Our interest in this issue is similar in that it centers on looking at the relationship between job satisfaction and employee influence through com- mittee service. But we decided to take a slightly different approach to investigat- ing the issue. An important dimension of job satisfaction is the extent to which individuals believe their personal needs are being met through their work. 17 We attempted to assess the extent to which committee work contributes to this per- ception, Our respondents' perceptions were assessed through a series of state- ments about the personal benefits of committee work. These statements were constructed on the basis of the literature on committee functions. 18 Our respondents were asked to rank the statements in table 6 as very impor- . tant, somewhat important, or not impor- tant. An additional item, "Serving on committees helps me perform my job bet- ter" (table 11) taps global perceptions of the benefits of committee work for library positions. Responses to this item are in- cluded in this part of our discussion. Table 6 shows the distribution of posi- tive responses (very important, some- what important) for each statement. The most notable trend in the distribu- tion is the large number of items re- ceiving a positive response. While the majority of librarians in the sample do not see committee work as providing relief from routine job duties (about 70 percent) and only about half see com- mittee service as a way to increase their knowledge about library opera- tions within their own departments (nearly 52 percent), most agree that committee work provides opportuni- ties for job enrichment and avenues for influencing library policy. The cate- gory "chance to influence library policy and operations" received the highest number of positive responses (94 per- cent), followed by "gaining knowledge of operations in other departments of the library" (91 percent). Respondents also value the social dimension of committee work. Eighty-two percent of the sample rated "becoming better acquainted with co-workers" as either "very important" or "somewhat important." Despite the positive attitude respondents hold to- ward the personal benefits of committee work, only about 56 percent believe that committee service helps them perform their jobs better. Academic Library Committees 519 TABLE7 PERSONAL BENEFITS OF COMMITTEE WORK BY LIBRARY ORGANIZATION Library Organization Benefits of Committee Work N Centralized % Decentralized % Becoming better acquainted with ~oworkers Very important 20 56.3 21.6 Somewhat important 35 37.5 56.9 Not important 12 6.3 21.6 Total N 67 Gain knowledge of other departments Very important 24 56.3 28.3 Somewhat important 39 37.5 62.3 Not important 6 6.3 9.4 TotalN 69 For becoming better acquainted with coworkers: xZ= 7.3771; df = 2; p = .0099. For gaining knowledge of other departments: X'-= 4.2366; df = 2; p = .0733. To better understand our respon- dents' perceptions of the personal bene- fits of committee service, we analyzed the data by several organizational and personal variables. We originally ex- pected that those in physically decen- tralized organizations would place a high premium on activity that would enhance their acquaintance with the per- sonnel and operations of the larger or- ganization. Our analysis shows the opposite trend (table 7). The benefits of "becoming better acquainted with co- workers" and "gaining knowledge of operations of other departments in the library" were ranked as "very impor- tant" more often in centralized organiza- tions than in decentralized systems. Our findings may be explained by the famili- arity with autonomy that has been gained by respondents in decentralized systems, and this may lead to their feel- ing less of a need for awareness about and influence in the larger organization. Respondents in small libraries were less concerned with learning about other departments through committee work, probably because those in small institu- tions already have extensive knowledge about other areas (table 8). Those in large libraries were also somewhat less inter- ested in this aspect of committee work than their colleagues in medium-sized libraries, possibly because, in very large institutions, the expectation to know everyone and everything is less feasible than in smaller organizations. Respon- dents in large libraries, however, find the opportunity to learn the administra- tion's policies and management philoso- phy more important than respondents in small and medium-sized libraries do. Respondents in small libraries found in- fluencing library policy and hiring deci- sions to be significantly more important than did respondents in larger libraries. This finding complements our earlier dis- cussion of the relationship between library size and conui\ittee use. Small libraries are much more likely than larger libraries to use committees for establishing and im- plementing policy and have personnel who believe in a strong role for commit- tees within their libraries. Line and management-level respon- dents were twice as likely as those in supervisory positions to report that committee work helps them do their jobs better. Supervisors were, however, very interested in influencing library policy, no doubt because they are often at the front line when it comes to implement- -ing policy (table 9). Managers reported interest in influencing library policy through committee work, while line- level librarians found learning more 520 College & Research Libraries November 1994 TABLES PERSONAL BENEFITS OF COMMITTEE WORK BY LIBRARY SIZE Library Size Benefits of Committee Work N Small% Medium% Large% Gain knowledge of other departments Very important 24 11.1 52.4 32.4 Somewhat important 37 88.9 38.1 56.8 Not important 6 9.5 10.8 Total N 67 Chance to influence library policy Very important 29 77.8 45.0 36.1 Somewhat important 32 22.2 45.0 58.3 Not important 4 10.0 5.6 Total N 65 Chance to influence hiring decisions Very important 21 66.7 35.0 23.5 Somewhat important 27 11.1 25.0 61.8 Not important 15 22.2 40.0 14.7 TotalN 63 Learning about the library's administrative policies Very important 23 22.2 28.6 41.7 Somewhat important 28 22.2 57.1 38.9 Not important 15 55.6 14.3 19.4 Total N 63 For gaining knowledge of other departments:xZ = 7.1946; df = 4; p = .1259. For chance to influence library policy: xZ = 5.8703; df = 4; p = .0688. For chance to influence hiring decisions: xZ = 3.8326; df = 4; p = .0078. For learning about library's administrative policies: xZ = 8.2704; df = 4; p = .0822. about library operations within their own departments to be an important function of committee work. Respondents without faculty status were more likely than those with faculty status to value committee work as a way to gain recognition for their knowledge and abilities, and provide relief from routine job duties (table 10). For respon- dents with tenure requirements, it may be that publication activities and partici- pation in professional associations. out- side the library are substituting or complementing the need for internal rec- ognition in the library through committee service. Committee work may also be viewed by these respondents as an obliga- tion added to publication and professional activities, and additional time away from primary job responsibilities. Our respondents indicate that they re- ceive a number of benefits from their participation in committee work. As dis- cussed, one of the major principles of the participative style of management is the involvement of a wide cross section of employees in significant decision mak- ing. That the majority of librarians in our sample (94 percent) rated the statement "chance to influence library policy and operations" as important to them sug- gests that our respondents see commit- tees as an avenue for influencing the management of library operations. This perception did not vary significantly by position rank, position, or service area. Librarians of all position levels and serv- ice areas value this function of commit- tee work. Another interesting trend is the importance of committee service as Academic Library Committees 521 TABLE9 PERSONAL BENEFITS OF COMMITTEE WORK BY CURRENT POSITION Benefits of Committee Work N Chance to influence library policy Very important 30 Somewhat important 33 Not important 4 Total N 67 Learning about library operations within the department Very important 12 Somewhat important 20 Not important 30 Total N 62 Current Position Line-level % 20.0 60.0 20.0 12.5 87.5 Supervisor % Management % 40.0 54.1 60.0 40.5 5.4 30.0 14.7 20.0 26.5 50.0 58.8 For chance to influence library policy: ~ 7.9686; df = 4; p = .0927 For learning about library operations within the department: x2. = 15.2447; df = 4; p = .0042. TABLElO PERSONAL BENEFITS OF COMMITTEE WORK BY FACULTY STATUS Without Faculty Benefits of Committe Work N Status% Faculty Status % Gain recognition for knowledge and abilities Very important 15 40.9 14.3 Somewhat important 24 36.4 38.1 Not important 25 22.7 47.6 Total N 64 Provide relief from routine job duties Very important 5 8.7 7.0 Somewhat important 15 39.1 14.0 Not important 46 52.2 79.1 TotalN 66 For gaining recognition: xZ = 6.6678; df = 2; p = .0552. For providing relief from routine job duties: x~ = 5.7930; df = 2; p = .0552. an avenue for learning. The type of learning provided by committee work varies in importance by category of li- brary and the dimensions of our respon- dents' positions. Yet almost ·all of the librarians in our sample indicated that their committee work provides an im- portant opportunity for broadening their knowledge of internal and/ or ex- ternallibrary operations. BENEFITS TO THE ORGANIZATION Participative practices will remain vi- able only as long as they are viewed as beneficial to organizational performance and job satisfaction by a wide cross section of employees. As identified by Seashore, "commonly accepted features" of partici- pative organizations include: • A high level of communication among employees of all ranks • The ability for employees of all ranks to influence the goals of the organiza- tion • A high level of interaction among em- ployees • A high level of mutual confidence and trust among employees.19 522 College & Research Libraries November 1994 TABLE 11 AlTITUDES OF LIBRARIANS TOWARD COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS Strongly Agree/ Agree +I- Committee Function N % (+) Committees promote creativity through the exchange of ideas. 59 89.4 (+) Committees promote coordination among departments. 59 86.8 (-) Most decisions reached by committees are compromises rather than best decisions. 30 45.5 (+) Committees promote communication between departments. 62 91.2 (-) Committees breed conformity and stifle creativity. 15 24.2 (+) Most professionals in my library have an equal chance of serving on committees. 40 58.0 (+) Committees help libraries function efficiently. 42 68.9 (+) Serving on committees helps me perform my job better. 34 55.7 (+) Committees promote communication between employees of different ranks. 49 73.1 (-) Committee work often requires knowledge and experience outside my expertise. 25 37.3 (-) I often feel uncomfortable contributing my ideas in committee meetings. 12 17.9 (-) While they may be useful, committees waste too much time. 33 50.8 (-) The main role of a committee should be to exchange ideas and information. 19 31.1 (-) A committee should be able to recommend, but never to decide. 21 31.8 (+) Committees should be used to establish library policies. 31 50.0 (+) Committees should be used to implement library policies. 34 54.0 (-) I dislike being held responsible for committee decisions. 18 31.6 (-) I resent the time that committee work takes from my primary duties. 26 42.6 (-) Management is over-represented on the committees in my 18 27.7 library. (+) The committee is the best way to assure informed decisions. 34 61.8 Percentages are based on the number of valid responses received. In our survey, we attempted to assess the contribution of committee work to these features. We also reasoned that to be considered a viable component of participative practices, employees must have confidence in the ability of commit- tees to have a significant impact on their organization. Measures of this impact have been incorporated into this section of the analysis. Our respondents' per- ceptions of the influence of committee work in their libraries were measured through a twenty-item Likert-type scale (table 11). The scale is composed of an equal number of positive and negative items.20 Respondents were asked to indi- cate their level of agreement with each scale item, using the following catego- ries: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. Table 11 shows the percentage of combined responses in the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories. The direction of the statement (positive, negative) is indicated at the beginning of each scale item. As discussed, interaction and commu- nication are viewed as important fea- tures of participative organizations. The literature on organizations emphasizes the importance of the committee as a mechanism for coordinating the diverse activities performed by individuals and separate administrative units within or- ganizations.21 The importance of this role for committees in academic libraries is supported by our analysis. Over 90 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement, "Committees promote communication between departments." Other statements receiving a high, posi- tive response rate are "Committees pro- mote creativity through the exchange of - ideas" (89 percent) and "Committees promote coordination among depart- ments" (nearly 87 percent). Our respon- dents were somewhat less likely to view committee service as a way to promote communication between employees of different ranks (73 percent). Although these positive aspects of committees were recognized, a number of our re- spondents expressed a lack of confi- dence in the ability of committees to contribute to the overall efficiency of their libraries. Only about two-thirds (almost 69 percent) of the librarians re- sponded positively to "Committees help libraries function efficiently." An overview of our results also shows a lack of confidence in the decision-mak- ing ability of committees. Close to half (45.5 percent) of our sample agreed with the statement, "Most decisions reached by committees are compromises rather than best decisions" and about one- fourth (24 percent) of our respondents believe that committees breed conform- ity and stifle creativity. About one-third (almost 32 percent) of the librarians in our sample report that they dislike being held responsible for committee decisions. When asked to provide an overall assess- ment of the ability of committees to pro- vide organizations with sound decisions, slightly under two-thirds (nearly 62 per- cent) of the sample responded positively to the statement, "The committee is the best way to assure informed decisions." As discussed, the amount of time con- sumed by committee meetings and re- lated work is often cited as one of the more negative aspects of committee service. Our analysis indicates that a sig- nificant number of our respondents would agree with this complaint. Slightly over half (about 51 percent) of Academic Library Committees 523 our respondents agreed with the state- ment, "While they may be useful, commit- tees waste too much time," and about 43 percent indicated that they resent the time committee work takes from primary job duties. The only significant relationship between library size and any of the scale items was obtained for the global measure of the committee's contribution to the effectiveness of the library. All of the librarians in the "small" library cate- gory agree that committees "help librar- ies function efficiently"; only about 64 percent of those in medium and large li- braries agree with this statement. This finding may be explained by the differ- ent roles that committees play in li- braries of various sizes. As discussed, establishing and implementing policy seems to be a fairly routine function of committees in small libraries. This function is much less likely to be as- sumed by committees in larger libraries. Serving on committees that have a sig- nificant impact on the organization seems to be reflected in the perception that libraries are functioning effec- tively because of committee input. FAVORABILITY INDEX Summing across the scale items in ta- ble 11 and dividing by the number of valid responses for each individual in our sample provides us with an index of favorable/unfavorable attitudes toward committees. By this method, it is possible for respondents to have scale values rang- ing between 1 and 4. An index value of 1 would indicate that respondents ex- pressed an unfavorable attitude toward all scale items in table 11, while an index value of 4 would result from unanimously favorable responses to all scale items. The index values of our respondents ranged from a low of 1.89 to a high of 3.84, with an average score of 2.759. The higher the position rank of our respondents, the more likely they were to express a favorable attitude toward committees (table 12). Only about 20 percent of all line-level employees had highly positive index scores, as com- pared to 45.5 percent of supervisors, and 62.5 percent of managers. This finding 524 College & Research Libraries November 1994 TABLE 12 FAVORABILITY TOWARD COMMITTEES BY CURRENT POSITION Current Position Favorability Index N Line-level % Supervisory % Management % Low High TotalN ~ = 5.4818; df = 3; p = .0287. 35 35 70 80.0 20.0 54.5 37.5 45.5 62.5 TABLE 13 FAVORABILITY TOWARD COMMITTEES BY LIBRARY SIZE Favorability Index Low High TotalN ~ = 4.5029; df = 2; p = .03716 N 35 35 70 Library Size Small% 30.0 70.0 Medium% 40.9 59.1 Large% 62.2 37.8 TABLE 14 FAVORABILITY TOWARD COMMITTEES BY HOW OFTEN COMMITTEE REC- OMMENDATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED "How often are committee recommendations implemented?" Favorability Index N Rarely % Sometimes % Often % Low High Total N 33 66.7 56.8 34.8 33 33.3 43.2 65.2 66 x2 = 3.472; df = 2; p = .0715. did not support our expectations. Since committees are supposed to provide op- portunities for rank-and-file employees to have a voice in their organization, we expected line-level employees to ex- press a much more positive attitude to- ward committee work than other employees. It may be that managers tend to focus on the use of committee work, while the perspective of line-level people is on process, and that these dif- ferent views are contributing to the di- rection of this relationship. Perhaps line-level personnel have a more limited view than supervisors and managers of the benefits of committee work to the larger organization, and are more likely to focus on the time commitment and other disadvantages of the actual dy- namics of committee work. Those in large and medium-sized li- braries express a less favorable attitude toward committees than those in small libraries (table 13). Small libraries are much more likely than larger libraries to use committees for policy-related tasks, and having this input seems to lead to a more positive attitude toward commit- tee service. Respondents who report that commit- tee recommendations are often imple- mented in their libraries are much more positive about committee work than those who report that recommendations are rarely or sometimes implemented (table 14). Again, this supports the idea that librarians who see that their com- mittee service has a significant impact on their organization will be positive about this aspect of their work. CONCLUSIONS One of the major features that distin- guishes participative organizations from others is the provision of opportunities for communication, interaction, and in- fluence across functional and status lines. This study shows that committees in academic libraries are providing this opportunity through involving librarians from a variety of ranks and service areas in the decision-making processes of their libraries. These committees are providing opportuni- ties for a wide cross section of librari- ans to communicate and learn about the jobs of others in their libraries, and administrative policies and proce- dures. While the communication and learning functions of committees are important, the basic tenet of participa- tive management is to provide rank-and- file employees with the authority to shape the goals and structure of their host organization, and our study indicates that some libraries are using commit- tees in this role to a greater extent than others. Some libraries are using commit- tees primarily for fact-finding and in- formation-gathering, while reserving the authority for policy decisions for administrative personnel. Academic Library Committees 525 Our study shows that the larger the library, the more likely it is that com- mittees will be used solely for these functions. Librarians who serve on fact- finding and information gathering com- mittees tend to have a less positive attitude than others about their commit- tee service. While they express dissatis- faction with the limited impact of committees, they are cautious about the use of committees in more significant roles. This caution is not a management- dominated attitude, but is expressed across all position ranks. Our study shows that the majority of committee work carrying policy implications is conducted in smaller libraries, although this function is found in libraries of all sizes. Librarians who serve on commit- tees with the authority to establish and implement policy believe in this role for committees, and are positive about the ability of committees to benefit the or- ganization. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Louis Kaplan, "On the Road to Participative Management: The American Academic Li- brary," Libri 38 (1988): 315-20. 2. Ibid., 317. 3. Hano Johannsen and G. Terry Page, International Dictionary of Management, 4th ed. (Lon- don: Kogan Page, 1990), 218. 4. Maurice P. Marchant, "Participative Management as Related to Personnel Development," Library Trends Ouly 1971): 48-59. 5. Allen B. Veaner, "Administrative Theories, Business Paradigms and Work in the Academic Library," Advances in Library Administration and Organization 9 (1991): 1-26. 6. Marchant, "Participative Management as Related to Personnel Development," 49. 7. Kaplan, "On the Road to Participative Management," 320. 8. Richard Eggleton, "Academic Libraries, Participative Management, and Risky Shift," Jour- nal of Academic Librarianship: 271-73. 9. Ibid., 272. 10. Stanley E. Seashore, "Main Themes from 'Staff Participation in Management'," Minutes of the Meeting of the Association of Research Libraries (Chicago: ARL, Jan. 17-18, 1970), 38-39. 11. The random sample of 125 academic librarians was drawn from the 1993/94 ALA Handbook of Organization and Membership Directory (Chicago: ALA). Three of the potential respon- dents were dropped from the sample because of insufficient location information. 12. All analyses were done using SPSSX. Nominal and ordinal data were analyzed using chi-square tests. Some interval level data were collapsed into logical categories and analyzed through chi-square tests. All reported p's for chi-square reflect Yates' correction. 13. Rollie Tillman Jr., "Committees on Trial," Harvard Business Review 38 (May /June 1960): 6-12,162-68,197-74. 14. Developed on the basis of categories in ARL SPEC kits. 15. Maurice P. Marchant, Participative Management in Libraries (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood), 1. 16. Summaries of a number of these studies are found in: Fred M. Peterson, "The Use of Committees in the Governance, Management, and Operations of Three Major University Libraries" (Ph.D. diss. Indiana University, 1977)~e also: Bonnie Horenstein, "Job Satisfac- 526 College & Research Libraries November 1994 tion of Academic Librarians: An Examination of the Relationships between Satisfaction, Faculty Status, and Participation," College & Research Libraries 54 (May 1993): 255-69. 17. T. E. Anastasi, "Management Committees: Why, How and Who?" Advanced Management Journal 29 Guly 1964): 67-71. 18. Based on a summary of committee functions in Peterson, "The Use of Committees," 20-35. 19. Seashore, "Main Themes from 'Staff Participation in Management'," 38-39. 20. Many of the scale items were derived from research reported in Peterson, "The Use of Committees," 375-93; and Rollie Tillman Jr., "Committees on Trial," 6-12. Other items were developed specifically for this study. 21. Peterson, "The Use of Committees," 21-25. -' _._ INDEX TO ADVERTISERS COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES ACRL 477, 498, 509 ALA 470,528 Bios is cover 2 Blackwell cover 3 Walter deGruyter 474 Greenwood 469 Library Technologies 478 Pais 527 Readmore 510 Todd cover4 58,000 AMERICANS DIED THERE. 365,000 WERE WOUNDED. OVER 2,000 ARE STILL MISSING. HOW RISKY AN INVESTMENT IS VIETNAM TODAY? A generation ago, Americans risked their lives in documents, statistical directories and more. It references Vietnam. Today, they're risking investments. With the literature published around the globe. And now it's even trade embargo lifted, Americans have swapped fatigues available on leased tape . for pinstriped suits. So before you risk time and money, turn to the U.S.-Vietnam trade is just one of the important public definitive source. PAIS. and social policy issues you can explore B~S® Public Affairs Information Service, Inc. through PAIS International. PAIS gives you 521 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036-4396 instant access to an index of some 400,000 800-288-PAIS, 212-736-6629 (in NYC) hard-to-find articles, books, government FAX: 212-643-2848, e-mail: inquiries@pais.org No ONE LOOKS AT THE WORLD LIKE PAIS In Print: PAIS INTERNATIONAL IN PAIN~ • PAIS SUBJECT HEADINGS Online through: DATA-STAR • DIALOG • OCLC • RLG On CD·ROM: PAIS ON CD-ROM • PAIS INTERNATIONAL ON SILVER PLATTER • PAIS/EBSCO CD On Magnetic Tape: CONTACT PAIS FOR INFORMATION The Whole Library Handbook II George Eberhart The sequel for which everyone has been woiflng. Not just o second ediflon but o whole new book. Pocked with facts and figures, handy advice and guidelines, library lore and wit and the essentio~ of librorionship, the handbook includes o great deal of information on technology, including the Internet. More than 75 percent new and updated materials. Perfect for librarians, library students, support personnel, friends, and trustees. S30.00pbk. • approx. 500p. • 1995 • ALA Order Code 0646-X-0011 New! Mtmagement • •• Outsourcing Cataloging, Authority Work, and Physical Processing: A Checklist of Considerations Commercial Technical Services Commitee, ALas Marie Kascus and Dawn Hale, editors S12.00pbk. • approx. 40p. • 1995 ALA Order Code 3449-5-0011 Tire Information Superhighway ••• The Internet Troubleshooter: Help for the Logged-on and Lost Nancy Regina John and Edward J. Valauskas S20.00spiral·bound • 145p. • 1994 ALA Order Code 0633·8·0011 After the Electronic Revolution, Will You Be the First to Go? Arnold Hirshon, editor SlB.OOpbk. • 62p. • 1993 ALA Order Code 7650·6·0011 Preservation ••• A Core Collection in Preservation, Revised Edition UsaL Fox Don Thompson and Joan ten Hoor, compilers S5.00pbk. • 43p. • 1993 ALA Order Code 7 633-6-0011 Cataloging ••• Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia ALas Interactive Multimedia Guidelines Review Task Force Laurel Jizba, editor S12.00pbk. • 43p. • 1994 ALA Order Code 3445·5·0011 Suhjed Analysis ••• Headings for Tomonow: Public Access Display of Subject Headings ALas Subiect Analysis Commiffee Martha M. Yee, editor SlB.OObpk. • 51 p. • 1992 ALA Order Code 341 5-5-0011 To Order-Call800·545-2433 and press 7 ALAEditions American Ubrary Association Book Order Fulfillment 155 N. Wacker Chicago, IL 60606