hernon.indd


 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

  
 

 

Academic Library Directors: What Do 
They Do? 

Peter Hernon, Ronald R. Powell, and Arthur P. Young 

Eleven library directors recorded their work-related activities for twelve 
days. The activities depicted show them as both managers and leaders, 
and reflect contact with various individuals within and beyond the institu­
tion as the directors deal with local, regional, and national issues. This 
paper also highlights how previously identified attributes compare with 
their everyday work. 

or some time now, the au­
thors of this article have been 
studying the leadership at­

tributes of library directors in academic 
and public libraries.1 Their main focus has 
been to identify and rank those attributes 
within the broad categories of manage­
ment, personal traits, and areas of knowl­
edge. The complexity of this research 
topic has required the use of multiple 
research methodologies. Content analysis 
of documents, the Delphi technique used 
to identify and progressively refi ne pri­
orities, interviews, solicitation of written 
comments, and thematic modeling have 
all been used to determine patterns and 
meaning from the evidence. In this article, 
the authors employ the diary-interview 
technique to record work activities over 
an extended period of time. Data derived 
from the diary exercise have intrinsic 
value but also may be used to compare 
actual work routines with the more con­

ceptual responses given in the authors’ 
earlier studies of leadership qualities and 
their relative importance. In other words, 
the data allow one to determine how 
some directors actually spend their time 
as opposed to assuming that what they 
identify as their most important attributes 
accurately reflect their activities. 

This study examined four primary 
research questions: 

1. In what activities do directors en­
gage? 

2. Which activities are most com­
mon? 

3. Does the range of activities encom­
pass both management and leadership? 

4. How do their reported activities 
compare with the attributes and activities 
previously reported as most important? 

Two additional, or secondary, research 
questions that were probed through the 
analysis and comparison of diary entries 
were: Does multitasking occur? and What 

Peter Hernon is a Professor in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Simmons Col-
lege; e-mail: peter.hernon@simmons.edu. Ronald R. Powell is a Professor in the Library and Information 
Science Program at Wayne State University; e-mail: ad5328@wayne.edu. Arthur P. Young is Dean of the 
University Libraries at Northern Illinois University; e-mail: ayoung@niu.edu. 

538 

mailto:ayoung@niu.edu
mailto:ad5328@wayne.edu
mailto:peter.hernon@simmons.edu


 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

  

 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 539 

are the most common att ributes (knowl­
edge, skills, abilities, and personality 
traits) reflected in those activities? 

This study took an exploratory, primar­
ily qualitative, approach to answering 
these questions. Much of the information 
gathered is descriptive in nature and 
would support neither precise compari­
sons across types of academic libraries nor 
generalizations to all academic library di­
rectors. However, the information should 
bring us closer to understanding the 
common ground between an idealized set 
of attributes and workplace imperatives. 

Literature Review 
Some research (reported since 2000) has 
focused on the directors of libraries within 
institutions that are affi  liated with either 
the Association of College and Research 
Libraries (ACRL) or the Association of 
Research Libraries (ARL). Those studies 
explore the managerial and leadership 
attributes that current and future direc­
tors should possess, the challenges that 
directors currently face, the qualifica­
tions and expectations expressed in job 
advertisements, “the presence and effect 
of the doctorate among small college 
librarians,” the graying of the profession 
and those serving as directors, the job 
satisfaction of directors, the amount of 
time they spend on leadership tasks, and 
the relationship between job satisfaction 
and leadership.2–6 This body of research 
is not confined to the United States but 
also comes from countries such as Den­
mark. The latter research even uses the 
leadership barometer, a measurement 
instrument that profiles managers and 
leaders in the public and private sectors 
in Scandinavia.7 

Procedures 
This section discusses the selection of 
directors included in this study, the 
method of data collection, the pretest 

procedure, and the instructions given to 
participants. 

Selection of Library Directors 
Twelve directors, six from ACRL and six 
from ARL, were invited to participate in 
the study. One of them had been included 
in the authors’ previous research into the 
pool of attributes necessary to guide the 
present and next generation of academic 
and public library directors. This person 
was invited to participate in the present 
study because he had encouraged the 
authors to undertake it. The criteria for 
selection of the directors were length 
of service, extent of recognition in the 
profession, gender, geographic distribu­
tion, and type of institution in which the 
person worked. 

The Diary as Means of Data Collection 
Because it was impossible to observe the 
directors for any prolonged length of time 
and to visit each campus, compilation of 
a diary became a suitable means of data 
collection. As Colin Robson explained, 
a diary “is a kind of self-administered 
questionnaire … [that] places a great deal 
of responsibility on the respondent.”8 Don 
H. Zimmerman and D. Lawrence Wieder 
viewed a diary as “an annotated chrono­
logical record” but recommended its use 
in conjunction with a follow-up interview. 
Together, these methods approximate 
“the classic pattern of observational re­
search when the investigator is unable to 
make firsthand observations or wishes to 
supplement those already collected.”9 

On occasion, library and informa­
tion science (LIS) researchers have used 
diaries, and they may have done so in 
conjunction with other methods of data 
collection.10 As the above-mentioned 
literature emphasizes, it was imperative 
that participants be carefully selected 
and given a detailed set of instructions, a 
pretested instrument, and an opportunity 

http:collection.10


 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

540 College & Research Libraries 

to ask questions prior to (and during) data 
collection. Furthermore, the diary has to 
be constructed in such a way that it is 
neither difficult nor time-consuming to 
complete but at the same time is capable 
of generating ample information to exam­
ine the six research questions. 

Studies of work activity, Henry Mint­
zberg noted, distinguish between the 
content and characteristics of managerial 
work. The former focuses on what man­
agers do in their work and the latt er ex­
amines where, how long, and with whom 
they work and what media they use (e.g., 
telephone).11 Work activity studies have 
used diaries, but in combination with 
other methods, so that it is possible to ex­
amine both content and characteristics. 

A critical question relates to how long 
directors should be asked to maintain the 
diary. In a discussion of time- and self-
management, W. Thomas Porter Jr. noted: 
“You may wish to keep a more detailed 
time log … for three to four weeks to see 
where your time is being spent. Such an 
analysis is essential to diagnose the non­
productive, time-wasting activities and to 
get rid of them if you possibly can.”12 In 
contrast, Mintzberg pointed out that data 
collection has been anywhere from one 
day to one month.13 Robert L. Adcock, on 
the other hand, recommended “a span of 
not less than two weeks.”14 Based on dis­
cussions with pretest subjects, the authors 
of this study concluded that maintaining 
the diary for less than one week is insuf­
ficient and that longer than two weeks 
places a severe burden on participants. 

Pretest 
For two consecutive days during June 
2003, the directors of three libraries (two 
affiliated with ACRL and one with ARL) 
conducted a pretest of the diary. Based on 
their comments, the form was split into 
two forms: one to record routine activities 
and the other to document nonroutine 

November 2004 

ones. A routine activity is a repeated activ­
ity or something the directors do several 
times a day. In some instances, such an 
activity might become a habit. Routine, 
personal activities (e.g., coffee breaks or 
meals) were not recorded unless those 
activities related to work. Because the 
sole purpose of completing two forms 
was to simplify the process of recording 
responses, the authors did not distinguish 
between the forms during data analysis 
and reporting. 

Diary Instructions 
The instructions asked the directors to 
compile an exhaustive record of those 
activities that relate to their official role. 
An activity even includes discussions 
about the library, university, and higher 
education and the reading of documen­
tation and the professional literature. 
The directors were expected to include 
activities even if those activities seemed 
mundane. They also were informed that 
whatever they found notable would be 
pertinent to the study. They were in­
structed to select two consecutive weeks 
(between the weeks of September 22 and 
November 17)—Monday through the 
second Friday—for data collection. If they 
engaged in work-related activities during 
the one weekend or if they worked during 
evenings, they were asked to make diary 
entries. The time period might involve 
work-related trips. However, the direc­
tors were advised not to select a period 
with more than three days’ absence from 
campus, unless such trips were a usual 
part of their routine. In brief, the twelve-
day period selected was intended as most 
typical of the academic term for them. 

The diary for nonroutine activities 
covered five Ws: when, what, why, who, 
and where. When refers to the time of the 
activity, what describes the activity itself, 
why explains the purpose of the activity, 
who identifies the participants (but only 

http:month.13
http:telephone).11


 

  
 

 

 
  

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

  

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 541 

by their position), and where designates 
the location of the activity. (See appendix.) 
For each nonroutine activity described, 
the director was asked to indicate how 
typical it was on the following scale: 

Not 
Typical Somewhat Very 
at All Typical Typical 

1 2 3 4 5 

Because some activities lead to follow-
up activities, the directors were asked to 
make the connection when it occurred. 
In addition, they were asked to set aside 
regular periods each day to prepare diary 
entries; this would help them ensure the 
accuracy and comprehensiveness of each 
diary entry. 

Moreover, after they had completed 
and returned the diaries, the authors 
read them and arranged an interview to 
expand on activities that either the direc­
tors or the authors had selected. The in­
terviews probed details that were omitted 
from the writt en diary—att itudes, beliefs, 
knowledge, consequences of actions, and 
so on—and were conducted in a timely 
manner to ensure that the directors could 
easily recall those activities. 

Findings 
This section presents the results of each 
diary and interview. There is a quick snap­
shot of the institution and its library based 
on The Carnegie Classification of Institutions 
of Higher Education and volume counts 
supplied by the directors.15 Population 
data were obtained from a Google search 
and from an examination of data on the 
home page of the U.S. Bureau of the Cen­
sus (htt p://www.census.gov/). Although 
the directors might have responsibility 
for more than the library, their activities 
were not divided according to different 
reporting responsibilities because the 
authors had pledged to ensure the confi ­
dentiality of each director and institution. 

As a result, the background information 
provided for each library and institution 
was limited. 

One director from an ARL institution 
withdrew from the project, leaving six 
directors from ACRL institutions and five 
from ARL institutions. There is no stan­
dard for determining a suffi  cient sample 
size for a qualitative study such as this 
one. Having eleven participants enabled 
the authors to address the research ques­
tions, make some general comparisons, 
and place this study within the context 
of their previous work on the attributes 
that directors need to display. 

Association of College and Research 
Libraries 
Library A 
Located in an urban center, this private, 
not-for-profit university is classifi ed as 
Master’s Colleges and Universities I, mean­
ing that it offers assorted baccalaureate 
programs and graduate education largely 
through the master’s degree. The library 
has a collection of more than 118,000 
volumes. 

The director compiled the diary from 
October 27 to November 7 but had no 
weekend entries. His typical workday was 
from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The day always 
began with a walk-through of the library 
to verify that there were no water leaks, 
chairs and tables were in their proper 
places, and public workstations were op­
erational. Other activities that he rated as 
“very typical” (“5”) were communication 
via e-mail and, as Webmaster, he updated 
the library’s Web site and Web pages and 
loaded them onto the university server.16 
He was very involved with technology, 
updating the library’s technology plan, 
ensuring that equipment worked prop­
erly, and ordering new equipment; these 
activities, however, generally received 
a rating of at least “somewhat typical” 
(“3”). As well, he was engaged in devel­

http:server.16
http:p://www.census.gov
http:directors.15


 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

  
 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

  

 
 
 
 

  
 

542 College & Research Libraries 

oping a set of library measures of institu­
tional effectiveness and budget planning. 
As part of that planning, he monitored 
library expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 
2004 and did preparatory work on the 
next FY budget document. 

Other activities rated no higher than 
“3.” Examples of these activities included 
discussions with faculty members (e.g., 
about the establishment of a poetry center 
in the library), work on the university’s 
strategic planning committee and on 
publications, meeting with alumnae, and 
preparing a grant proposal and an ap­
plication for a foundation gift. He spent 
a considerable amount of time communi­
cating with staff, especially department 
heads, and with others outside the library. 
As he noted, 

Because of the issues faced (e.g., 
budget), I talked with DHs [depart­
ment heads] first; however, on other 
issues I would talk directly with 
staff. [It all] depends on the issue 
and the level in which I am dealing 
with the issue at the time. I usually 
always go hierarchically from top to 
bottom so that DHs do not think I 
am doing an end run around them. 
I also tend to meet with institutional 
people more than the two weeks 
… [of keeping the diary] would 
indicate. 

His diary entries reflected examples of 
multitasking. For instance, while work­
ing on a grant proposal, staff, alumni, or 
faculty might interrupt him, and he might 
not return to the proposal for more than 
one hour. Planning was a major activity 
in which he was engaged during the data 
collection period. The meetings in which 
he participated might be impromptu or 
scheduled with department heads or 
university faculty. Involvement in plan­
ning and university committ ees reflected 

November 2004 

his leadership role, while managing the 
library operation consumed a consider­
able amount of his time. 

Library B 
Located in a city of more than 30,000 
residents, this private, not-for-profi t col­
lege is classified as Baccalaureate Colleg­
es—Liberal Arts, meaning that the major 
emphasis is on baccalaureate programs. 
Institutions in this category award at least 
half their baccalaureate degrees in liberal 
arts. The library has a collection of more 
than 200,000 volumes. 

From October 6 to 17, the director 
worked between eight and a half and nine 
and a quarter hours each day; for the one 
weekend he put in more than nine hours 
developing the agenda for a regular Mon­
day morning meeting with department 
heads and working on a speech for an 
upcoming conference. Among the “very 
typical” (“5”) activities are this meeting 
and preparation for it, taking his turn at 
the reference desk twice a week (includ­
ing 7 to 10 p.m. each Tuesday), signing 
invoices for the dispersion of monies, 
and holding regular meetings with the 
associate college librarian. 

The other diary entries reflect a wide 
range of activities, including communicat­
ing via e-mail, U.S. mail, and telephone; 
meeting with faculty members who are 
their department’s liaison to the library; 
preparing to replace two photocopy ma­
chines due to poor performance; review­
ing the adequacy of the library’s electronic 
reserve policy in protecting copyright; 
discussing that policy with a faculty com­
mittee; preparing to attend an upcoming 
conference and to undertake a consulting 
assignment; discussing staff career devel­
opment; supporting a mentor program for 
newly appointed college library directors; 
dealing with the hospitalization and death 
of the spouse of a staff member; ensuring 
that the building is properly cleaned; 



 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

  
 
 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 543 

discussing signage for use of cell phones 
and food and drink in the library with an 
artist in the art department; preparing to 
have library guides placed on the Web 
site for use by freshmen; preparing for, 
and meeting with, the vice president for 
academic affairs; dealing with reciprocal 
agreements with two local public libraries 
to ensure that the local community has 
circulation privileges and informing those 
directors that the college library honors 
their circulation cards; discussing the 
relocation, use, and disposition of Chemi-
cal Abstracts; attending a monthly faculty 
meeting as a voting member; talking with 
a librarian who would replace him at an 
upcoming curriculum meeting; arrang­
ing for publication of a list of electronic 
journals; sharing with the associate direc­
tor the results of a meeting with the vice 
president for academic affairs and, based 
on those results, reviewing strategies on 
how to proceed; photocopying reports for 
distribution to divisional deans (the assis­
tant who usually does the photocopying 
was ill that day); participating in a task 
force that perceives the decline in state 
funding and the state’s enactment of a 
fee as inequitable (the task force sought 
to repeal or reduce the amount of the fee); 
scheduling meetings; reviewing letters 
and an agreement that would authorize 
him to sign that agreement on behalf of 
the consortium; responding to faculty 
requests to purchase books and videos; 
supplying colleagues with information 
about attending a workshop; meeting 
with the associate director to discuss 
strategies to replace a librarian who is 
planning to leave; seeking signage to 
alert students about possible theft in the 
library; completing surveys (“get lots of 
surveys to respond to”); and so on. 

These assorted activities brought the 
director into contact with library staff, 
faculty members, university administra­
tion, local public library directors, college 

library directors across the state, vendors, 
and librarians in other states. He actively 
participates on a listserv and asks ques­
tions of its users. 

During the final two days of data col­
lection, he attended a conference. As he 
explained, “while this particular meeting 
is not typical, it is typical for me to be 
off campus at least one day a week.” He 
also noted, 

I found as I did this project [keep­
ing a diary] that there is very litt le I 
do that is simply a habit. Each day, 
and, in fact, each hour, seems to be a 
nonroutine activity, which is part of 
the fun and challenge of the job. 

I did find it hard to keep up with 
the diary because many times I find 
myself doing two or three things at 
once, and I seldom find that I have 
a five- or ten-minute span where I 
can concentrate on one thing. When 
I do need to concentrate on things 
for a long period of time, such as 
writing a talk or an article, I typi­
cally do that in the late afternoon 
or on weekends. 

When asked about how representative 
this time period is, he responded that the 
twelve days involved neither any referee­
ing for peer-reviewed journals nor any 
scholarly writing (usually he spends “part 
of each weekend writing something”). He 
also stated that he does one to two consul­
tations each year, attends the winter and 
summer ALA conference, speaks at one 
or two conferences, serves on the execu­
tive library committee of one university 
(and has been invited to serve on the 
library committee of another university), 
participates in a seminar on mentoring 
directors, and usually attends the state 
library conference and meetings of the 
Council of Independent Colleges, the 



 
  

 
 

 

  

 

 
 

 

  

 
 

 

 

  
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

544 College & Research Libraries 

Oberlin Group, and the regional nonprofit 
library resource-sharing network. 

Library C 
Located in an urban center of approxi­
mately 370,000 people, this private, not­
for-profi t university is classified as Doc­
toral/Research UniversitiesExtensive 
(such institutions offer a diverse range 
of baccalaureate programs and provide 
graduate education through the doctor­
ate; they award a minimum of fift y doc­
toral degrees per year in at least fifteen 
disciplines). The library has a collection 
of more than one million volumes. 

The director maintained the diary from 
October 20 through the end of the month. 
Her major routine activity is communica­
tion via e-mail. The exact number of work-
related hours is difficult to pinpoint, but 
the typical day seemed to be anywhere 
from eight to ten hours, with some activi­
ties completed at home in the evenings. 
The type of activities in which she was 
engaged complicated the calculation of 
the number per day. 

During the twelve days, she drove to 
and attended two conferences, engaged 
in numerous ceremonial functions (e.g., 
spoke at and staged special events), 
prepared and delivered presentations, 
and participated in programs aimed at 
informing and educating senior citizens. 
These activities afforded numerous op­
portunities to network—meet and cul­
tivate supporters for the library and its 
collections—and to encourage gift giving 
to the library. 

She also participated on a task force 
that marketed new programs to campus 
leaders, held discussions about the Mil­
lion Book project, and met with depart­
ment heads and different members of the 
staff to discuss issues related to library 
governance and matters of mutual inter­
est. Furthermore, during the time period, 
she spent more than four hours dealing 

November 2004 

with a personnel problem; she discussed 
the problem with key people, including 
those in the human resources depart­
ment. As part of the search team for a 
new dean, she convened a meeting in her 
office. Other activities included gather­
ing information for a grant proposal, 
reviewing a proposal that failed to receive 
funding, engaging in donor relations (e.g., 
courting alumnae and planning a library 
development board meeting), and serving 
as a judge in an annual competition of the 
Council of Editors of Learned Journals to 
select the best journal. 

She interacted with library staff, 
faculty, alumni (including the son of a 
Nobel Laureate whose papers the library 
is recruiting), the university counsel, 
and others in university administration. 
Finally, it is interesting to note that some 
of the issues she discussed included on-
demand printing for the Million Book 
project, research and librarianship in 
general, the university’s experiences with 
digital reference, digital libraries, and 
starting an electronic journal in one of the 
university’s schools. 

Library D 
Located in a city of nearly 100,000 people, 
this public university is classified as 
Master’s Colleges and Universities I. The 
library has a collection of more than 
300,000 volumes. 

This director kept the diary from Oc­
tober 6 through 17. Except for one day 
in which he worked in his offi  ce before 
driving to a nearby city to attend a re­
ception (that day involved nearly twelve 
hours), he generally worked between 
eight and nine hours. His “very typical” 
activities included reading, composing, 
and sending e-mail messages; having as­
sorted telephone conversations; holding 
biweekly meetings with the associate 
director, heads of diff erent departments, 
and the library “A-Team”(an advisory 



 

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

 

 
 

  

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 545 

policy group of the same managers along 
with some staff at large). One of these bi­
weekly meetings was with the university 
archivist, who reports to him. 

Other typical activities included con­
vening a monthly meeting of library 
staff; “dropping in” to consult with the 
assistant director (something the director 
does regularly); participating in meetings 
to discuss options and opportunities for 
external funding; holding a weekly meet­
ing with the library development officer; 
reviewing recent account statements; 
signing letters and forms; att ending the 
provost’s roundtable luncheons in which 
faculty members present current research 
projects; attending a monthly meeting 
of administrators about marketing the 
campus; attending a weekly meeting of 
the council of deans; and having a discus­
sion with a member of the anthropology 
department about the library’s plans for a 
joint project to record the religious music 
of various inner-city ethnic and cultural 
groups. This director, who takes a proac­
tive approach to library services, noted 
that this last activity was undertaken, in 
part, to integrate the library into academic 
programs. He often meets informally with 
individual faculty, as he prefers informal, 
over formal, meetings. 

Some of the less typical, but recurring, 
activities included revising a report of 
the task force on academic integrity that 
he chaired (a position he believes he was 
asked to assume because the provost 
thinks “he doesn’t have any turf”). That 
report recommends to the faculty senate 
“options and priorities” for improving 
the faculty’s “ability to address academic 
dishonesty quickly, fairly, and confi­
dently”) and for reviewing and evaluat­
ing applications as part of a jury panel to 
select a statewide award for excellence in 
librarianship. Some of the other activities 
in which he engaged were a meeting of 
selected library staff to explore issues 

related to online credit card transactions 
and to develop “a strategy for enabling 
staff to effectively employ credit card 
payment technology” to aid patrons who 
are paying library fines and, it is hoped, 
to encourage donations to the library. He 
reported a regular monthly meeting with 
the provost during which that administra­
tor agreed to provide space for a campus 
archive. As he mentioned, this meeting 
was a result of two years of persistent, 
tactful lobbying. He reads library litera­
ture that “came into my inbox during the 
week.” Once during the twelve days, he 
spent two hours “reading and thinking: [I] 
read accumulated and recently received 
library/higher education journal articles, 
etc., that help me think about our library 
and its strategic directions.” 

In addition, he did the following: 
 Interviewed someone in a firm 

with which the library had contracted “to 
design an organizational assessment pro­
cess and strategy so that we [can] collect 
information that enables us to understand 
how we are doing and what diff erence do 
we make. 
 Prepared an outline and a draft 

proposal for the new director of insti­
tutional advancement on the creation of 
an external, visiting committee to assist 
the library in generating external funds. 
The director commented that he wanted 
to ensure that the library was part of the 
university fundraising process and had 
a good working relationship with the 
development officer. He observed that 
this activity, as is the case for “everything 
I do,” was political in nature. 
 Called a library patron who sub­

mitted a comment card about library 
hours. (“Our library invites users to fill 
out comment cards … [off ering] com­
plaints, suggestions, or compliments. 
If a ‘commenter ’ includes [his or her] 
phone number, we call back to discuss 
the matter. Library hours are one area that 



 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

546 College & Research Libraries 

I typically handle.”) The director added 
that he welcomes the opportunity to talk 
with library customers. 
 Attended a meeting of the state­

wide library consortium. 
 Met with the development offi  cer, 

assistant and associate library directors, 
and two librarians to discuss the library’s 
acquisition of a children’s collection for­
merly held by a public library. The direc­
tor noted that this was a new activity for 
the library and would require a grant for 
maintenance of the collection. Thus, he 
used this activity as an opportunity to 
define and develop a process for fundrais­
ing and to train staff in development. 

He met with senior members of the 
library and visited with other librar­
ians twice when he conducted a “walk­
around” of the library. He also dealt with 
members of the university administration, 
faculty (e.g., through the faculty senate), 
other library directors and librarians, 
vendors, and members of the broader 
community. One of the meetings with a 
vendor involved a discussion with a video 
producer to explore the feasibility of 
producing a rap video for a local, not-for­
profit foundation. The director is respon­
sible for the university’s video production 
department (as well as its media services), 
which, under his leadership, has changed 
its focus to academic support. He operates 
this department on a cost-recovery basis 
and avoids competing with commercial 
organizations. 

Interactions such as these have in­
creased his awareness of key issues. For 
instance, as his campus representative on 
a university, systemwide committ ee that 
advises the president on privacy matters, 
he attended a forum on privacy to learn 
more about issues related to scholarly 
databases. The director noted that being 
the campus representative enables him to 
emphasize the library’s major role in in­
formation policy issues (e.g., intellectual 

November 2004 

property rights). It also merits mention 
that he frequently drove to receptions and 
meetings in other parts of the state. 

Library E 
Located in a town of fewer than 20,000 
residents, this private, not-for-profit 
college is classifi ed as Baccalaureate Col-
leges—Liberal Arts. The college has more 
than 150 FTE faculty and a FTE student 
body of fewer than 1,700. The library 
has a collection of more than 900,000 
volumes. 

Diary entries from November 10 
through 21 showed that, except for one 
day in which he worked slightly less 
than eight hours, this director worked 
anywhere from eight to thirteen hours. 
He engaged in e-mail communication the 
one Sunday evening for thirty minutes. 
His “very typical” activities included e-
mail communication, participating in a 
monthly meeting of nearby college library 
directors, sharing the resulting informa­
tion with relevant department heads, and 
having lunch with the chair of the library 
committee. E-mail correspondence might 
deal with the retirement party for a library 
staff member, seeking support of the 
governor of the state in giving raises to 
the faculty and staff at a state institution, 
helping a student decide whether to seek 
a fellowship sponsored by the friends of 
the library, and upgrading media equip­
ment in a classroom. 

Most of the other activities listed in 
the diary ranged from “not typical at 
all” (“1”) to “somewhat typical” (“3”). 
These activities showed that he might 
have breakfast or lunch with, for instance, 
faculty members, the head of information 
technology, or the head of public aff airs to 
exchange information or to socialize. He 
also was planning for the acquisition of the 
“one millionth” volume and the related 
ceremony, corresponding with a design 
artist about creating a bookplate, meet­



 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
  
 

 
  

 

  
   

 

 

 
 

  
 

 

 
 

  

 

 

 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 547 

ing library department heads, planning a 
research project and soliciting advice (e.g., 
from a statistician to select a probability 
sample), dealing with a problem or the 
budget (e.g., the transfer of funds to cover 
the purchase of new databases), planning 
an electronic poetry display in the lobby 
of the library, discussing the composition 
of a college search committee for his re­
placement when he retires (fall 2004), or 
engaging in donor relations. Among the 
problems he dealt with were: 
 An administrator ’s request for 

copies of media that, under the terms 
of a contract the director signed, could 
not be duplicated. He discussed with a 
department chair how to deal “with this 
diffi  cult situation.” 
 Copyright infringement under 

the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 
(DMCA) when he had to disconnect a 
student’s Web site in response to a writ­
ten complaint from a legal firm that this 
person illegally downloaded songs onto 
his computer (the director is the college’s 
DMCA agent). 
 Explaining to the administration 

legal restrictions on the “use of a fi lm in 
one collection.” 
 Meeting with a student library as­

sistant “about an incident in the media 
center last week.” 
 Calling the associate dean of stu­

dents to explain that a “student worker 
did not feel comfortable coming to a 
meeting in the dean’s offi  ce tomorrow in 
which she was to receive an apology.” 
 Dealing with an insurance claim 

“to provide hourly rates for library staff 
who helped salvage and replace books 
damaged and lost in a fl ooded campus 
building.” 
 Drafting an agreement for a library 

pursuing affiliate status with the library 
consortium. 
 Briefing the dean of faculty about 

the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT Act. 

 Discussing a benefit problem and its 
resolution with a part-time staff member. 
 Reviewing someone’s probationary 

performance appraisal. 
As part of donor relations, the library 

had just received a “major gift” (an en­
dowment of $900,000 now and $300,000 
later) and gifts of books from faculty 
members. During the twelve days, he also 
informed the president and others about 
the $1.2 million gift, wrote thank-you 
and acknowledgment notes and letters 
to donors, discussed the use of monies 
that would be generated by the gift , ad­
vised the college administration about a 
donor’s intentions, reviewed “with my 
secretary … the status and handling of 
a very large gift of classical music CDs,” 
and requested a donation for “one of 
the additions to the collection associ­
ated with the library’s millionth volume 
ceremony.” 

He met with a wide assortment of peo­
ple associated with the institution (e.g., 
the president, other administrators, and 
their secretaries; faculty; staff ; students; 
and members of the library staff), a group 
of friends of the library, a former Poet Lau­
reate, directors in the same library con­
sortium, and leaders in the profession. If 
a library department head attended a key 
college meeting, he met with that person 
to discuss what transpired. He also met 
with a college department chair to discuss 
issues related to staff training and dealt 
with two faculty widows about either the 
receipt of funding for the preservation of 
a spouse’s papers or speaking at a local 
retirement community event. 

Finally, to guide the search committee 
seeking his replacement, this director cat­
egorized how he spends his time thusly 
(percentages total 99.99): 
 interacting with library department 

heads (15.81%); 
 interacting with faculty members 

(13.28%); 



 

 

 
  

 

 

 

 
 

  
 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

548 College & Research Libraries 

 responding to e-mail messages 
(12.18%); 
 engaging in friends of the library 

activities (7.68%); 
 participating in professional activi­

ties (beyond his campus) (7.35%); 
 engaging in consortia activities (a 

local group) (6.48%); 
 c o n d u c t i n g  d o n o r  r e l a t i o n s  

(5.93%); 
 interacting with the dean of faculty 

(5.60%); 
 interacting with other campus ad­

ministrators (5.60%); 
 conducting staff meetings (4.39%); 
 interacting with library staff other 

than department heads (3.84%); 
 reviewing and writing documents 

and lett ers (3.07%); 
 interaction with students (2.85%); 
 performing miscellaneous admin­

istrative activities (2.63%); 
 interacting with members of the 

local community (2.20%); and 
 p r e p a r i n g  f o r  s t a f f  m e e t i n g s  

(1.10%). 

Library F 
Located in a city of more than 50,000 
people, this private, not-for-profi t univer­
sity is classifi ed as Master’s Colleges and 
Universities I. The library has a collection 
of more than 170,000 volumes. 

From October 13 to 24, the director, 
who has been in the position for nine 
years, worked between five and a half 
and twelve hours; there were no weekend 
activities.17 The workday began at either 
5:30 or 6 a.m., when he engaged in e-mail 
communication for one hour from home: 
“I start each day to catch up from previ­
ous days and/or to get a start on … [that] 
day.” Once at work, he reviewed the daily 
schedule and continued with his e-mail; 
however, these messages are “primarily 
the one- to five-minute transactions.” He 
also listened to telephone messages and 
made numerous phone calls. Because he 

November 2004 

teaches a history course each semester, 
he needs time to prepare for class, grade 
papers, advise students (he is an academic 
advisor for three or four undeclared lib­
eral arts students each year), and meet 
with current and former students. His 
e-mail activities relate to both library 
administration and teaching. 

He participated in numerous planned 
and impromptu meetings with mem­
bers of central administration (e.g., the 
vice-provost for academic affairs to 
whom he reports, facilities staff, and the 
library associate director) and library 
staff. The topic of a meeting might be “to 
brainstorm some ideas on developing 
new/deeper relationships with several 
college/university libraries in the state,” 
mold and mildew in the library’s book 
storage area, or the university’s off ering of 
online courses. He held a weekly meeting 
with the librarians and chatted with them 
independent of that meeting. Less-typical 
activities (rated no higher than “3” on 
the five-point scale) included preparing 
to serve as a member of a team conduct­
ing a review for the regional accrediting 
organization; attending a lecture (“I at­
tend guest lectures on campus several 
times a semester”) and a dinner for the 
speaker; arranging travel plans for an 
upcoming conference; conducting collec­
tion development activities; and working 
on a virtual conference meeting (“annu­
ally, committee chairs now hold virtual 
committee meetings instead of in-person 
meetings”). 

In the interview, he explained that he 
is principally the library director but also 
is an adjunct professor in history. As he 
mentioned, “I spend a lot of time in meet­
ings. The number and complexity of these 
meetings is increasing.” The university 
wants him to be involved in institutional 
activities and to be aware of what is oc­
curring. Due to the workload associated 
with meetings, he relies on the associate 
director to manage the “main line fl ow of 

http:activities.17


  
 

 
   

  

 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 

  
  

 

  

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
  

 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 549 

[library] activity.” He recalled that, when 
he first became director, he performed 
many of these activities himself. Now 
he lacks the time. His contact with other 
library staff takes place at the previously 
mentioned weekly meeting. The staff also 
can meet with him informally by drop­
ping by the office or formally by schedul­
ing an appointment. Or, they might catch 
up with him in any part of the library as 
he “walks part of the building every day.” 
He reiterated that he is very active within 
the institution, the profession, and the 
regional accrediting organization. 

Association of Research Libraries 
Library G 
The main campus of this public universi­
ty, which is classifi ed as Doctoral/Research 
Universities—Extensive, is located in a 
city of approximately 40,000 people. The 
library has a collection of more than two 
million volumes. 

The director, who has been at this 
institution for seventeen years, compiled 
the diary from November 3 through 14. 
During this time, he worked anywhere 
between four and a half and nine hours a 
day. The one Saturday, he attended a col­
lege football game with a potential donor 
and his wife. His activities focused on the 
macro level, except for (1) the fi nal two 
days when he spent thirty minutes a day 
walking around the library and when he 
(2) met with the systems staff to analyze a 
new software package (one hour), (3) had 
a phone conversation with a vendor (one 
hour), (4) convened a monthly meeting 
with library department heads, and (5) 
held a one-hour staff meeting that focused 
on the budget, planning, and technology. 

Besides these activities, he focused 
on budget discussions with the deans’ 
advisory group and the provost, met with 
the vice president for technology and 
the head of the physical plant, reviewed 
the strategic and technology plans, par­

ticipated in event planning, and met with 
friends of the library group (at a busi­
ness and a board meeting) and potential 
donors. Furthermore, he often spent one 
hour a day communicating by e-mail and 
U.S. mail. He also worked on reports for 
professional associations (ALA and the 
state library association) and coordinated 
a statewide networking meeting. 

His diary entries, in summary, reflect 
an extensive external role within the uni­
versity and in courting potential donors. 
He spent considerable time cultivating 
support for the library, engaging in plan­
ning, and working on the budget and on 
behalf of professional associations. He 
rated the weekend entertainment of do­
nors and the preparation of the reports for 
the professional association as “somewhat 
typical” (“3”). 

Library H 
This public university, which is classified 
as Doctoral/Research Universities—Exten-
sive, is located in a city of nearly 500,000 
people. The library has a collection of 
more than four million volumes. 

Covering the period from October 
27 through November 7, diary entries 
showed that the director worked ap­
proximately twelve hours a day (Monday 
through Friday). For the one weekend, she 
worked eleven hours (attending a meet­
ing of a center under her jurisdiction and 
a dinner with community members and 
donors). Her weekdays tended to refl ect a 
morning routine that first involved meet­
ing with her administrative assistant to 
review the schedule of the day, checking 
e-mail, returning telephone calls, and re­
ceiving an update from the associate direc­
tor and key personnel with diff erent areas 
of responsibility. The end of the day saw 
her checking her e-mail. She also tended to 
spend thirty to forty-five minutes each day 
reading professional literature (library 
literature and higher education). 



 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
  

  

 

 

 
  

 

 

 
 

 

  

 

 

 
 

550 College & Research Libraries 

Some of the recurring activities in­
cluded participating in the performance 
effectiveness review for the fi nal quarter 
(reviewing the goals set and progress in 
achieving them so that administrators can 
“stay on track”) and conducting a budget 
review, which involved monitoring bud­
get allocations and expenditures, review­
ing areas in which monies might be saved, 
discussing possible state budget reduc­
tions for information resources and the 
consequences of an underfunded budget, 
preparing for an upcoming budget meet­
ing, inquiring whether a unit outside the 
library had received funding for a grant 
coordinator (the library currently pays for 
the position), discussing the allocation of 
salary increases for librarians, and partici­
pating on a university strategic planning 
and budget advisory committee. 

There also was a focus on donor rela­
tions, which involved meeting with the 
campus development offi  cer (the director 
noted that she had successfully negotiated 
with the provost for a library develop­
ment officer), writing thank-you letters 
to donors, seeking agreement on the job 
description and clarification of the report­
ing line for a new development offi  cer for 
the above-mentioned center, meeting with 
library staff to review fundraising accounts 
that are undesignated (“to determine how 
we might use these … [to meet] library pri­
orities”), and attending a reception for uni­
versity donors and a state-of-the-university 
luncheon (“talked with donors about the 
library … [and] interacted with some deans 
and university administrators”). In addi­
tion, she spent time on strategic planning, 
was involved in discussions about a new 
branch library, and met with the members 
of teams to discuss their progress in achiev­
ing strategic goals and objectives. These 
meetings also gave staff a chance to interact 
with her by asking questions. 

Other activities (ones not rated higher 
than “3”) included: 

November 2004 

 writing a letter of reference for a 
colleague who had applied for the direc­
torship of an ARL library; 
 discussing with a staff member 

whether to accept another position (“to 
discover if the person thought the job 
was what she wanted and whether she 
would prefer to stay if her situation could 
be improved”); 
 preparing for and conducting an 

all-staff meeting; 
 meeting with senior offi  cials on a 

university committee dealing with com­
puter security; 
 holding a discussion about the 

formation of a new administrative team 
in the library; 
 providing a possible list of keynote 

speakers for the next ACRL national con­
ference; 
 discussing a library administrator’s 

sabbatical leave next semester and how to 
cover that person’s duties; 
 discussing with another library 

director the fact that a vendor was not 
abiding by a development contract (“the 
purpose of this call was to plan strategy 
for confronting the vendor about future 
plans”); 
 exploring the possibility of a certifi­

cation program in museum studies; and 
 discussing how to resolve visa is­

sues for four staff members. 
In addition, she was engaged in co­

operative activities with other universi­
ties (e.g., outsourcing some cataloging), 
including a regional alliance of univer­
sity libraries and a group of seven ARL 
libraries; discussing a report on the as­
sessment of diversity in the university 
with the library cabinet (administrators 
and representatives of the staff and fac­
ulty); and assuming a ceremonial role 
(planning a ribbon-cutting function, 
inviting the state librarian to speak at an 
upcoming event, and attending a recep­
tion in the library for a national holiday 



 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

  

 

 

 

 

 
 

   
 

 

  

 

 

 
 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 551 

that a number of international students 
and staff celebrate). The ribbon cutting 
was to be for a project in which business, 
demographic, and climatological data are 
overlaid on a map of the state. One of the 
meetings with representatives for other 
universities concerned the development 
of computer software to build a portal 
for faculty and students to search across 
databases. To highlight library collec­
tions and build community and faculty 
support, she introduced a special public 
program on writing and publishing in 
nineteenth-century France as well as the 
program’s speaker: “we have an exhibit 
[that we] developed for an international 
symposium and wanted to host a public 
program around the exhibit topic.” 

She also spent one hour with the asso­
ciate director and administrative assistant 
in reviewing her schedule for next month 
so that they were aware of her activities, 
any absences from campus, priorities, and 
any materials that needed to be developed 
for those activities. Finally, she met with, 
or talked to, a broad range of people, 
including a vice-provost and the provost, 
the academic deans, faculty, members 
of the community, the president of the 
Center for Research Libraries, other ARL 
directors, and others. In fact, one night she 
hosted a dinner for the deans and their 
spouses at her home. Other examples of 
leadership were (1) a series of telephone 
calls to members of the friends’ board 
about supporting the library’s request 
for money to plan a new branch library; 
(2) participating in a discussion of the 
goals and vision for the university’s stra­
tegic plan and of the board of regents’ 
oversight of technology purchases; (3) 
meeting with the campus information 
technology group to discuss the board 
of regents’ oversight of information 
technology purchases (the library direc­
tor works closely with the campus chief 
information officer); (4) ensuring that a 

white paper on how academic libraries 
might transform in the future is revised 
and sent to campus academic administra­
tors; and (5) having a luncheon meeting 
with the new assistant vice-provost so 
that she would “understand our issues 
as they come to the provost and provost 
advisory group.” 

Library I 
Located in a city of more than 100,000 
people, this private, not-for-profi t uni­
versity, which has a religious affiliation, 
is classifi ed as Doctoral/Research Universi-
ties—Extensive. The library has a collec­
tion of nearly three million volumes. 

From September 29 through October 
3, except for two days, she worked any­
where between ten and twelve hours a 
day; one of those two days she spent four 
and a half hours engaged primarily in 
e-mail and telephone conversations and 
the other day was shortened due to jury 
duty. Every day contained activities she 
labeled “very typical”; these included 
discussions with her administrative as­
sistant about the day’s activities. Typical 
meetings included those with the provost 
and deans, the university council on aca­
demic technologies (a council consisting 
of elected faculty from the university’s 
colleges; the library director is an ex 
officio member), the library executive 
committee, a board of academic library 
directors for a statewide consortium 
working to enhance access to resources 
and services, the library faculty appoint­
ments and promotions committee, and all 
of the professional library faculty. Other 
typical activities included reading and 
sending e-mail messages, making tele­
phone calls, scheduling and preparing 
for upcoming meetings, meeting with as­
sociate library directors, and concluding 
the day with a “wrap up”—completing 
unfinished e-mail messages and reflect­
ing on that day and preparing for the 



 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

  
 

  
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

552 College & Research Libraries 

next one. In one case, the director was 
preparing the agenda and reports for the 
university library committee, which con­
sists of elected faculty who are advisory 
to the director. 

Other routine activities, but ones not 
considered “very typical,” involved a 
discussion of issues with “drop-in” visi­
tors (e.g., “associate directors and other 
‘direct’ reports: budget manager, ITR [in­
formation technology resources] director, 
or advancement offi  cer”), an interview 
conducted by a student reporter (about 
the effects of the USA PATRIOT Act on 
academic libraries), participation in a 
Webcast of ARL directors on the topic of 
ARL statistics, and attending a workshop 
conference on the USA PATRIOT Act. 
Moreover, she was likely to have breakfast 
or lunch with either visiting library direc­
tors or the associate director. 

During the twelve-day period, she 
clearly interacted with her senior staff, 
library directors in the state (in one case 
regarding the state library association), 
visiting librarians, the provost and deans, 
a new university employee involved 
with a new capital campaign, the library 
advancement officer, and the director of 
planned giving. The university president’s 
corporate lunch that she att ended includ­
ed two hundred university administrators 
and local area business people. 

She responded to e-mail messages “on 
a wide range of topics … with responses 
requiring more than ‘okay’ or ‘let’s do 
lunch.’” The messages might be an invi­
tation to serve on an ad hoc task force or 
a discussion with the chair of the library 
history council. Furthermore, 

Some messages are responded to 
immediately (e.g., where answers 
are one to two paragraphs). Some 
messages are forwarded (e.g., sur­
veys or questions for which I need 
answers from someone else). 

November 2004 

Some messages get printed and put 
in piles, essentially work focused on 
preparation for a meeting, report, 
or other communication to other 
parties. 

Finally, an example of a meeting, one 
with the chair of the history department, 
lasted an hour and a half and centered on 
an explanation and discussion of “library 
collection goals, history, options, etc.” 

Library J 
This public university, which is classified 
as Doctoral/Research Universities—Ex-
tensive, is located in a city of fewer than 
500,000 people. The library has a collec­
tion of more than two million volumes. 

From September 29 through October 
10, the director worked on both Satur­
day (attending a college football game 
to socialize with potential donors) and 
Sunday (finishing a draft of a consulting 
report). For the first day and a half of data 
collection, he attended an annual meeting 
of deans, department heads, and related 
academic leaders that the vice president 
for academic affairs convened to report 
on the status of the campus. 

The length of the workday for the 
remaining eight days ranged from four 
and a half to slightly more than eight 
hours. During this time, no activity was 
categorized as “very typical.” Instead, the 
categorization ranged from “1,” or “not 
typical at all” (e.g., attended a museum 
open house—“good will support of cam­
pus”) to “4,” a number between “some­
what” and “very” typical” (e.g., e-mail 
and U.S. mail). E-mail messages covered 
topics such as the library’s private funds, 
the library annual report, cooperative 
storage, and a report on budget projec­
tions. He twice devoted forty-fi ve minutes 
to reading professional literature. Most of 
the other time was spent meeting people 
or participating in formal meetings. For 



 
  

 

 
  

 
 

 
 

  

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
  

 
 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 553 

instance, a faculty member stopped by his 
office without an appointment to discuss 
the possibility of the campus housing a 
collection of classified technical reports. 
He also gave a tour of the library’s infor­
mation commons to a visiting alumnus 
who manages one in another state. 

A formal meeting might be with the 
provost, vice-provost for graduate af­
fairs, library dean’s council, the library 
personnel officer, the library Web devel­
oper, staff for the board of regents, and 
the business manager. For instance, he 
met with the vice-provost to provide an 
update on the digitization of theses and 
dissertations. He also chaired a search 
committee meeting for the position of as­
sociate vice-provost for distance learning 
and professional education; advised staff 
members on dealing with problems (e.g., 
how to handle faculty refusal to return 
books); met with the assistant director of 
the physical plant and one of his super­
visors regarding dirty rest rooms in the 
library; worked on a plan and strategy for 
extension of one floor of the library; and 
read a records certifi cation proposal. 

These meetings and events brought 
him into contact with a number of librar­
ians and senior library managers, uni­
versity administration, faculty, potential 
donors, applicants for the position of asso­
ciate vice-provost, members of the board 
of regents, and the larger community. He 
also did favors for the friend of a campus 
administrator (“spent forty-fi ve minutes 
looking for information sites on the Web 
for grants” relevant to that person’s inter­
ests) and for a librarian in another country 
(searched for information on the value of 
faculty status). 

Library K 
Located in a city of more than one mil­
lion people, this private, not-for-profit 
university is classifi ed as Doctoral/Research 
Universities—Extensive. The library has 

a collection of more than three million 
volumes. 

From October 27 through November 7, 
this director worked all twelve days. His 
weekdays ranged from more than nine 
hours to nearly seventeen hours. For the 
one weekend, he worked twelve hours on 
Saturday and six hours on Sunday. That 
Saturday, he provided the “welcome” 
for—and attended—a campus conference 
that the library sponsored; read and sent 
e-mail messages; prepared materials for 
an upcoming presentation; and attended 
a library reception and later a donors’ 
dinner. On Sunday, he prepared paper 
correspondence, read and sent e-mail, 
worked on a scholarly article, and read 
professional literature. 

“Very typical” activities included 
reading and sending e-mail messages, 
preparing and sending correspondence, 
reading and routing U.S. mail, and doing 
professional reading (often while travel­
ing). Examples of activities he rated as 
“4” were meeting with the provost, the 
associate vice president for fi nance and 
administration about budget and capital 
project matters, the library management 
committee, or the director of library de­
velopment, perhaps about a proposal to 
attract a potential donor. He had a meet­
ing with the director of an electronic pub­
lishing program to discuss a new grant 
application and to review the marketing 
and sales of products. 

The other activities listed ranged 
from “not typical at all” (“1”) to “some­
what typical” (“3”). Most often, he had 
a working breakfast, lunch, or perhaps 
dinner with visiting librarians or library 
directors, a candidate for director of an 
affi  liated library, staff union delegates 
(to discuss budget developments and 
job impact), or someone in university 
administration. He traveled elsewhere to 
deliver a presentation and interact with 
other librarians, or he served as a peer 



 
 

  

 

 

 
 

 
 

  

 

 

 
 
 

 
  

  
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

  

 

 

 
 
 

  

 
 

 

 

554 College & Research Libraries 

reviewer for an LIS journal. Returning 
to donor relations, he had a telephone 
conversation with a prospective donor, 
met with the director of development to 
discuss “several donors’ case statements” 
and a proposal to be presented to a do­
nor, and dined with a donor and a donor 
prospect about a gift proposal. 

During the twelve days, he dealt with 
such assorted issues as the role of univer­
sity presses in scholarly communication, 
information technology, information 
policies affecting higher education (e.g., 
intellectual property rights), scholarly 
publishing, library and university press 
collaboration, current developments 
in research libraries, personnel matters 
(e.g., a telephone conversation with the 
university counsel and a meeting with the 
deputy university librarian), an electronic 
dissertation program, staff development, 
bibliographic instruction, electronic col­
lections, strategies for plagiarism man­
agement, an organizational strategy on 
information technology, the planning of a 
special conference for ALA, and a faculty 
teaching development center. In addition, 
he participated in planning meetings on 
the development of an information tech­
nology network, the capital budget, initial 
preparation for a new library building, 
development of an electronic classroom, 
network connectivity in university 
apartments and a new e-mail system, 
space planning, a new human rights 
center and collection in the library, and 
library renovation. He also participated 
in a meeting of the university president’s 
advisory committee on master planning, 
discussed the strategic plan with the staff 
of a center affiliated with the library, met 
with the university budget committee, 
and conducted a performance review of 
a senior member of the staff who reported 
directly to him. 

This director is externally focused 
and active within the university and the 

November 2004 

library profession, and with representa­
tives of other professional associations. 
He attended various committee meet­
ings (e.g., a meeting of the Association of 
American Universities, of the university 
space policy committee, and of the advi­
sory board of a nearby school of library 
and information science) and spoke to the 
friends of the libraries. He also discussed 
a consultant’s report on the organiza­
tion of university computing with the 
provost and the associate vice president 
for finance and administration. Further­
more, he reviewed and commented on a 
draft report from the National Research 
Council; prepared reference lett ers for 
two individuals interviewing for library 
director positions; and had telephone 
conversations with the president of 
Research Libraries Group and the chair 
of the ACRL Scholarly Communication 
Committee. Furthermore, as a member 
of the university senate, he att ended its 
meetings. 

In the interview, he mentioned that 
there is no single prototype of a director. 
Directors, he explained, have different 
strengths and interests, and they operate 
in different institutional cultures, orga­
nizational cultures, and environments. 
Because these cultures change, he believes 
that flexibility is an essential attribute 
for directors to possess. As for the daily 
operation of the library, he stressed the 
importance of having an outstanding 
senior management team upon which 
to rely. 

Discussion 
In order to identify patterns and common­
alities among the responses provided by 
the directors, their diaries were subjected 
to a content analysis with a card sort. Each 
distinct activity reported in a diary was 
recorded on a card. Cards representing 
the same or similar activities were then 
grouped. For example, cards recording 



 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 555 

FIGURE 1 
Frequency of Occurrence of the 44 Activities 

18 Occurrences
 Fundraising 

17 Occurrences 
Meetings with university administra-

tors, including provosts and deans 

15 Occurrences 
Personnel matters, including staff 

development 

13 Occurrences 
Meetings with library administrators 

(associate and assistant directors, 
department heads, and administrative 
assistants)

 Ceremonial functions. 

12 Occurrences
 Financial management/budgeting 

E-mail, including use of one listserv 

9 Occurrences 
Meetings with university faculty 

8 Occurrences 
Meetings with library staff 
Involvement with information technol-

ogy 

7 Occurrences 
Activities related to cooperation and 

consortia 

6 Occurrences 
Preparation of grant proposals

 Telephone conversations 
Professional association activities 

5 Occurrences 
Building planning, maintenance 

Meetings with other librarians within 
the state 

Meetings with professional leaders 
Reading professional literature 
University strategic planning 
Involvement with electronic materials 

and services 

4 Occurrences
 U.S. mail
 Bibliographic instruction 

3 Occurrences 
“Walk-through” of the library

 Planning 
Library evaluation/organizational as-

sessment 
Work with vendors

 Collection management 

2 Occurrences 
Work with media and computer equip-

ment
 Consulting 

Making a presentation 
Attending committee meetings 
Intellectual property issues 

1 Occurrence
 University diversity
 Policy review 

University faculty development 
Engaged in travel 
Preparing an annual report

 Academic advising
 Course preparation
 Multitasking 
 Privacy issues 

Scholarly communication, university 
presses 

 Academic integrity 
Meeting about library statistics 

that directors had taken alumni to din- were grouped in one category labeled 
ner in order to solicit donations, had fundraising. No doubt, some activities 
engaged in development activities, and ended up in categories not perfectly rep-
had attempted to obtain external funding resenting them, but some imprecision was 



 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
  

 

  

 
 

 

 

  

  
 

  
 

556 College & Research Libraries 

deemed necessary in order to reduce the 
many activities to a reasonable number of 
categories. The content analysis and card 
sort ultimately identified forty-four types 
of activities. Figure 1 depicts those activi­
ties and the frequency of their occurrence, 
that is, the number of times they were 
reported in the eleven directors’ diaries. 
(If a director used exactly the same termi­
nology to report multiple activities, they 
were recorded only once for that director.) 

Given observations made by Hernon, 
Powell, and Young in their previous re­
search and the amount of att ention given 
to such matters in the professional litera­
ture, it was not surprising that fundraising 
was the most frequently reported activity, 
nor was it surprising that meetings with 
university administrators, personnel 
matters, and meetings with library ad­
ministrators came in second, third, and 
fourth, respectively.18 The high ranking of 
e-mail reflects the current pervasiveness 
of that activity. It was reassuring to see 
that involvement with university faculty 
received quite a bit of attention. On the 
other hand, it was surprising that planning 
was ranked only in the middle. However, 
it is quite possible that planning perme­
ated many of the other activities, such as 
library evaluation, and that the directors 
did not think to identify planning activi­
ties explicitly. Similarly, though multitask­
ing was stated explicitly only once, it was 
clearly occurring on a regular basis. 

One noticeable pattern was the num­
ber of activities that involved meeting or 
communicating with others, especially 
administrators and other individuals 
outside the library. One director com­
mented that it was sometimes difficult 
to decide if an activity was a library or 
university one; the activities tended to 
merge together. As more than one direc­
tor noted in the follow-up interviews, 
campus politics greatly infl uences the 
director’s activities. The total number of 

November 2004 

activities that involved meetings is indeed 
quite impressive. The forty-four types of 
activities listed above represent a great 
variety; and as some of the directors com­
mented in their interviews, relatively few 
of their activities are routine. 

Hernon, Powell, and Young reported 
the 105 attributes deemed most impor­
tant by directors and assistant/associate/ 
deputy directors (AULs) of ARL academic 
libraries.19 Those attributes were listed 
in order of most to least importance in 
seven categories: managing, leading, 
planning, dealing with others, individual 
traits (general), individual traits (leader­
ship), and general areas of knowledge. 
The types of activities identified in the 
present study were compared to the list 
of 105 attributes to explore the relation­
ship between what directors said was 
important and what they actually did on 
the job. It should be kept in mind, how­
ever, that attributes and activities are not 
necessarily interchangeable, so it was not 
always possible to identify an attribute 
that could be used for a valid comparison 
with an activity. This was especially true 
for some of the personal characteristics, 
such as “is honest” and “inspires trust.” 
Also, a number of activities could have 
been reasonably assigned to more than 
one category. For example, the “walk­
through” logically could be placed in the 
managing category and the leadership 
category. Some of the activities related to 
leading also could have been assigned to 
“dealing with others.” 

With these caveats in mind, an at­
tempt was made to compare the lists of 
attributes and activities. To do so, the 
activities were assigned to the categories 
in which the attributes had been classified. 
What follows in figure 2 is a list of those 
categories, with the activities assigned to 
them, ranked from most oft en reported 
to least often reported. Following each 
activity are the category’s most equivalent 

http:libraries.19
http:respectively.18


 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 557 

FIGURE 2
 
Activities and Corresponding Attributes 


Managing 
1) Fundraising—fundraising (9) 
2) Personnel matters—promotes professional growth in staff (7) 
3) Meetings with library administrators—communicates effectively with staff (3), del-

egates authority (4) 
4) Financial management/budgeting—manages fiscal resources/budgets (8) 
5) Meetings with library staff—communicates effectively with staff (3), facilitates the 

group process (14) 
6) Grant proposal preparation—develops various sources of funds (11) 
7) “Walk-through”—facilitates a productive work environment (5) 
8) University diversity—is committed to staff diversity (12) 
9) Policy review—nurtures the development of new programs and services (10) 

Leading 
1) Ceremonial functions—develops a campus visibility for the library (4) 
2) Meetings with university faculty—is able to function in a political environment (3), 

develops a campus visibility for the library (4), is an advocate for librarians’ role in 
higher education (5) 

3) Cooperation and consortia—leads and participates in consortia and cooperative en-
deavors (8) 

4) Meetings with other librarians within the state—demonstrates effective networking 
skills (12), develops and fosters partnerships with groups and organizations on/off 
campus (15) 

5) Meetings with professional leaders—demonstrates effective networking skills (12), 
develops and fosters partnerships with groups and organizations on/off campus (15) 

6) Travel—demonstrates effective networking skills (12), develops and fosters partner-
ships with groups and organizations on/off campus (15) 

7) University faculty development—is an advocate for librarians’ role in higher educa-
tion (5) 

8) Annual report—develops a campus visibility for the library (4) 

Planning 
1) Planning—sets priorities (1) 
2) Library evaluation/organizational assessment—creates and implements systems that 

assess the library’s value to its users (4), creates an environment that fosters ac-
countability (5) 

3) Work with media and computer equipment—plans for life cycles of information tech-
nologies and services (2) 

Dealing with Others 
1) E-mail—is accessible (4), is articulate (7)
 
2) Telephone conversations—is accessible (4), is articulate (7)
 
3) U.S. mail—is accessible (4), is articulate (7)
 

Individual Traits (General) 
1) Professional association activities—is committed to job and profession (5) 
2) Reading professional literature—is committed to job and profession (5), has broad 

knowledge of issues (15) 
3) Consulting—has a variety of work experiences (12) 



   
 

 
  

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
  

 

 

 
 

  
  

  

558 College & Research Libraries November 2004 

FIGURE 2 (CONTINUED)
 
Activities and Corresponding Attributes 


4) Presentation—is committed to job and profession (5) 
5) Writing article—is committed to job and profession (5) 
6) Academic advising—works on multiple tasks simultaneously (3) 
7) Course preparation—works on multiple tasks simultaneously (3), has a variety of 

work experiences (12) 
8) Multitasking—works on multiple tasks simultaneously (3) 

Individual Traits (Leadership) 
1) Meetings with university administrators—articulates direction for the library (3) 
2) University strategic planning—articulates direction for the library (3), is change 

focused (1) 
3) Committee meetings—is an enabler and facilitator (12), has team-building skills (15) 

General Areas of Knowledge 
1) Information technology—information technology (8)
 
2) Electronic materials and services—digital libraries (5)
 
3) Building planning and maintenance—facilities planning (4)
 
4) Bibliographic instruction—information literacy (22)
 
5) Work with vendors—information delivery systems (19), publishing industry (20)
 
6) Collection management—collection management and development (9)
 
7) Intellectual property issues—intellectual property rights (12)
 
8) Privacy—management issues (13)
 
9) Scholarly communication, university presses—scholarly communication (1)
 
10) Academic integrity—trends in higher education (7)
 

attribute and the attribute’s ranking in 
parentheses. In some cases, more than one 
attribute was related to a single activity 
and some attributes are compared to more 
than one activity. 

An examination of the comparisons 
between attributes and activities pro­
duced some expected results and some 
surprises. Activities whose rankings were 
close to, or the same as, those for the 
equivalent attributes included: meetings 
with library administrators, meetings 
with library staff, ceremonial functions, 
meetings with university faculty, plan­
ning, library evaluation, meetings with 
university administrators, university 
strategic planning, building planning, 
and collection management. Surprises, 
within categories, included: the number 

one ranking for fundraising as an activity 
and its number nine spot as an important 
attribute; personnel, which was second 
as an activity but seventh as an attribute; 
grant proposal preparation, which was 
sixth as an activity but eleventh as an 
attribute; information technology, which 
was first as an activity but eighth as an 
attribute; bibliographic instruction, which 
was fourth as an activity but twenty-
second as an attribute; and scholarly 
communication, which was ninth as an 
activity but first as an attribute. 

This is an appropriate time to reem­
phasize that these comparisons must be 
interpreted carefully. As noted above, 
the identification of equivalent activities 
and attributes is not an exact science. In 
addition, the lists of attributes are based 



 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

  
 
 

 
 
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

  

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 559 

on more evidence than what the directors 
reported over a twelve-day period and 
only ARL directors provided the attributes. 
However, it does seem safe to conclude 
that the lists of both attributes and ac­
tivities indicate that directors of academic 
libraries must be campus leaders, engaged 
in planning with university administra­
tors, heavily involved in fundraising, in 
regular communication with other library 
administrators and staff, concerned with 
evaluation, and knowledgeable of biblio­
graphic instruction/information literacy. 
Indeed, some of these and other activities/ 
attributes emphasized in the lists above 
correspond rather well with the roles of 
leadership in academic research libraries 
identified by Michael A. Keller: master 
practitioner; advocate; steward; judge and 
power broker; mentor and colleague; and 
strategist, risk taker, and innovator.20 

In another related study, Mintzberg 
raised the question, What do managers 
do? and then said that “even managers 
themselves don’t always know.” He noted 
that “ignorance of the nature of manage­
rial work” should not continue because it 
has implications for the workplace and for 
the teaching of management.21 Further­
more, “if there is a single theme that runs 
through … [his] article, it is that the pres­
sures of the job drive the manager to take 
on too much work, encourage interrup­
tion, respond quickly to every stimulus, 
seek the tangible, and avoid the abstract, 
make decisions in small increments, and 
do everything abruptly.”22 

This study does not replicate Mintz­
berg’s research, but it seems that there are 
distinct differences between the managers 
he studied and those participating in this 
study. First, the library directors did not 
refer to the pressures of the job and having 
too much work to do. This does not mean 
that these were not present; rather, such 
matters were not a focus of the research. 
Second, any library director today must 

be able to engage in multitasking; this is 
a “given” and the directors understand 
it. Third, the library directors refl ected on 
issues and gathered information to make 
informed decisions. There is no evidence 
that they rushed to make a decision or 
responded “quickly to every stimulus.” 
Fourth, some of them indicated that they 
read a wide variety of literature and all 
of them interact with people in different 
settings, exchanging information. The 
eleven directors were engaged in both 
management and leadership. As players 
at the institutional level and in donor 
relations, library leaders must work and 
communicate effectively with a broad 
range of people within and outside the 
college or university. 

Study Limitations 
Naturally, the findings of this study only 
reflect the actual time period of data col­
lection. No attempt was made to depict an 
entire academic term or year. Clearly, dur­
ing these other times directors could—and 
undoubtedly do—participate in other ac­
tivities. Furthermore, although the eleven 
directors may not be representative of the 
population of ACRL and ARL directors, 
this sample provides a foundation upon 
which others can build. Still, given the care 
they took in data collection, the authors 
feel that the findings are representative of 
a twelve-day period for study participants. 
Another limitation is that the authors did 
not conduct an in-depth investigation 
of each campus and its institutional and 
organizational culture; thus, the findings 
provide only a general snapshot. 

Further Research 
There were some striking differences 
among the directors regarding their list 
of activities and the amount of time they 
allotted to each of them. Those individu­
als at sites A and B, for instance, tend to 
perform a wide variety of daily activities 

http:management.21
http:innovator.20


 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
  

 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

560 College & Research Libraries 

and to accomplish their work in much 
smaller blocks of time than most of the 
other directors. They were oft en inter­
rupted and had to switch their focus to 
different topics, perhaps returning to the 
original topic hours later. Furthermore, 
the eleven directors apparently have 
different interests and strengths; as well, 
there are probably signifi cant differences 
in institutional and library cultures and 
environments. As some of the participants 
explained, directors adapt to the cultures 
already in place, but those cultures are 
subject to change. For example, when 
seeking a new director, the institution 
may decide it wants someone with dif­
ferent strengths, attributes, and interests 
from the person departing the position. 
Naturally, expected att ributes, strengths, 
and skill sets change over time. A new 
director is influenced by the culture 
more than he or she can change it. Still, 
that person identifies the strengths and 
weaknesses in the organization and deals 
with the weaknesses. Complicating mat­
ters, the library staff must adapt to the 
managerial and leadership styles of a new 
director and in any changes in those styles 
over time. Clearly, these perceptions of the 
directors merit examination. 

It would seem that future research 
might engage in longitudinal case studies 
in which researchers monitor individual 
institutions and libraries from the time 
before the arrival of a new director to 
several years thereafter. What changes 
in institutional and library cultures oc­
cur? How does a new director go about 
implementing his or her managerial and 
leadership styles? How successful is he or 
she? Such research should go beyond self-
reports of directors and the perceptions of 
library staff as reflected in surveys. 

Employing a quantitative method and 
random samples, studies might seek gen­
eralizability of the findings by focusing 
on a portion of the Carnegie classification 

November 2004 

and comparing the activities of directors 
at institutions of similar control (private 
or public), size, and mission.23 Such inves­
tigations might provide gender balance 
among the participants and factor in the 
length of time spent in the position. Such 
research also might consider whether 
the libraries are primarily a main library 
operation or have branch libraries. Large 
library systems might include law or 
medical libraries. 

Further research on leadership also 
should address the topic from the per­
spective of emotional intelligence, which 
Daniel Goleman refers to as “the sine 
qua non of leadership.”24 As he explains, 
emotional intelligence in the workplace 
encompasses self-management (self-aware­
ness, self-regulation, and motivation) and 
managing relationships with others (empa­
thy and social skill).25 

Conclusion 
One might usefully ask how the forego­
ing information on leadership attributes 
and activities can be applied to that 
person’s own leadership aspirations. A 
review of these qualities and activities in 
the context of one’s perceived strengths 
and weaknesses might reconfi rm one’s 
leadership aspirations and/or suggest 
some areas needing more skill sets. An 
overall compatibility with multitasking 
would seem to be very important, given 
the variety and overlapping activities that 
have been found in the diary findings. 
Rush Miller, Hillman University Librar­
ian, University of Pitt sburgh, articulately 
addressed the multitasking issue when he 
exclaimed, “goodness, when I read the list 
of attributes, I am amazed that any of us 
can possibly do all of this at once!”26 As 
figures 1 and 2 illustrate, the directors do, 
in fact, engage in an impressive number 
and range of activities within and beyond 
the particular library. 

And, it is always well to remember that 

http:skill).25
http:mission.23


 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

  

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 
 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 561 

leadership represents a set of capabilities unrestricted, and disorderly characteristics 
that follow the path of the presently known of the Web.27 Because leadership is both a 
to the unfolding future. A recently issued present and a future-oriented activity, one 
environmental scan by OCLC rather dra- should always be thinking about next steps 
matically positions libraries in the twilight and nurturing those capabilities that will 
zone between the rational order of our his- facilitate its arrival. 
torical mandate and the free-associating, 

APPENDIX 

Notes 

1. See Peter Hernon, Ronald R. Powell, and Arthur P. Young, The Next Library Leadership: 
Att ributes of Academic and Public Library Directors (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2003); 
———, “University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries: The Next Genera­
tion: Part One,” College & Research Libraries 62 (Mar. 2001): 116–45; ———, “University Library 
Directors in the Association of Research Libraries: The Next Generation: Part Two,” College & 
Research Libraries 63 (Jan. 2002): 73–90 

2. In addition to the sources cited in note 1, see Eileen McElrath, “Challenges That Academic 
Library Directors Are Experiencing as Perceived by Them and Their Supervisors,” College & Re-
search Libraries 63 (July 2002): 304–21; Karin Wittenborg, Chris Ferguson, and Michael A. Keller, 
Reflecting on Leadership (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2003); 
Catherine J. Matthews, “Becoming a Chief Librarian: An Analysis of Transition Stages in Academic 
Library Leadership,” Library Trends 50 (spring 2002): 578–602. Most of these writings contain an 
extensive literature review. 

3. Chih-Feng P. Lin, Changes in Stated Requirements of Director Positions of Academic Libraries 
in the U.S.: A Content Analysis of Qualifications and Job Expectations as Advertised in Selected Profes-
sional Periodicals (Boston: Simmons College, 2000; unpublished); ———, “Changes in Stated Job 
Requirements of Director Positions of Academic Libraries in the U.S.,” Journal of Information, 
Communication and Library Science 8 (fall 2001): 9–25. 

4. Peter H. McCracken, “The Presence of the Doctorate among Small College Library Direc­
tors,” College & Research Libraries 61 (Sept. 2000): 400–408. According to the Carnegie classification 
(see note 14), a small college is a Baccalaureate I institution. 

5. Stanley J. Wilder, Demographic Change in Academic Librarianship (Washington, D.C.: As­
sociation of Research Libraries, 2003). 

6. Ole Pors-Niels and Carl Gustav Johannsen, “Job Satisfaction and Motivational Strategies 
among Library Directors,” New Library World 103 (2002): 199–208; ———, “Library Managers 
and Management 2001: A New Danish Survey,” New Review of Information and Library Research 7 
(2001): 186–200. 

7. Pors-Niels has developed a 270-variable survey instrument that examines both manage­
ment and leadership. He intends to collapse it into a 100-question form.

 8. Colin Robson, Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers 
(Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 1993), 254. 

9. Don H. Zimmerman and D. Lawrence Wieder, “The Diary: Diary-Interview Method,” 
Urban Life 5 (Jan. 1977): 481. 

10. See, e.g., Katrina Byström and Kalervo Järvelin, “Task Complexity Aff ects Information 
Seeking and Use,” Information Processing & Management 31 (1995): 191–213.

 11. Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 
1980), 22. 

12. W. Thomas Porter Jr., “Time and Self-Management,” Journal of Accountancy 145 (June 1978): 
58–64.

 13. Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, 21. Please note that figure 1 reprints the diary 
used in one study. 

14. Robert L. Adcock, “Time, One More Time,” California Management Review 14 (winter 1971): 
29.

 15. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (Menlo Park, Calif.: Carnegie 
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2001).

 16. For the five-point scale, see the section on diary instructions. 
17. This director adjusts his workday so that he can devote time to his young children. He 

engages in e-mail communication before they awake and go to school. He also volunteers in one 



 
 
 

   
 

 

 
 

 
  

562 College & Research Libraries November 2004 

of their classes and attends parent–teacher conferences. 
18. See note 1. 
19. See Hernon, Powell, and Young, “University Library Directors in the Association of Re­

search Libraries: The Next Generation: Part Two.” 
20. Michael A. Keller, “Scattered Leaves: Reflecting on Leadership,” in Witt enborg, Ferguson, 

and Keller, Reflecting on Leadership, 33–51. 
21. Mintzberg, “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact,” Harvard Business Review 68 (Mar.–Apr. 

1990): 163.
 22. Ibid., 174. 
23. See note 15. 
24. Daniel Goleman, “What Makes a Leader?” Harvard Business Review 82 (Jan. 2004): 82. (The 

other papers in this issue provide complementary perspectives on emotional intelligence.)
 25. Ibid., 88. 
26. Rush Miller, comments, in Hernon, Powell, and Young, The Next Library Leadership, 47.
 27. The 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition, A Report to the OCLC Membership, 

ed. Alane Wilson (Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., 2004). 



  

 

  _____________________________________________________________________ 
  _____________________________________________________________________ 
  _____________________________________________________________________ 
  _____________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

  _____________________________________________________________________ 
  _____________________________________________________________________ 
  _____________________________________________________________________ 
  _____________________________________________________________________ 

Academic Library Directors: What Do They Do? 563 

Diary (Nonroutine Activities) 

Please complete one form per nonroutine activity and provide sufficient detail about the 
activity. Data collection begins on a Monday and ends on Friday of the following week; 
however, complete entries for any work-related activity undertaken in the evening or 
on the one weekend. (You may write on the back of this page, if necessary.) 

Date:   Time started:  Time stopped: 

1. Describe your activity in detail. 
2. Even if the activity is nonroutine, how typical is it of your “typical” workweek?

 Not typical Somewhat Very
 at all typical typical 

1 2 3 4 5 

3. Please state/describe the purpose of this activity. 

a. Was the activity conducted? 
 In person  By mail/campus mail  By e-mail  By phone 
 As part of walk-through (tour) of library 
 Other (please specify) _________________________________ 

b. Did you meet with someone?  Yes   No
 
If yes,  one person  more than one person (number)____.
 
Position of person(s): ____________________________________
 

c. Was the meeting scheduled?  Yes   No
 
Did it occur physically inside/outside any/all of the library buildings? 

 Inside (Where [e.g., your office]) ________________________ 
 Outside (Where) ______________________________________ 

d. Did the activity concern the: 
 Library  University   Higher education in general 
 Professional associations  Personnel 
 Other (please specify) _________________________________ 

4. Any other comments?