hernon.p65 University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 73 73 University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries: The Next Generation, Part Two Peter Hernon, Ronald R. Powell, and Arthur P. Young Peter Hernon is a Professor in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Simmons College; e-mail: peter.hernon@simmons.edu. Ronald R. Powell is a Professor in the Library and Informa- tion Science Program at Wayne State University; e-mail: ad5328@wayne.edu. Arthur P. Young is the Dean of University Libraries at Northern Illinois University; e-mail: ayoung@niu.edu Using the Delphi technique, this paper continues to develop a set of attributes that ARL directors of today and the near future (next ten years) will need to possess. The research reported here drew upon the view- points of both directors and their immediate deputies. The questions remaining are: How does the list of attributes change in other organiza- tional settings? and Where can each attribute best be acquired? hroughout much of American higher education, there is growing concern over the number of individuals ap- proaching retirement age and the “gray- ing of the professorate.” Librarianship is not exempt from this trend. Fewer people are entering the profession, and the num- ber of those entering does not offset the number of retirements or those otherwise leaving the profession.1 In such an envi- ronment, many people are concerned about the next generation of library di- rectors—those in the Association of Re- search Libraries (ARL) as well as in other institutions— that will replace the direc- tors who will retire in the next several years. The challenge of replacing retiring directors is increased by the rather small size of the pool of academic librarians qualified to be directors of large academic research libraries and by the fact that a number of qualified librarians are not in- terested in becoming directors of such li- braries. The two preceding points beg at least one question: What are the ideal attributes for the director of a large academic re- search library or, for that matter, any other type of library? For purposes of this two- part study, the research problem was lim- ited to attributes for directors of ARL li- braries.2 What are the currently desirable attributes, and which ones will be impor- tant in the next decade? Attributes were defined so as to include abilities, skills, knowledge, and personal characteristics. The basic reason for conducting the research was to acquire information that will help the profession to face the chal- lenges of recruiting and retaining success- ful directors of ARL and similar libraries. More specifically, this and the previous study were designed to generate a list of attributes useful to those agencies provid- ing educational programs and leadership institutes, to those librarians serving as mentors for future directors, and to those individuals aspiring to the directorships of large academic research libraries. 74 College & Research Libraries January 2002 The first part of this study used mul- tiple methods of data collection. To de- velop an initial list of attributes, the au- thors reviewed the relevant published lit- erature and analyzed the classified job announcements for ARL directors in six years of College & Research Libraries News. This list then was used as the basis for fifteen face-to-face interviews and four telephone interviews conducted with di- rectors of ARL libraries between Novem- ber 1999 and July 2000. The open-ended interview questions explored the direc- tors’ views on the pool of candidates for future ARL directorships; desirable back- grounds, experiences, and credentials for current and future directors; and knowl- edge and skills that current and future directors should possess. Analysis of the answers to the interview questions re- sulted in a list of 121 desirable attributes categorized as abilities, skills, individual traits, and areas of knowledge. The at- tributes were numerous and diverse, but some of the common themes were that the director should be externally focused, vi- sionary, articulate, an effective advocate on behalf of the library, and flexible. Sev- eral directors also emphasized the impor- tance of an optimal match between the director and his or her university. As was noted, the initial study gener- ated a long list of desirable attributes. Thus, a follow-up study was deemed nec- essary to reduce the size of the list and, more important, to identify the most im- portant attributes. Also, the authors took this opportunity to gain a new perspec- tive on the list—that of assistant, associ- ate, and deputy university library direc- tors (AULs) at institutions that were not included in the first study. This new per- spective was thought to be useful, in part, because (1) assistant and associate librar- ians were those most identified by direc- tors as being likely candidates for future directorships and (2) these individuals observe and interact with the directors on a daily basis. This article reviews related literature not discussed in the first part of the study and describes the Delphi methods used to review and refine the initial list of 121 attributes. The intent was not to make detailed or statistically valid comparisons between the lists produced by both the directors and the AULs. Rather, the au- thors wanted to produce, as comprehen- sively as possible, a final list of attributes. (If readers can identify any other key at- tributes, please share them with the au- thors.) Current Profile Between January 1, 2000, and September 1, 2001, twenty-five directorships of ARL university libraries became vacant, due primarily to retirements (15, or 60%) and resignations (7, or 28%); the other three (12%) involved a terminal sabbatical and reassignment. Of the twenty-five, ten be- came available in the year 2000, fourteen the next year, and one is scheduled for the summer of 2002. Moreover, eleven posi- tions (44%) remain unfilled.3 The other fourteen positions were filled as follows: • Six directors came from non-ARL university libraries (either as director or AUL). • Two moved laterally from other ARL directorships. • Two were AULs at an ARL library. • One was an AUL at the institution from which she gained the directorship. • One came from a national library outside the United States. • One was a member of the journal- ism faculty. • One was formerly a senior admin- istrator in a major academic library asso- ciation and had previous ARL experience. Clearly, there are multiple career paths to ARL directorships. Literature Review There have been few substantial empiri- cal studies of research library leadership. Patha Suwannarat, a doctoral student, studied twenty-nine directors of ARL uni- versity libraries and evaluated them from the perspective of 146 subordinates. This investigation was conducted within the framework of Bernard M. Bass’s Model of Transformational Leadership (TL), which University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 75 is the process by which leaders motivate followers to do more than they originally expected to do. Suwannarat also examined three factors associated with TL: • contingent reward, which involves an exchange between what needs to be done and the appropriate rewards; • management by exception (active), which signifies searching for irregulari- ties and mistakes; • management by exception (pas- sive), which means allowing the status quo to exist. Library directors considered them- selves to convey TL behaviors (idealized influences, inspirational leadership, and intellectual stimulation) and one transac- tional behavior (contingent reward) at a significantly higher level than did the as- sessment of their subordinates. Male di- rectors exhibited higher levels of one transactional behavior (management by exception) than female directors. Con- versely, female directors were perceived to exhibit higher levels of TL behaviors (attributed charisma, inspirational lead- ership, and intellectual stimulation). Li- brary directors generally found them- selves at a higher level of leadership de- velopment and ability than did their sub- ordinates, a common outcome of leader- ship studies.4 Paul H. Mosher, vice provost and di- rector of libraries at the University of Pennsylvania, characterized the position of university library director as one that has gone through various stages of change: “the ‘keeper ’, evolving to the ‘professor-librarian’” (up to 1928), “the collection or ‘bookman-librarian” (1928– 1970), “the organization man (or woman) or ‘scientific’ librarian” (1970–1985), and “the provocative or ‘networked’ librarian: the ‘change agent’… on the university stage” (1985–present). The director has become a “teacher, philosopher of values, instigator, innovator, and provocative administrator.” Mosher saw the director as having the following set of skills: “tech- nical, human-organizational (team and network-building, negotiational), concep- tual and innovative-entrepreneurial.”5 Terry Metz, Head of Information Tech- nology at Carleton College Library, notes that: Leading a transformational process and managing a fluid and chaotic transition period requires skills dif- ferent from those useful for ensur- ing continuity in a stable, predictable environment. Today, effective library leadership requires an extraordinary ability to maintain a delicate and con- tinually shifting balance in the man- agement of technical, financial, and human resources to serve the aca- demic mission of our colleges and universities.6 Complicating matters, “leaders must make judicious decisions that blend the strengths of the past, the demands of the present, and the uncertainty of the future, and they must do so continually—often within an organizational environment designed to support the past.”7 Clearly, “successful library leaders” will need to demonstrate “a blend of bold leadership, informed risk- taking, widespread consultation, and consensus building. They … will need keen analytical powers, abundant common sense, vibrant creativity, reasoned judgment, and a passionate commitment to the mission and goals of higher educa- tion. [The ability to walk on water or part the seas wouldn’t hurt ei- ther!].” Metz concluded: “to de- velop this new leader is an enor- mous challenge.”8 Sarah M. Pritchard, university librar- ian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Steve Marquardt, dean of libraries at South Dakota State University, observed that: the standard suite of qualifications listed in vacancy notices includes skills in management, leadership, planning, budget, communication, 76 College & Research Libraries January 2002 collaborative decision making, staff development, fund raising, knowl- edge of trends in technology and higher education, and of course ‘vi- sion.’ Additional qualities impor- tant to the director are the follow- ing: • energy and dedication to the job even if it is a hard one • a service orientation, which in- cludes a sense that they like people • political skills, including an awareness of a series of interlock- ing structures and mechanisms (e.g., management and politics and fi- nances within the library, across campus, the consortia, etc.) • awareness of the library as part of broader campus academic and planning initiatives, and of trends in higher education • knowledge of the ‘big picture’ is- sues in higher education and librar- ies, but more importantly, ability to explain how those affect the specif- ics of service on the campus • creativity in solving problems and seizing opportunities.9 Evan St. Lifer, executive editor of Li- brary Journal, offered the same observa- tion that others authors have made, namely, “that research librarians are older than most other librarians and are aging quickly… . Further, as of 1998, 91 percent of ARL directors were 50 or older, indi- cating many will retire in the next seven to 12 years.”10 Such data reinforce the importance of identifying the essential attributes that an ARL director should have and of determining how best to en- sure that the next generation of directors possesses them. Survey of ARL Directors Twenty-six ARL university directors were invited to participate in a Delphi study. Twenty of them (76.9%) agreed, includ- ing twelve who participated in the first part of the study. The remaining eight were selected to provide greater geo- graphical balance to the responses. In January 2001, the twenty directors were sent a questionnaire listing the 121 at- tributes in three categories: managerial at- tributes, personal attributes, and general areas of knowledge. They were asked to add and/or delete attributes and to move any that they believed better belonged under a different heading. Next, they were asked to assign a value of 1 to 10 to each attribute, with 1 indicating “no im- portance for the next 10 years,” 5 reflect- ing “moderate importance for the next 10 years,” and 10 suggesting “maximum im- portance for the next 10 years.” They could assign the same value to more than one attribute. The value assigned should represent the attribute’s individual im- portance to a successful ARL director, not its value relative to the other attributes. Six of the directors wrote comments on the questionnaire; most typically, they noted that it was difficult to assign a nu- merical value to each attribute because all of the attributes were important. How- ever, one wrote that managing and shap- ing change was “by far, the most critical attribute.” Another director noted that “many areas can be delegated. The direc- tor needs to know something about many areas. He or she does not need in-depth knowledge of all areas. Knowledge of trends in higher education, technology, teaching and learning theory, and younger generations is important.” Re- garding functioning in a political environ- ment, she split her vote: “10 points for women, and 5 points for men.” A final comment worthy of note was “this is de- pressing,” in reference to the number of important attributes that new directors need to master. Based on their comments, some at- tributes were dropped from the list as re- A couple of directors recommended eliminating “builds consensus in carrying out strategic directions” from the category of “leading” because, as they commented, leaders do not always build consensus. University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 77 dundant, some were moved to other cat- egories, and others were added to the list. Next, for each attribute, the mean was calculated and the attributes within a group were ranked by the mean (from highest to lowest). The top rated attributes (those with a mean of at least 9.0) were: • managing —maintains a productive work en- vironment (9.4) —is results oriented (9.2) —is committed to service (9.1) • leading —is able to function in a political environment (9.5) —manages/shapes change (9.4) —builds a shared vision for the li- brary (9.4) —builds relationships (9.4) —thinks “outside the box” (in new and creative ways applicable to the prob- lem) (9.4) —is an advocate for the library (9.3) —engages in fund-raising and do- nor relations (9.0) • planning —sets priorities (9.5) • dealing with others (personal char- acteristics) —has credibility (with faculty and upper administration) (9.7) —is evenhanded (9.3) —is self-confident (9.1) • individual traits (general) —is comfortable with ambiguity (9.7) —is committed to job and pro- fession (9.7) —is able to handle stress (9.6) —is honest (9.4) —is energetic (9.3) —is intelligent (9.1) • individual traits (leadership) —has good judgment (9.4) —is innovative (9.4) —articulates direction for the li- brary (9.4) —is enthusiastic (9.1) —has organizational agility (9.1) Only two of the “general areas of knowledge” rated a mean greater than 9; both “scholarly communication” and “trends in higher education” achieved 9.1. The ranked list was returned to the par- ticipants to (1) see if they wanted to change any of the rankings and (2) determine the mean and ranking of new attributes (ones identified in the first round). Sixteen of the twenty directors (80%) participated in this round. Based on their responses, the mean score for the new attributes was calculated; none was greater than 8.4. Based on their comments, the list was further refined; some attributes were rewritten and their position shifted within a category. The at- tributes for “fiscal expertise” (analytical creativity, business acumen, knowledge of managerial finance, and skilled with num- bers/budgets), under “Personal Character- istics,” were dropped because respondents complained that the terms needed clarifi- cation. Instead, the respondents recom- mended that “knowledge of financial man- agement” be added to the “general areas of knowledge.” Several respondents noted that a separate heading for “fiscal exper- tise” was unnecessary if the library has a “good financial officer/manager.” One director noted that his scoring of “changes/shapes the library’s culture” would have to take into account whether this was a one-time or an ongoing effort. A couple of directors recommended eliminating “builds consensus in carrying out strategic directions” from the category of “leading” because, as they commented, leaders do not always build consensus. It was noted that “reallocate financial re- sources to effect change in library services” was an activity and not an attribute; thus, it was dropped from the list. Furthermore, a number of the respondents objected to any attribute referring to a love of librar- ies, librarians, people, or learning. As one director commented, “Ugh—love of books just as bad.” They also asked for the elimi- nation of the following attributes: • uses different decision-making styles depending on the situation; • senses problems when working with staff; • balances “access to” and “owner- ship of” resources; • is not compelled to please everyone all of the time; 78 College & Research Libraries January 2002 • is tolerant of ceremony; • likes to spend a lot of time traveling. Anyway, none of these attributes had a mean score higher than 7.6. Finally, the respondents recommended a shift in the ranking of some attributes. For the next round, all twenty direc- tors received the list of 89 attributes and 19 general areas of knowledge and were asked if that list was complete and if ev- ery attribute was in proper order from most to least important for the next de- cade. If they answered in the affirmative, they were asked to approve the list (see figure 1). With two exceptions they did so; these individuals wanted some shift- ing in the position of an attribute within and across categories. Nevertheless, they did not identify any attributes to add to the list. Seven attributes (figure 1) have lesser importance because they produced a mean of less than 8, and none of the di- rectors shifted them to a higher place within a category. Expressed differently, except for these attributes, the directors considered the list of attributes to have high importance. Survey of Assistant/Associate/ Deputy Directors To gain another perspective on the emerg- ing list of attributes, the authors repeated the use of the Delphi technique, but this time with senior administrators (those holding the position of assistant, associ- ate, and deputy director) at university li- braries holding ARL membership. Because no complete, up-to-date list of these indi- viduals exists, it was necessary to create one by checking the American Library Di- rectory, both print and online versions, as well as the home page of each library.11 Given the complexity of generating the list and in tracing the reporting lines at each institution, it was decided to continue the use of a nonprobability sample in which one person, regardless of position title, was selected from a given institution. However, the institutions represented were not the same ones used in the director survey be- cause the authors did not want the direc- tors to influence any of the respondents. Twenty-nine individuals were selected; their institutions provided geographic bal- ance in North America. Nineteen AULs (65.5%) participated.12 In April 2001, the participants were sent the same data collection instrument that the directors received for the second round. Because the authors wanted to continue to develop and refine the emerg- ing list of attributes, they did not start anew with in-person and telephone in- terviews to create a separate list gener- ated by this group. Furthermore, the par- ticipants’ responses were recorded on the form used with the directors to ensure that the one list received additional scru- tiny. Any revisions, deletions, or additions they suggested were accepted. Some AULs commented that all of the attributes were critical and thus it was difficult to assign a value other than 10 to an item. Nonetheless, they did so. Based on their responses, the authors calculated the mean for each response and reordered the attributes from most to least impor- tant within a category. The top rated at- tributes (those with a mean of at least 9.0) were: • managing —makes tough decisions (9.0) • leading —is an advocate for the library (9.8) —manages/shapes change (9.2) —is able to function in a political environment (9.1) —engages in fund-raising and do- nor relations (9.0) • planning —sets priorities (9.3) • dealing with others —treats people with dignity/re- spect (9.7) —is articulate (good oral/written/ presentation skills) (9.6) —has credibility (trustworthiness and follow-through) (9.6) —has a sense of humor (9.2) —has good interpersonal/people skills (9.1) —has a sense of perspective (9.1) —is a good listener (9.1) University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 79 FIGURE 1 Present and Future Attributes: Perspective of ARL Directors* Managerial Attributes Managing is committed to service is results oriented communicates effectively with staff delegates authority maintains a productive work environment makes tough decisions promotes professional growth in staff manages fiscal resources/budgets nurtures the development of new programs and services/refines existing ones as needed develops various sources of funds (grants, gifts, contracts, fee-based services) is committed to staff diversity ensures that planned action is implemented and evaluated facilitates the group process** resolves conflicts** Leading builds a shared vision for the library manages/shapes change is able to function in a political environment develops a campus visibility is an advocate for the library thinks �outside the box� (in new and creative ways applicable to the problem) builds consensus in carrying out strategic directions leads and participates in consortia and cooperative endeavors is collaborative engages in fund-raising and donor relations is entrepreneurial brings issues of broad importance to the university community, fostering wide discussion and action, when appropriate demonstrates effective networking skills keeps the library focused on its mission changes/shapes the library�s culture develops and fosters partnerships with groups and organizations on/off campus leads in a shared decision-making environment Planning sets priorities plans for life cycles of information technologies and services responds to needs of various constituencies creates and implements systems that assess the library�s value to its users creates an environment that fosters accountability 80 College & Research Libraries January 2002 FIGURE 1 Present and Future Attributes: Perspective of ARL Directors* (cont.) Personal Characteristics Dealing with Others has credibility (trustworthiness and follow-through) is evenhanded is self-confident is accessible treats people with dignity/respect is articulate (good oral/written/presentation skills) has a sense of perspective is diplomatic is open-minded is a good listener is able to compromise has a sense of humor has good interpersonal/people skills is approachable keeps commitments enjoys being in groups Individual Traits (General) is committed to a set of values (integrity) is able to handle stress works on multiple tasks simultaneously is comfortable with ambiguity is committed to job and profession has good values/ethics has self-awareness of strengths and weaknesses is honest is energetic is resilient is intelligent analyzes and solves problems has variety of work experiences �thinks on one�s feet���wings it� is intuitive has broad knowledge of issues is able to ask the �right� question Individual Traits (Leadership) is change focused exercises good judgment articulates direction for the library inspires trust is innovative has organizational agility is persuasive has reasonable risk-taking skills is optimistic University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 81 FIGURE 1 Present and Future Attributes: Perspective of ARL Directors* (cont.) understands that one does not have all of the answers has political skills is enthusiastic is an enabler and facilitator is willing to learn from mistakes takes initiative has team-building skills is willing to explain decisions General Areas of Knowledge scholarly communication outcomes assessment understands the complex environment user expectations/information needs in which the library functions intellectual property rights knowledge of financial management management issues facilities planning (including remote storage community�s view of the library and multi-use buildings) public relations digital libraries information delivery systems** trends in higher education publishing industry** information technology resource-sharing** collection management and development information literacy** (e.g., all formats, preservation, and teaching and learning theory** acquisitions) *The attributes within a category are ranked from most to least important for the next ten years. However, there was not unanimous agreement on the precise order of each attribute. **The mean score for round two was less than 8, and the subsequent round did not produce a higher ranking within the category. Thus, the attribute has lesser importance. • individual traits (general) —is honest (9.5) —is intelligent (9.4) —is committed to a set of values (integrity) (9.3) —is able to handle stress (9.1) —is comfortable with ambiguity (9.1) • individual traits (leadership) —inspires trust (9.4) —articulates direction for the li- brary (9.2) —has organizational agility (9.2) —has good judgment (9.2) —is committed to learning from mistakes (9.1) —has team-building skills (9.0) Only two “general areas of knowl- edge” received a mean score of more than 9: “trends in higher education” (9.4) and “user expectations/information needs” (9.1). A couple of the respondents pointed out that some of the attributes (e.g., main- tain a productive work environment and keep the library focused on its mission) required the support and follow-through of others in the organization. As with the directors’ survey, the au- thors returned the list of attributes to the AULs and asked them to review the mean scores. They could move an attribute else- where on the list and were asked to rate attributes that emerged from the previ- ous round on the same ten-point scale. Based on their comments, the authors produced and distributed (in late July) a final instrument for their approval. They did not all agree on the precise order of the attributes but concurred that the list was complete (see figure 2). Final Set of Attributes Because the AULs identified some new 82 College & Research Libraries January 2002 FIGURE 2 Present and Future Attributes: Perspective of Assistant Directors* Managerial Attributes Managing makes tough decisions communicates effectively with staff manages fiscal resources/budgets is committed to service delegates authority is results oriented ensures that planned action is implemented and evaluated promotes professional growth in staff nurtures the development of new programs and services/refines existing ones as needed maintains a productive work environment resolves conflicts is committed to staff diversity develops various sources of funds (grants, gifts, contracts, fee-based services)** facilitates the group process** Leading is an advocate for the library develops a campus visibility for the library is able to function in a political environment builds a shared vision for the library manages/shapes change keeps the library focused on its mission engages in fund-raising and donor relations brings issues of broad importance to the university community, fostering wide discussion and action, when appropriate builds consensus in carrying out strategic directions leads in a shared decision-making environment is entrepreneurial develops and fosters partnerships with groups and organizations on/off campus changes/shapes the library�s culture thinks �outside the box� (in new and creative ways applicable to the problem) leads and participates in consortia and cooperative endeavors demonstrates effective networking skills Planning sets priorities creates and implements systems that assess the library�s value to its users creates an environment that fosters accountability ** plans for life cycles of information technologies and services** responds to needs of various constituencies** University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 83 FIGURE 2 Present and Future Attributes: Perspective of Assistant Directors* (cont.) Personal Characteristics Dealing with Others treats people with dignity/respect has credibility (trustworthiness, keeps commitments, and follow-through) is articulate (good oral/written/presentation skills) is a good listener has a sense of humor has good interpersonal/people skills has sense of perspective is evenhanded is self-confident is diplomatic is open-minded is able to compromise is accessible is able to work effectively in groups** Individual Traits (General) is honest is intelligent is able to handle stress is committed to a set of values (integrity) is comfortable with ambiguity is energetic is intuitive has self-awareness of strengths and weaknesses is resilient has broad knowledge of issues is committed to job and profession analyzes and solves problems works on multiple tasks simultaneously �thinks on one�s feet���wings it� is able to ask the �right� question for the problem/issue at hand has a variety of work experiences** Individual Traits (Leadership) inspires trust articulates direction for the library exercises good judgment has organizational agility is committed to learning from mistakes is an enabler and facilitator is persuasive has team-building skills has reasonable risk-taking skills is innovative understands that one does not have all of the answers 84 College & Research Libraries January 2002 FIGURE 2 Present and Future Attributes: Perspective of Assistant Directors* (cont.) takes initiative (when appropriate) is enthusiastic is change focused (if change is needed) is committed to explaining decisions is optimistic General Areas of Knowledge trends in higher education information delivery systems management issues resource-sharing user expectations/information needs information literacy digital libraries intellectual property rights** public relations knowledge of financial management** scholarly communication publishing industry** community�s view of the library teaching and learning theory** information technology service quality measurement** outcomes (and accreditation) assessment *The attributes within a category are ranked from most to least important for the next ten years. However, there was not unanimous agreement on the precise order of each attribute. **The mean score for round two was less than 8, and the subsequent round did not produce a higher ranking within the category. Thus, the attribute has lesser importance. attributes, in August, the authors sent the directors a fourth iteration of the list, ask- ing them to rate the new attributes and to review their collective work. Figure 3 rep- resents the final set of attributes that they endorsed; however, there were still dis- agreements on the precise order of the 105 attributes, twenty-three of which fall into the category “general areas of knowledge.” To take another look at how the at- tributes might be logically grouped and prioritized, they were subjected to con- cept-mapping, which is (1) a technique for representing meaningful relationships between concepts, (2) the creation of a conceptual representation of ideas in the form of a picture or map with interrela- tionships between them clearly articu- lated, and (3) the development of mental models that include flowcharts and rela- tional diagrams.13 To bring a fresh perspective to the pro- cess of identifying conceptual clusters for the attributes, thirty master ’s-level stu- dents in a course on academic libraries were asked to review the complete list of 105 attributes arranged in random order without groupings and headings and then to identify groups or major concepts that would include those individual at- tributes. The twelve groups they identi- fied are, in no particular order, as follows: • personal qualities; • job skills; • leadership; • people skills; • creativity; • education/training; • knowledge bases; • administrative skills; • communication skills; • library knowledge; • knowledge of the higher education environment; and • knowledge of information technol- ogy. Consistent with the process of concept mapping, the students created a relational diagram to illustrate the logical relation- ships among the twelve groups or major concepts. That concept map, which is re- ported in figure 4, was intended to indi- cate that personal qualities and leadership traits are the most important groups of University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 85 FIGURE 3 Combined List of Attributes Reviewed by the Directors* Managerial Attributes Managing is committed to service is results oriented communicates effectively with staff delegates authority facilitates a productive work environment is willing to make tough decisions promotes professional growth in staff manages fiscal resources/budgets engages in fund-raising and donor relations nurtures the development of new programs and services/refines existing ones as needed develops various sources of funds (grants, gifts, contracts, fee-based services) is committed to staff diversity ensures that planned action is implemented and evaluated facilitates the group process** resolves conflicts** Leading builds a shared vision for the library manages/shapes change is able to function in a political environment develops a campus visibility for the library is an advocate for librarians� role in higher education thinks �outside the box� (in new and creative ways applicable to the problem) builds consensus in carrying out strategic directions leads and participates in consortia and cooperative endeavors is collaborative is entrepreneurial brings issues of broad importance to the university community, fostering wide discussion and action, when appropriate demonstrates effective networking skills keeps the library focused on its mission changes/shapes the library�s culture develops and fosters partnerships with groups and organizations on/off campus leads in a shared decision-making environment Planning sets priorities plans for life cycles of information technologies and services responds to needs of various constituencies creates and implements systems that assess the library�s value to its users creates an environment that fosters accountability 86 College & Research Libraries January 2002 FIGURE 3 Combined List of Attributes Reviewed by the Directors* (cont.) Personal Characteristics Dealing with Others has credibility (trustworthiness, keeps commitments, and follow-through) is evenhanded is self-confident is accessible treats people with dignity/respect is able to work effectively in groups is articulate (good oral/written/presentation skills) has a sense of perspective is diplomatic is open-minded is a good listener is able to compromise has a sense of humor has good interpersonal/people skills Individual Traits (General) is committed to a set of values (integrity) is able to handle stress works on multiple tasks simultaneously is comfortable with ambiguity is committed to job and profession has self-awareness of strengths and weaknesses is honest is energetic is resilient is intelligent analyzes and solves problems has a variety of work experiences is able to �think on one�s feet���wing it� is intuitive has broad knowledge of issues is able to ask the �right� question Individual Traits (Leadership) is change focused exercises good judgment articulates direction for the library inspires trust is innovative has organizational agility is persuasive has reasonable risk-taking skills is optimistic understands that one does not have all of the answers is enthusiastic University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 87 FIGURE 3 Combined List of Attributes Reviewed by the Directors* (cont.) is an enabler and facilitator is committed to learning from mistakes takes initiative has team-building skills is committed to explaining decisions General Areas of Knowledge scholarly communication understands the complex environment in which the library functions knowledge of financial management facilities planning (including remote storage and multi-use buildings) digital libraries planning (strategic, long-term) trends in higher education information technology collection management and development (e.g., all formats, preservation, and acquisitions) outcomes (and accreditation) assessment user expectations/information needs intellectual property rights management issues fund-raising community�s view of the library public relations service quality measurement** goals (educational, research, and service) of the parent institution** information delivery systems** publishing industry** resource-sharing** information literacy** teaching and learning theory** *The attributes within a category are ranked from most to least important for the next ten years. However, there was not unanimous agreement on the precise order of each attribute. **The mean score for round two was less than 8, and the subsequent rounds did not produce a higher ranking within the category. Thus, the attribute has lesser importance. attributes for successful ARL directors and that education/training tends to have the most links to other major groups of attributes. However, the logical connec- tion between education and training, and personal qualities might be questioned. Composite View of the Director of the Present and Near Future Although neither the directors nor the AULs agreed on the exact order of the at- tributes within categories and semantic observations about how a category was defined, they did concur that the list was complete. Both groups view the director as visionary, a campus leader, and some- one engaged in planning and the setting of priorities. Some AULs highlighted in- ternal management and their role in help- ing the director manage the organization and set priorities. A review of the mean scores shows that, for instance, in the cat- egory of “managing,” the directors em- phasized their role of maintaining a “pro- ductive work environment,” being “results oriented,” and having a “commit- 88 College & Research Libraries January 2002 ment to service,” whereas the AULs iden- tified making “tough decisions.” Other responses from some AULs reinforced those attributes that involved team-build- ing and interaction with them so that they can meet their responsibilities. Clearly, when directors are involved internally, it tends to be at a broader level, unless there are personnel issues to address. Both groups noted the pressures of the posi- tion and the ability of an individual to cope with them. Based on the attributes identified by both groups and the unsolicited com- ments they made, the director of the present and near future will continue to play an extensive role outside the library, serve as a change agent (when necessary), and rely on a team for internal manage- ment. The director is both manager and leader. As educator A. J. Anderson ex- plained, managers maximize “the output of the organization through administra- tive implementation. To achieve this, they undertake the function of planning, or- ganizing, leading, and controlling.” He characterized “the leading aspect of man- agement as the process of influencing oth- ers to attain group, organizational, and societal goals. The central attribute is ‘so- cial influence’.” He also observed that “leadership skills development requires investment into difficult areas like people skills, personal development, and an un- ending mental flexibility to tolerate extra- rational and emotional human complex- ity.”14 James G. Neal, vice president for in- formation services and university librar- ian at Columbia University, has identified seven historical relationships between faculty and library: • servant relationship (responding to “faculty demands without an opportu- nity to influence expectations and with- out mutual respect”); • stranger relationship (both groups coexist but do not work together); FIGURE 4 Logical Relationships among Major Concepts Administrative skills Knowledge base Job skills Personal qualities ARL director Leadership Education/ training Library knowledge Information technology Creativity Communication skills People skills Higher education University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries 89 • parallel relationship (faculty and library activities do not intersect, … li- brary collections and services are underutilized, and … faculty’s informa- tion needs are satisfied from other sources”); • friend relationship (both parties cooperate and are “mutually supportive more out of tradition than intense depen- dence”); • partner relationship (“mutual de- pendence” between the two and “a shared commitment to improving the quality of both the library and the university”); • customer relationship (“a market relationship with a recognition of the con- sumer and broker nature of the interac- tion”); and • team or knowledge management relationship (a “fuller integration of in- terests and activities and higher levels of personal investment in collaboration”).15 Other relationships focus on interaction with numerous units and beyond campus for the advancement of research and de- velopment, management of fiscal re- sources, and competition. Clearly, the number and diversity of attributes iden- tified in this two-part study underscore the complexity of the position and the ability to work effectively with various groups external and internal to the library to achieve its mission, and assume differ- ent relationships within the university and the profession. Conclusion The list of attributes (in figure 3) would undoubtedly benefit from additional re- finement and application to other popula- tions—directors of community college, four-year college, university (outside ARL), and public libraries. It is the authors’ intent to examine these other populations and see how the list of attributes remains the same and changes. Ultimately, the question Where can each attribute be best acquired? must be addressed. Clearly, edu- cational programs, including leadership institutes, might stake out those attributes they can provide. At the same time, mentoring programs might do the same. There is considerable literature on the topic of leadership institutes, mentoring programs, and in-house approaches to leadership training. Murray Hiebert and Bruce Klatt’s Encyclopedia of Leadership is an excellent resource for information on topics such as tools for strategic thinking, designing productive processes, problem- solving techniques, initiating leading teams and groups, optimizing meetings, and much more.16 There is much to be learned in Robert M. Fulmer and Marshall Goldsmith’s Leadership Investment, which explains how major corporations achieve strategic advantage through leadership development.17 Anyone contemplating in-house management programs should consult William J. Rothwell and H. C. Kazanas’s Building In-house Leadership and Management Development Programs.18 The profession should monitor efforts to translate the attributes into learning outcomes and to create accountability in the educational programs. At the same time, funding organizations ought to be persuaded of their obligation to assist ef- forts to produce library directors with the prerequisite expertise and attributes. Ev- eryone has an interest in seeing the pro- fession guided by capable leaders serv- ing in managerial positions. This study has attempted to identify key leadership attributes and recognizes the importance of matching them to learning outcomes. It also should be rec- ognized that individual attributes and the associated learning environment are but one major component in a more com- plex mosaic. At some point, leadership attributes must be matched against the requirements of the hiring agency and its expectations. And because the expec- tations and requirements of managerial settings may reasonably differ, there may not be one set of uniformly desired lead- ership attributes. Some attributes may be more valued than others, and some may not be considered valuable at all. Thus, it is unlikely that any set of leadership attributes may be identified as a fixed set that fits all organizational contexts. Per- haps in the future the profession will 90 College & Research Libraries January 2002 have the knowledge and tools to assess individual leadership capabilities and match them with institutional expecta- tions. Notes 1. James M. Matarazzo, “Guest Editorial: Library Human Resources: The Y2K Plus 10 Chal- lenge,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (July 2000): 223–24. See also Stanley Wilder, The Age Demographics of Academic Librarians: A Profession Apart (Washington, D.C.: Association of Re- search Libraries, 1995). 2. Peter Hernon, Ronald R. Powell, and Arthur P. Young, “Association of Research Libraries: The Next Generation, Part One,” College & Research Libraries 62 (Mar. 2001): 116–45. 3. Data were supplied by the ARL (Aug. 27, 2001). 4. Patha Suwannarat, “Library Leadership in Research University Libraries” (Ph.D. diss., Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt Univ., 1994). 5. Paul H. Mosher, “The Research Library Director: From Keeper to Agent-Provocateur,” in Advances in Library Administration and Organization, vol. 18, ed. Edward D. Garten and Delmus E. Williams (New York: JAI, 2001), 307, 313, 315. 6. Terry Metz, “Wanted: Library Leaders for a Discontinuous Future,” Library Issues 21, no. 3 (Jan. 2001): 2–3. 7. Ibid., 3. 8. Ibid. 9. Sarah M. Pritchard and Steve Marquardt, “Looking for Director Goodboss: How to Re- cruit a Head Librarian,” Library Issues 21 (Sept. 2000): 2. 10. Evan St. Lifer, “The Boomer Brain Drain: The Last of a Generation?” Library Journal 125, no. 8 (May 2000): 41. 11. The authors wish to thank Linda Watkins, library science librarian at Simmons College, and her staff for producing the list. 12. For the sake of reporting, respondents are referred to as assistant librarians. This term includes assistant, associate, and deputy librarians. 13. Ross J. Todd and Joyce Kirk, “Concept Mapping in Information Sciences,” Education for Information 13 (1995): 333–47. 14. A. J. Anderson, internal and unpublished documentation for the doctoral program, Simmons College, Boston, 2001. 15. James G. Neal, “The Entrepreneurial Imperative: Advancing from Incremental to Radical Change in the Academic Library,” Portal 1 (Jan. 2001): 9. 16. Murray Hiebert and Bruce Klatt, The Encyclopedia of Leadership: A Practical Guide to Popu- lar Leadership Theories and Techniques (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001). 17. Robert M. Fulmer and Marshall Goldsmith, The Leadership Investment: How the World’s Best Organizations Gain Strategic Advantage through Leadership Development (New York: American Man- agement Association, 2001). 18. William J. Rothwell and H. C. Kazanas, Building In-house Leadership and Management De- velopment Programs: Their Creation, Management, and Continuous Improvement (Westport, Conn.: Quorum, 1999).