neely.p65 412 College & Research Libraries September 1999 Snowbird Leadership Institute: Leadership Development in the Profession Teresa Y. Neely and Mark D. Winston What is the impact of participation in leadership development programs in terms of career progression and involvement in leadership activities? To address this issue, individuals who had participated in the Snowbird Leadership Institute from its inception in 1990 to 1998 were surveyed regarding their career progression since their participation, their involve­ ment in leadership activities, and their perceptions of the experience’s impact on their careers. Although it is difficult to identify a direct relation­ ship between participation in the Snowbird Leadership Institute and ca­ reer progression and greater participation in leadership activities, the respondents did report an increased level of leadership activity. In addi­ tion, their perceptions of the institute’s value with regard to their careers were largely positive and indicated that many of their career paths would have been different had they not had the Snowbird experience. his research reflects the re­ sults of a study of individu­ als who participated in the Snowbird Leadership Insti­ tute from its inception in 1990 to 1998. The participants were asked about their career backgrounds and career progres­ sion subsequent to their participation in the institute, the level and type of their involvement in leadership and professional activities, and their per­ ceptions of the Snowbird experience’s impact on their career paths and pro­ gression. They also were asked to re­ late the importance of interaction with other participants and the program mentors to the value of the experience and to provide a number of demo­ graphic factors. Background and Review of the Literature A review of the literature reflects the in­ creased emphasis on leadership in library and information science (LIS). Certainly, increased attention on this important is­ sue is needed as academic libraries and librarians face challenges associated with information technology, human re­ sources, and increased competition, among other factors. As Donald Riggs pointed out in a recent editorial in College & Research Libraries, “we may have been remiss in the past for not giving academic library leadership enough attention, but it will certainly be inexcusable if we con­ tinue to do so.”1 One important compo­ nent of this discussion is the issue of lead­ ership development and training. Teresa Y. Neely is the Interim Personnel Librarian at Colorado State University Libraries; e-mail: tneely@manta.colostate.edu. Mark D. Winston is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communica­ tion, Information, and Library Studies at Rutgers University; e-mail: mwinston@scils.rutgers.edu. 412 mailto:mwinston@scils.rutgers.edu mailto:tneely@manta.colostate.edu Snowbird Leadership Institute 413 In an environmental scan of leadership development programs, the ARL’s Office of Leadership and Management Services (ARL/OLMS) identified several such pro­ grams that met a number of guidelines for inclusion, such as “[T]he leadership program is a continuing offering, held regularly” and “[T]he focus of the pro­ gram is on leadership development, not technical skills or policy analysis.”2 The results of the environmental scan indicated that “In addition to ARL/OLMS programs, a wide variety of learning events are being offered by diverse orga­ nizations.”3 It is important to note that several other organizations sponsor lead­ ership development programs as well, including library consortia, state library associations, library schools, and indi­ vidual universities. The American Library Association (ALA), through the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and Library Administration and Management Association (LAMA), offer a number of pro­ grams geared to provide partici­ pants with an overview of leader­ ship and the skills required to fos­ ter individual development.4 As has been suggested, leadership pro­ grams may focus on individuals at dif­ ferent stages of their careers. For example, the Senior Fellows program, “a biennial leadership and executive development experience,” and the new ACRL/Harvard Leadership Institute, which has been “De­ veloped for directors of libraries and those who report directly to them,”5–6 rep­ resent offerings for those who are cur­ rently in senior administrative positions. The ARL Leadership and Career Devel­ opment Program (ARL/LCDP) is a mid- to early career program “designed to in­ crease the number of librarians from underr epresented racial and ethnic groups in positions of influence and lead­ ership in research libraries by helping them develop the skills needed to be more competitive in the promotion process.”7 In contrast, programs for those who are relatively new to the profession include the Snowbird Leadership Institute and the Northern Exposure to Leadership Pro­ gram, the Canadian equivalent of Snow­ bird.8 The Snowbird Leadership Institute provides a leadership development op­ portunity for individuals in all types of libraries who are relatively new to their careers. Snowbird “is a five-day residen­ tial, primarily experiential, program of leadership training for people who are at a relatively early point in their library careers. This event takes place in August at a ski resort called Snowbird in the Wasatch Mountains rising above Salt Lake City.”9 According to F. William Summers and Lorraine Summers, who have been in­ volved actively with the institute since its inception in 1990: It is the brainchild of J. Dennis Day, [then] director of the Salt Lake City Public Library. Day was a strong supporter of 1987–88 American Li­ brary Association President Marga­ ret Chisholm’s call for special train­ ing for young leaders, and when ALA’s proposal for a much broader project to carry this out was not funded, he decided to do something on his own.10 Since its inception, the institute has been funded in large measure by Ameritech (formerly, Dynix), under the leadership of its president, and now CEO, Paul Sybrowsky. In an article on the first of the institutes, Nancy Tessman, then institute coordina­ tor, described the program as “a series of experiences that encouraged self-explo­ ration and discovery.”11 It is structured on a number of learning activities, group activities, and interaction with mentors. The mentors have included “library school deans and faculty, directors of major public and academic libraries, and state librarians. The role of the mentors is to share their wisdom and experience 414 College & Research Libraries September 1999 with participants. They work and inter­ act with learning groups and in one-on­ one situations throughout the [I]nstitute.”12 Summers and Summers wrote that “If there is a key identifying concept of the Snowbird Leadership Institute it is prob­ ably the belief that being a leader depends as much as anything else upon knowing and being comfortable with who you are and having confidence in yourself.”13 With thirty or so participants, normally with fewer than five years of experience following completion of the MLS degree, there is also the provision of “plenty of time for personal reflection and evalua­ tion.”14 According to Marilyn L. Miller, who has served as one of the program men­ tors: The profession is empowered by Snowbird, because year after year a small group of emerging leaders joins a developing cadre of librar­ ians who have had a vital leadership experience at a crucial time in their career and who are committed to professional growth. Snowbird also empowers the profession because it brings together librarians across all types of libraries and types of li­ brary functions and responsibilities to explore common interests, con­ cerns, and opportunities.15 In their December 1991 article, Sum­ mers and Summers posed a significant question about Snowbird: “Will the an­ nual output of thirty to thirty-five early to mid-career young people with spe­ cial training make a difference in the quality and quantity of leadership in the field over time?”16 They suggested that with only two institutes com­ pleted, “it is too early to tell in any real sense.” 17 The data and analysis pre­ sented here are intended to begin to an­ swer that question, with a particular fo­ cus on a number of the leadership ac­ tivities that are valued in academic li­ braries. General Methodology This paper presents the findings of a re­ search study of individuals who have participated in the Snowbird Leadership Institute. The primary focus of this origi­ nal research is to analyze the impact of the knowledge and insight gained on the career progression and professional ac­ tivities of the participants, as well as spe­ cific knowledge and skills gained as a re­ sult of participation. Survey methodology was used, and data were collected by di- rect-mailing the questionnaire to every known Snowbird participant. Instrumentation The survey instrument used in this study was designed to address issues related to demographics, educational background, work experience prior to entering librarianship, and professional experi­ ence before and after participating in the institute. It was adapted from two instru­ ments: one used in a 1997 research study, and one used in a 1997 dissertation. The former was used in a study reported on by Julie A. Brewer in the November 1997 issue of College & Research Libraries.18 De­ signed by the ALA’s Office for Library Personnel Resources (OLPR) on post­ master’s residency programs, this instru­ ment was designed to “gather informa­ tion about residency experiences from the perspective of former program partici­ pants.”19 The latter instrument was used in Mark D. Winston’s 1997 dissertation, which investigated the role of recruitment in the education and careers of academic business librarians.20 The resulting sur­ vey instrument was expanded to make allowances for the leadership activities of both academic and public librarians and for the Snowbird population. The Winston instrument provided the basic structure for the Snowbird Leader­ ship Institute instrument. Basic demo­ graphic queries and items on educational background were either taken directly from this instrument or adapted from it. The Snowbird survey adapted a num­ ber of relevant areas from the Brewer/ OLPR instrument, such as queries re­ http:librarians.20 http:Libraries.18 http:opportunities.15 questing the year of participation and the individual who nominated the respon­ dent for participation. The professional and career development section of the Brewer/OLPR instrument provided the basis for a similar section in the Snow­ bird instrument relating to the partici­ pants’ perception of Snowbird’s overall impact on their careers and professional development. Following this section, the Snowbird instrument included items con­ structed to gather information on specific aspects of the Snowbird experience that continued after the institute itself. Items in the summary section of the Brewer/ OLPR instrument were adapted to con­ struct queries about the participants’ sta­ tus before and after the institute. Both researchers have academic library backgrounds and, therefore, have defined and interpreted leadership activities as research (i.e., publications and presenta­ tions) and service, including participation in committees and professional/scholarly associations. Their survey instrument in­ cluded an item (26) that asked about other leadership activities; however, many re­ spondents from public librarianship were critical of the survey’s academic slant and implied that the inclusion of item 26 and other items as the sole mechanisms for collecting additional qualitative data were inadequate. Thus, this discussion of the survey results focuses on those measures of leadership that are likely to be more highly valued in academic libraries. Before the survey was distributed, it was reviewed by institute administrators and consultants, and an e-mail message was sent to the Snowbird listserv an­ nouncing the intended research, explain­ ing that the surveys would be arriving shortly, and encouraging the return of completed surveys.21 In October 1998, the surveys, along with a cover letter and a self-addressed, return envelope, were mailed to the entire population of indi­ viduals (n = 213) on the most current list of Snowbird Leadership Institute partici­ pants (1990–1998) as obtained from the Salt Lake City headquarters.22 (Postage was not included, although at least one Snowbird Leadership Institute 415 participant felt this would have been a welcome addition and may contribute to a higher response rate.) In mid-Novem­ ber, a follow-up mailing was done. In total, 150 usable surveys were re­ turned, reflecting a response rate of nearly 71 percent. Thirteen surveys were re­ turned by the postal service as a result of noncurrent addresses, and one was re­ turned with a note from the respondent but was not completed. The latter survey and surveys returned incomplete were included in the response rate, and the data on incomplete surveys (those where the participants skipped items or pages of items) were included in the data analy­ sis. Although a large amount of data was collected, this paper presents only rel­ evant selected findings related to the de­ mographic profile of the population, edu­ cational backgrounds, leadership activi­ ties, and career progression and develop­ ment. A more complete discussion of the leadership activities identified by the public library respondents is forthcom­ ing. Selected Findings and Discussion The researchers’ intent to collect relevant data from all participants from 1990 to 1998 took into consideration that the 1997 class was a reunion year and did not in­ clude new participants. Moreover, the instrument did not make allowances for 1998 participants, who, having only re­ cently completed the institute, could not adequately answer all of the queries. As a result, the 1998 participants are dis­ cussed where relevant. All statistical analysis was done with an n = 150 scale, and throughout much of the analysis, null and N/A responses are reported where appropriate. Of the 150 usable surveys, 1994 and 1998 classes showed the highest return rate, as shown in table 1. Demographics The population is somewhat homoge­ neous in that it is predominantly white (85.33 %), female (76%), and in the 40+ age range (55%), although nearly 24 per­ http:headquarters.22 http:surveys.21 416 College & Research Libraries TABLE 1 Breakdown of Usable Returned Surveys by Year of Attendance Year No. of Usable % Surveys Received 1990 11 7.3% 1991 14 9.3% 1992 22 14.6% 1993 11 7.3% 1994 25 16.66% 1995 21 14% 1996 17 11.3% 1998 25 16.66% 4 2.66% Total 150 cent reported their age as between 31 and 35. As table 2 shows, 148 respondents re­ ported their gender and ethnicity, and 145 reported their age range. The ethnic back­ ground section of table 2 shows three re­ spondents in the “Other” category. Of these, one ethnic background was re­ ported as white Australian; a second was reported as U.S. citizen, Jamaican heri­ tage; and a third was not reported. Because the focus of this paper is lead­ ership activities, with a particular focus on academic librarianship, it is appropri­ ate to view the academic librarian subset of the Snowbird population in compari­ son to the other members of that popula­ tion. Tables 3 and 4 reflect the compari­ son with regard to gender, age, and eth­ nic background. Table 3 shows that aca­ demic librarians make up 38 percent of September 1999 the total population, with more than 70 percent of that group being women. As in the total population, white women in the 40+ categories are the largest group. Academics Undergraduate Careers. Academic back­ ground was of interest to the researchers as a part of providing a complete profile of the Snowbird participants. All but four of the respondents reported having an undergraduate degree and their major subject area. Nearly 23 percent (34) re­ ported English as their undergraduate major. Other subject areas worth noting include history (8%), social sciences and other23 (7.3% each), and fine arts and busi­ ness (6.6% each). More than 50 percent (92) of the respondents reported not hav­ ing an undergraduate minor. Three per­ sons reported library science as an under­ graduate minor. MLS/MLIS and Other Graduate Degrees. The terminal degree for the LIS profes­ sion is considered by the ALA and the majority of the profession to be the master ’s degree. Findings in this area, 96.66 percent, overwhelmingly confirm this assumption. However, 2 percent (3) of the respondents reported not having earned the degree and 1.3 percent (2) did not answer the question. Almost 77 percent (115) of the respon­ dents reported not having earned an ad­ ditional graduate degree at the time of the survey. Thirty of the Snowbirders have earned master ’s degrees, three have earned doctorates, and one has earned the TABLE 2 Gender, Ethnic Background, and Age Range of Snowbird Po(ulation Gender Ethnic Background Age Range Female 114 Male 34 Null 2 White 128 Black!African American 11 Hispanic!Latino 3 Other 3 Asian!Asian American 2 American Indian-Native American 1 21-25 0 26-30 9 31-35 35 36-39 17 40-45 38 46 + 46 Snowbird Leadership Institute 417 TABLE 3 Comparison of Gender and Age Range between Academics and Nonacademics Gender Academics Non Age Range Academics Non Female 41 72 21-25 Male 16 18 26-3o Null o 2 31-35 36-39 4o-45 46+ Null Total 57 92 equivalent of a master ’s degree in educa­ tion. Almost 27 percent (40) of the respon­ dents reported that they had completed additional graduate credits in a variety of disciplines that had not been applied toward a degree. Career Background and Progression An important component of the profile of the Snowbird Leadership Institute par­ ticipants is a discussion of career back­ grounds and career progression since par­ ticipation in the institute, as well as the level and type of involvement in leader­ ship and professional activities. Career Progression. Certainly, a significant part of this discussion centers on the re­ spondents’ perceptions of the impact of the Snowbird experience on their career paths and progression. This discussion includes information on years of professional li­ brary experience, years o o 5 4 14 21 9 8 11 27 18 27 5 57 92 In terms of pro­ fessional experi­ ence, the partici­ pants have been li­ brarians for an av­ erage of eight years (table 5). More than half the respondents have been professional librarians for be­ tween six and ten years, and slightly more than one- quarter have had five or fewer years of professional expe­ rience. In contrast, with regard to when they participated in Snowbird, the re­ spondents indicated that they had had an average of just under four years of pro­ fessional library experience, reflecting the program focus on individuals who are relatively new to the profession. In fact, 85 percent had had five or fewer years of professional experience at the time of par­ ticipation. With regard to the types of libraries in which they have been employed, nearly all of the Snowbird participants had worked in either public libraries (66, or 44%) or academic libraries (52, or 34.66%) at the time they attended the institute (table 6). Of those who indicated the type of library in which they currently are working, 44 (29.33%) stated public and 25 (16.66%) stated academic. However, pro­ viding a comparison of the types of librar- TABLE 4of prior experience in other professions, and Comparison of Ethnic Background between years as paraprofession- Academics and Nonacademics als in libraries. It also in­ cludes the types of li- Ethnic Background Academics Nonacademics braries in which they _hite _9 7_ worked at the time of BlackiAfrican American 6 8 their attendance and at BispaniciLatino 2 2 present, the types of Hther 0 1 positions they have Asian American 0 22 held and currently American IndianiNative American 0 2 hold, and career pro- Null 0 2 gression since participa- Total 87 92 tion in the institute. 418 College & Research Libraries TABLE 5 Professional EX(erience Currently and During Snowbird Years of Experience Currently During Snowbird 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years No response 39 83 14 8 3 3 26% 53.33% 9.33% 5.33% 2% 2% 128 10 4 4 0 4 85.33% 6.66% 2.66% 2.66% 2.66% ies in which respondents were working at the time of their participation and the types in which they currently are work­ ing is difficult because one-third of the respondents did not provide the latter information. That such a large percentage of respondents did not answer this sur­ vey item may be due to the fact that an earlier question addressed their current job situation in reference to their Snow­ bird participation. In fact, 38.66 percent indicated that they are in the same posi­ tion (and at the same institution) now as they were when they attended the insti­ tute. Another 25.33 percent reported be­ ing in the same institution, but in a dif­ ferent position. It should be noted that some respondents selected more than one category in response to this item. In fact, of the fifty-eight respondents who indicated being in the same position currently that they were in at the time of the institute, half (51.72%) are working in public libraries. Nearly a third are in aca­ demic libraries, with 10.34 percent in gov­ ernment libraries and ap­ proximately five percent September 1999 were at the time of their participa­ tion in the insti­ tute are in aca­ demic libraries, with approxi­ mately one-quar­ ter in public li­ braries, reflecting moves to or among academic library positions. It is interesting to note the changes in type of position held by the respondents now as compared to their time of partici­ pation. More than a third (58, or 38.66%) of the respondents were working in pub­ lic services at the time of their participa­ tion in the institute (table 7). With regard to administrative positions, 34 (22.66%) were department heads or heads of branches, 18 (12%) were directors or deans, and 5 (3.33%) were assistant or associate deans or directors. Only 15 (10%) were working in technical services, and 21 (14%) were working in other LIS areas. In contrast, only 30 (20%) are work­ ing in public services now, and slightly fewer (13, or 8.6%) reported working in technical services now, as compared to their positions at the time of participation in the institute. As would be expected on the basis of the fact that they have been in the profession for a greater period of time, more of the survey respondents are now in administrative positions. At present, 46 (30.6%) are heads of branches TABLE 6 in special libraries. In Employing Institution Currently contrast, a slightly larger and During Snowbird percentage (55.26%) of those who are working Position Type Currently During Snowbird in the same institution, Academic 25 52 but in a different posi- Public 44 66 tion, are in public librar- Special 5 8 ies, with fewer (23.68%) Government 7 12 in academic libraries. It School 0 1 should be noted that al- Other 7 10 most half of those who Not working in a library 12 3 are working in different No response 50 institutions than they Snowbird Leadership Institute 419 the level of leadership ac-TABLE 7 tivity before and after Type of Position Held Currently participation in the insti­and During Snowbird tute is an important ele­ ment in considering thePosition Type Currently During Snowbird institute’s role in the re-Public services 30 Technical services 13 Department or branch head 46 Asst. or assoc. dean! director 10 Dean!director 22 Other 26 No response 3 of departments, 10 (6.66%) are assistant or associate deans or directors, and 22 (14.6%) are deans or directors. Certainly, it is impossible to draw a direct correla­ tion between the respondents’ participa­ tion in the leadership institute and their career and upward mobility, but discus­ sion of their perceptions of both the im­ pact of their participation on obtaining subsequent positions and whether their careers (discussed below) would have been different had they not had the Snow­ bird experience provides additional infor­ mation about the institute’s role. Certainly, it is impossible to draw a direct correlation between the respondents’ participation in the leadership institute and their career and upward mobility. Although it is important to consider the promotions and what appears to be the upward mobility of those who have participated in the institute, it should be noted that not all progression is vertical. Thus, being promoted or obtaining a higher-level position elsewhere is not the only measure of career progression. More­ over, the size and availability of promo­ tion opportunities in the employing in­ stitution and the relative mobility of the respondents also are factors. (Factors such as these are outside the scope of this study.) In addition, some of the respon­ dents were already in administrative or managerial positions at the time of par­ ticipation. Of course, the comparison of 58 spondents’ careers. 15 With respect to career 34 background prior to en­5 tering librarianship,18 more than 60 percent re­21 ported holding parapro­2 fessional positions in LIS. Of those, the aver­ age number of years reported was 6.4, re­ flecting the fact that 52 (34.6%) of the re­ spondents had five or fewer years of para­ professional experience in LIS and 29 (19.33%) had six to ten years of such ex­ perience (table 8). In contrast, slightly less than one-quarter (22%) reported holding positions in some other field prior to be­ coming librarians. And those who had worked in other fields before entering librarianship had done so for relatively short periods of time. In fact, 128 (85%) of those who had worked in other fields had five or fewer years of such experi­ ence, with the average being 3.84 years. Leadership Activities. One limitation of the study centers on the discussion of lead­ ership activities. Because the two re­ searchers either are working or have worked in academic library settings, the leadership activities the respondents were queried about reflect an emphasis on ac­ tivities that are often expected of academic librarians. This may reflect a greater de­ gree of activity in these types of settings TABLE 8 Paraprofessional Experience Years of Experience LIS Other Fields 0-5 years 52 128 6-10 years 29 10 11-15 years 12 4 16-20 years 3 4 More than 20 years 3 0 No response 51 4 420 College & Research Libraries September 1999 than would be the case TABLE 9 for survey participants Leadership Activities: working in public, Respondents Reporting Publication Activity school, or special li­ braries. Thus, the re- Publication Types No. of Respondents No. of Respondents spondents were asked before Snowbird after Snowbird to indicate other lead- Journal articles 36 49ership activities in Books 12 17which they have been Book chaptersinvolved. Book reviewsThe leadership ac- Conference papers tivities considered in­ cluded scholarly activi­ ties such as research, publication, and pre­ sentations. To consider the impact of the institute on their level of professional ac­ tivity, the respondents were asked to in­ dicate their level of scholarly activity be­ fore and after attending the institute. Any discussion of these factors must take into consideration the fact that professional longevity is likely to have some impact on the participant’s level of scholarly and professional activity. In addition, the fact that the institute focuses on leadership de­ velopment for those who are at relatively early stages in their career suggests that at the time of participation, the level of activity reported was not likely to be di­ rectly comparable to the level reported later. It should be noted that only 15 per­ cent of the respondents indicated that they are required to write, publish, and/ or engage in research in order to obtain promotion and/or tenure or a tenure equivalent. Fewer (12%) have held other positions with these requirements since participating in Snowbird. 18 33 18 46 20 25 The data gathered reflect the respon­ dents’ publication activity in terms of journal articles, books, book chapters, book reviews, and publications in confer­ ence proceedings. Of the 150 respondents, only thirty-six had authored or coauthored articles pub­ lished prior to participating in Snowbird (table 9). Since their participation in the institute, there has been a 15.29 percent increase in the number of respondents who have published articles. Greater in­ creases are reflected for all other types of publications as well. Not surprisingly, the largest increase (43.75%) is seen in the number of respondents who have writ­ ten book reviews. However, it should be noted that a larger number of individu­ als wrote journal articles than book re­ views. In terms of academic librarians versus nonacademics, in every category, the number of publications increased, signifi­ cantly in some cases, with the exception of journal articles for nonacademics (table TABLE 10 Leadership Activities Comparison of Publications for Academics and Nonacademics Publication Types Academics Nonacademics Before After Before After Journal articles 13 28 30 29 Books 1 4 11 12 Book chapters 3 23 7 18 Book reviews 27 75 40 101 Conference papers 6 8 9 15 Total 50 138 92 169 Snowbird Leadership Institute 421 TABLE 11 Leadership Activities: Respondents Reporting Presentation Activity Conferences No. of Respondents No. of Respondents before Snowbird after Snowbird National or international library conferences 30 50 State/regional library conferences 63 84 Other library conferences 40 63 Other conferences 54 81 10). Overall, publications for academics increased more than 175 percent, with an 83 percent increase for nonacademics. Book reviews increased by 177 percent and book chapters by 666 percent for aca­ demics. In contrast, journal articles for nonacademics decreased, and book pub­ lication increased by only 0.38 percent. The greatest increase for nonacademics was in book reviews, at nearly 23 percent. A more consistent level of increase was noted in presentations reported. The par­ ticipants were asked about presentations they had made at professional library con­ ferences at the national, international, and state levels, and other library conferences and conferences in other disciplines. As table 11 shows, the increases ranged from 33 to 66 percent, with the greater increase being for respondents who had given presentations at national and interna­ tional library conferences (even though the largest number of respondents had presented at state library association con­ ferences). Table 12 shows similar data for the aca­ demic subset compared to the group of nonacademics. Levels of participation (i.e., number of presentations) at national or international conferences decreased in both subsets. However, presentations at all other conferences increased for both academics and nonacademics. Attitudes about the Institute and Perceived Impact To gather data on the participants’ atti­ tudes about the institute, the researchers asked participants what impact the insti­ tute has had on their career progression, what they have learned through interac­ tion with other Snowbird participants, and what benefits they have derived from the institute itself. Forty percent of the respondents reported that the institute contributed somewhat to their obtaining subsequent positions, and 19 percent re­ ported that it contributed to a great ex­ tent. However, 31.33 percent (47) reported that it did not contribute at all to subse- TABLE 12 Leadership Activities: Comparison of Presentations for Academics and Nonacademics Conferences Academics Nonacademics Before After Before After National or international library conferences 28 5 58 42 State/regional library Conferences 23 48 117 148 Other library conferences 18 33 52 122 Other conferences 23 113 399 1,090 Total 92 199 626 1,402 422 College & Research Libraries September 1999 quent positions. The latter statistic is in line with the 38.66 percent (58) who re­ ported that at the time of the survey, they were in the same position as when they attended the institute. In a question related to career progres­ sion, nearly half the respondents (48.66%, or 73) selected yes when asked if they believed their career paths would have been different without the Snowbird ex­ perience. Forty-two percent answered that it would not have been different, and fourteen respondents declined to answer the question. Individuals who have participated in the institute are selected from a larger pool and, ostensibly, are the cream that rose to the top during the selection pro­ cess. With this in mind, the researchers included queries to gather data on learn­ ings and interactions with other Snow­ bird participants. Seventy-six percent (114) of those surveyed noted that inter­ action with other participants contributed a great deal to the overall quality and ex­ perience of the institute, 22 percent noted that it contributed to some extent, and one person reported that interactions with other participants did not contribute at all to the overall quality of the experience. Recognizing the proprietary nature of the content and curriculum of the insti­ tute itself, the researchers generalized the overall Snowbird experience, including all learning techniques, literature, and structured group and individual occur­ rences, by asking respondents about the perceived benefits and learnings from activities that occurred after the institute. The survey instrument included a num­ ber of opportunities for gathering quali­ tative data about the institute, and these data will be analyzed and disseminated at a later date. Four categories of post-in­ stitute activity were identified, and par­ ticipants were surveyed using multiple- choice queries modeled on a Likert scale. Listserv. The Snowbird listserv is an elec­ tronic discussion list, open only to Snow­ bird participants. Selection and partici­ pation in the institute does not guarantee automatic sign-up; many respondents expressed a lack of knowledge about the existence of the listserv, and some in­ cluded requests in their comments to be subscribed. Several offered comments about the traffic on the listserv, includ­ ing its perceived primary existence as a method for announcing job and address changes, as opposed to being a tool for discussion of leadership and related is­ sues. As primarily a lurker on this listserv, one of the researchers observed that there have been attempts to intro­ duce and sustain stimulating and intel­ lectual discussions; however, it is diffi­ cult for one or two persons to provide the continuing dialogue for an entire list. Table 13 shows the responses about the listserv and the other categories—infor­ mal reunions at professional conferences, collegial relationships developed with other participants, and mentoring rela­ tionships. Informal Reunions. The Snowbird Leader­ ship office in Salt Lake City hosts an an­ nual reception for participants and men­ tors at the ALA’s annual conference each TABLE 13 Responses for Categories Identified as Post-institute Relevant Activities Contributions to Listserv Informal Collegial Mentoring Individual Benefits Reunions Relationships and Learning To a great extent 15 (10%) 14 (9.33%) 35 (23.33%) 26 (17.33%) To some extent 57 (38%) 47 (31.33%) 79 (52.66%) 61 (40.60%) Not at all 69 (46%) 62 (41.33%) 31 (20.66%) 57 (38%) No response 9 (6%) 27 (18%) 5 (3.33%) 6 (4%) Snowbird Leadership Institute 423 summer. Depending on the location of ALA’s midwinter conference and/or di­ vision conferences (e.g., Public Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, and so on), local par­ ticipants sometimes organize dinners, lunches, or other informal meetings for Snowbirders attending those confer­ ences. Table 13 shows that almost 41 per­ cent of the respondents reported that these informal reunions contribute to a great extent or to some extent to the over­ all quality of their post-institute interac­ tion. Nearly 60 percent (89 respondents) either did not answer or reported that these reunions did not contribute to the quality of the experience. An analysis of the years of participation of the eighty- nine respondents did not reveal any sta­ tistically significant relationship between year of participation and attitude about informal reunions. It is difficult to identify a direct relationship between participation in the Snowbird Leadership Institute and career progression and greater participation in leadership activities. Collegial Relationships. Collegial relation­ ships were identified as an area for fur­ ther analysis because the researchers rec­ ognize their importance in the profession of librarianship. Collegial relationships are developed and maintained via listservs, at annual and biannual confer­ ences, and via other professional devel­ opment opportunities. Networking, pro­ fessionally and socially, has long been associated with advancement in the cor­ porate, private, public, and higher edu­ cation sectors. Table 13 reveals that colle­ gial relationships have contributed greatly or to some extent to the quality of the experience for 114 (76%) of the par­ ticipants. Mentoring Relationships. Mentoring is an important component of the Snow­ bird experience. In fact, in most of the leadership institutes previously dis­ cussed, mentoring is given much con­ sideration. The mentoring aspect of the institute was more informal in that, for the duration of the institute, small groups of individuals were assigned to two mentors. These relationships have the potential to continue after the in­ stitute, but this post-institute activity is not directly structured. Mentors have ranged from lawyers to directors of large public library systems to library administrators from universities, both public and private. Table 13 shows that almost 58 percent (87) of those respond­ ing to the survey rated mentoring re­ lationships as contributing to a great extent or to some extent to the quality of their Snowbird experience. Thirty- eight percent of those surveyed re­ ported that the mentoring relationships did not contribute to the quality of their experience, and four percent did not answer the question. The fact that a sig­ nificant portion of the population did not rate the value of the mentoring re­ lationships highly may be due to the lack of individual mentoring relation­ ships or may be a factor of the popula­ tion demographics and the difficulty of building such relationships. Other Library Leadership Programs. The re­ searchers’ interest in the effects of library leadership programs led to an inquiry about participation in other library lead­ ership programs. Twenty-two respon­ dents mentioned participation in other institutes, citing state or regional leader­ ship programs. Seventy-eight percent re­ ported that they had not participated in any other programs, eight percent re­ ported they had attended the ALA Emerging Leaders Institute, and six per­ cent reported they had recently partici­ pated in the ARL Leadership and Career Development Program. Although the former institute appears to have been a one-time opportunity, plans are under way for a second ARL program; and as participants in the latter, the researchers look forward to examining that popula­ tion for trends and evidence of acquired outcomes. 424 College & Research Libraries September 1999 Summary and Recommendations for Future Research It is difficult to identify a direct relation­ ship between participation in the Snow­ bird Leadership Institute and career pro­ gression and greater participation in leadership activities. However, it is clear that the respondents report an increased level of activity in a number of different categories of leadership activity. In addi­ tion, their perceptions of the institute’s value with respect to their career progres­ sion are largely positive and indicate that many of their career paths would have been different had they not had the Snow­ bird experience. In terms of the respondents’ attitudes about the institute’s perceived impact, it is difficult to determine the relationship between the impact of the institute and the attainment of subsequent positions. The fact that nearly 40 percent reported that they are currently in the same posi­ tion as when they attended the institute does not allow a clear analysis of this par­ ticular occurrence. However, other activi­ ties engaged in while remaining in the same position may begin to shed some light on this aspect of the study; and, as mentioned previously, the number of in­ dividuals increased in every category in the presentation and publication catego­ ries. Interactions with other Snowbird par­ ticipants (categorized as collegial relation­ ships) and mentoring are highly rated by most participants, although 38 percent an­ swered that mentoring did not contribute to the quality of their overall experience. As previously mentioned, mentoring is critical, and the informal, unstructured approach may not have been the best method for introducing the mentoring component. The listserv and informal reunions were not highly rated. This could be due to the informal nature of both or the fact that not all of the former participants at­ tend professional conferences where the reunions are held. The researchers recommend further analysis of the data collected, with special emphasis on the qualitative responses to the queries on leadership, career progres­ sion, and impact of the institute on indi­ vidual careers. Moreover, it would be ben­ eficial to track the participants of the Spec­ trum Initiative, the ALA’s recruitment and scholarship program, for more in-depth qualitative data on the mentoring compo­ nent and the proposed leadership program for Spectrum participants, the Spectrum institute,24 as well as the participants of the Senior Fellows program, the Emerging Leaders Institute, and the ARL Leadership and Career Development Program. Notes 1. Donald E. Riggs, “Academic Library Leadership: Observations and Questions,” College & Research Libraries 60 (Jan. 1999): 8. 2. “Leadership Development Programs: An Environmental Scan.” Washington, D.C.: Asso­ ciation of Research Libraries Office of Leadership and Management Services. Unpublished docu­ ment, 1. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 1–2. 6. “ACRL/Harvard Leadership Institute,” College & Research Libraries News 60 (Feb. 1999): 71. 7. For additional information on the ARL/LCDP, see ARL Diversity Program: Leadership and Career Development Program at http://www.arl.org/diversity/lcdp.html, or contact DeEtta Jones, ARL Program Officer for Diversity at or at 202- 296-2296. For informa­ tion on the Emerging Leaders Institute, contact Emily Melton at: ; or see Teresa Y. Neely, “Diversity Initiatives and Programs: The National Approach,” Journal of Library Admin­ istration 27. Forthcoming publication. 8. Donna Brockmeyer-Klebaum, “Leadership Institutes: The Living Legacy They Can and Can’t Leave,” Feliciter 41 (Oct. 1995): 18. 9. F. William Summers and Lorraine Summers, “Library Leadership 2000 and Beyond: Snow­ bird Leadership Institute,” Wilson Library Bulletin 66 (Dec. 1991): 38. mailto:emelton@ala.org mailto:deetta@arl.org http://www.arl.org/diversity/lcdp.html Snowbird Leadership Institute 425 10. Ibid. 11. Nancy Tessman, “Learning to Be Library Leaders,” Wilson Library Bulletin 65 (Oct. 1990): 16. 12. Ibid. 13. Summers and Summers, “Library Leadership 2000 and Beyond,” 39. 14. Ibid., 40. 15. Marilyn L. Miller, “Snowbird: An Experiment in Leadership,” American Libraries 23 (Oct. 1992): 812. 16. Summers and Summers, “Library Leadership 2000 and Beyond,” 41. 17. Ibid. 18. Julie A. Brewer, “Post-Master’s Residency Programs: Enhancing the Development of New Professionals and Minority Recruitment in Academic and Research Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 58 (Nov. 1997): 528–37. 19. Ibid., 531. 20. Mark D. Winston, “The Recruitment, Education and Careers of Academic Business Librar­ ians” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pittsburgh, 1997). 21. The Snowbird Leadership Institute listserv is open only to Snowbird participants, men­ tors, and administrators. To be added to the list, contact Mike Silvia at msilvia@etal.uri.edu. 22. For information on the Snowbird Leadership Institute, contact Bobbi Bohman, Salt Lake City Public Library, Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1997, a “reunion” institute was held for participants from earlier years, rather than the usual institute. Thus, respondents were asked to complete the instrument on the basis of their first participation in the institute. 23. Includes double majors, international affairs, and American studies. 24. See the Spectrum Initiative Mission at http://www.ala.org/spectrum/mission.html, and also, Spectrum Initiative: Scholarship Requirements & Expectations at http://www.ala.org/spec­ trum/mission.html. http://www.ala.org/spec http://www.ala.org/spectrum/mission.html mailto:msilvia@etal.uri.edu