College and Research Libraries Academic Library Services: The Literature of Innovation Judy Reynolds and Jo Bell Whitlatch Innovation has the potential for increasing the effectiveness of information service. As a result of this interest in innovation, organizational theorists have begun to explore the effect of orga- nizational design upon flexibility, creativity, and productivity of organizations. A review of existing literature, however, provides no comprehensive theory of organizational innovation. Research on organizational design and innovation in libraries could contribute to the system- atic study of the impact of organizational structure. Studies by Howard and Luquire indicate that traditional library organizations may inhibit change as well as the reexamination of values and service. Further study is needed to determine how libraries can most effectively manage innovation in the rapidly changing environment ahead. oncern over the future role of li- braries is a constant theme in the library literature. The loss of a stable environment, such as declining budgetary support and rapidly changing information technology, has re- sulted in substantial interest in the plan- ning and evaluation of library services . Li- braries have borrowed from business theory and practice in designing, plan- ning, and evaluating programs; but an area in business theory that has received relatively little attention is innovation in organizational design and its influence upon organizational adaptation and sur- vival. Innovation has come into fashion within the last decade. As with all fashion- able trends, it is advisable to ask, "Is inno- vation necessary?" and "Is innovation good?" While it is foolish to argue that all innovation is beneficial, or that continual change for its own sake is desirable, re- ports in the business literature provide ev- idence that innovation is often essential for survival. Librarians must read and use the literature of innovation as well as that of planning and evaluation if libraries are to survive in increasingly unstable times. The literature on innovation and organiza- tional design has the potential for assist- ing libraries in providing effective infor- mation services in the rapidly changing environment ahead. Several interesting studies on organiza- tional innovation have been completed in the past two decades. Although the find- ings have improved our understanding of innovation, there is not yet a comprehen- sive theory i Innovation has been difficult to define. Gerald Zaltman's definition is commonly used in studies: "any idea, practice, or material artifact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption.' 11 Other commonly accepted definitions are ''the adoption of means or ends that are new to the adopting unit" 2 and breaking away from established patterns. 3 Lawrence Mohr uses Zaltman' s defini- tion but specifies that it must be limited to a successful introduction of an idea or practice that has been accepted and imple- mented by the organization. 4 Thus he dis- tinguishes between invention (bringing Judy Reynolds is library education and assistance program head and Jo Bell Whitlatch is interim university librarian at San Jose State University, San Jose, California 95192. 402 something new into being) and innova- tion (bringing something new into use). Raymond Radosevich suggests that inno- vation involves major realignments of hu- man, financial, and physical resources of the organization. 5 This is similar to Jerald Hage' s definition of "radical" innova- tions, which involve high risk and major alterations for the organization and are discontinuous relative to the existing tech- nology. Such radical innovations occur in- frequently .6 Consequently the focus in this paper will be on low-risk innovation, which is more common in libraries and hence of more concern . Hage has observed that words such as change, innovation, and creativity are easy to use but not so easy to define or ac- tually observe and measure. 7 The three principal interrelated working definitions found in the literature are (1) first use, (2) adoption or nonadoption, and (3) extent of implementation. 8 Moch indicates that studies of the adoption of innovation in organizations have suffered from inade- quate definition and from failure to distin- guish among types of innovations. Little research has been designed to study dif- ferential adoption patterns for various types of organizations . The inconsistent findings that research has produced may be attributed to a failure to take into ac- count the type of innovation and to differ- ences in defining and measuring central- ization. ~ Centralization is the "bringing together of operations or functions of sim- ilar types into a common grouping." The resulting administrative design is a '' sys- tem in which authority for directions, con- trol, and management has become con- centrated in the hands of a few persons or offices. " 10 Chris Argyris notes five common types of innovation: (1) products, (2) processes, (3) tasks, (4) persons, and (5) environmen- tal variables. 11 Zaltman h~s a slightly dif- ferent list: (1) product or services, (2) pro- . duction process, (3) organizational structure, ( 4) people innovations, and (5) policy innovations. 12 Richard Daft divides innovations into those occurring in the op- erations area, where the basic production of services or products takes place, and those in the administrative area. 13 Organi- Academic Library Services 403 zational and environmental variables may be associated with activity in one area but not the other. 14 This paper focuses on the effects of orga- nizational structure upon innovations in both the technical operations and the ad- ministrative areas of the organization. Zaltman suggests that the essential vari- able determining how organizations react to their external environment is organiza- tional structure. 15 Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn also indicate that the direct manipu- lation of the various components of orga- nizational structure is a powerful means of producing systematic change. 16 Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken indicate that the structure of an organization may be more crucial for the successful implementation of change than the particular blend of per- sonality types in the work place. 17 An organization can be defined as an adaptive system that must continually im- prove its performance to stay alive in mod- ern society. 18 Even the cumulative effects of minor change can be important in en- suring organizational survival. Most rele- vant to the study of innovation in libraries is Mohr's definition of innovation-the successful introduction into an applied sit- uation of means or ends that are new to that situation. THEORIES OF INNOVATION The theories of innovation presented in this section are based upon data gathered from the study of organizations. A sum- mary of the major studies is provided in table 1; details of the experimental studies are also provided in the references cited in this paper. There is also an extensive liter- ature that deals with innovation and orga- nizational climate but does not focus pri- marily on organizational design. This aspect of innovation is outside the scope of this paper. One of the earliest theories of innova- tion was proposed by James March and Herbert Simon. Innovations occur when a given program of activity no longer satis- fies performance criteria. 19 Dissatisfaction stimulates the organization's search for al- ternative courses of action. 20 Research in- dicates that the highest job satisfaction is not correlated with the highest innovation 404 College & Research Libraries September 1985 TABLE 1 MAJOR STUDIES OF INNOVATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Author and Date Published Major Conclusions Burns and Stalker, 1961 The environment heavily influences organizational adoption of mechanistic or organic management techniques. Hage and Aiken, 1970 The higher the organizational characteristics, such as complexity, centralization, formalization, and stratification, the lower the rate of innovation in organizations. Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek, 1973 Complexity facilitates innovation in the initiation stage, while higher formalization and centralization and lower complexity facilitate the adoption of innovation. Hage and Dewar, 1973 Values of the organizational elite are more effective in predicting rates of program innovation than structural variables. Mintzberg, 1983 Changes in professional training and norms lead to organizational innovation . Howard, 1977 Findings generally support Hage and Aiken except in the area of complexity. Librarians' professional training was positively correlated with innovation, but the correlation with participation m professional organizations was negative. Luquire, 1983 Organizational size was ne~atively associated with acceptance of innovation, but positively associated with professional training. phase of an individual's career. Content- ment with performance does not appear to induce innovation; instead, dissatisfac- tion with the "performance gap" is the catalyst to change. A moderate gap be- tween what individuals desire and what they are presently able to achieve may be necessary to create the energy required for change and accomplishment. 21 According to Michael Moch and Edward Morse, there is an identifiable cluster of characteristics that determine an organi- zation's Rroclivity for adopting new tech- niques. 2 In the theory developed by Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker, the environment has an important influence on whether firms adopt more organic management techniques. An organic structure is char- acterized by loose, informal relationships built upon mutual adjustment and the ab- sence of standardization . The organiza- tion responds to its environment and adapts to changes in order to survive. While there is no one best model for orga- nizing, a mechanistic form is more suit- able when the environment is stable and fairly certain. A mechanistic organization operates like a machine and can only be stopped or broken. When the technical and market environment is changing and unstable, organic forms have an advan- tage due to their increased potential for gathering and processing information. 23 Burns and Stalker note that when organi- zational outputs are services rather than manufactured products, the organization is apt to show more adaptiveness because there is reduced ability to standardize tasks. 24 Aiken and Hage have found em- pirical support for the notion that the or- ganic organization has characteristics that facilitate innovation. 25 Aiken and Hage have developed a ma- jor theory relating innovation to organiza- tional structure. They have identified sev- eral organizational characteristics- including complexity, centralization, for- malization, and stratification-that affect the rate of innovation in organizations . They hypothesize that the higher the for - malization, stratification, volume of pro- duction, centralization, and emphasis on efficiency, the lower the rate of innova- tion. Innovative organizations also have more elaborate committee structures than noninnovative organizations. 26 Central to their theory are propositions drawn from the writings of Max Weber's model of bu- reaucracy, Chester Barnard's stratifica- tion, and Victor Thompson's growth of occupational specialties . 27 Hage and Aiken suggest that increased formaliza- tion and higher degrees of job codification in an organization decrease the rate of in- novation. However another study dis- putes their conclusions and proposes that it may be job autonomy rather than job codification that is associated with new programs. The scales for job codification, designed to observe and measure formali- zation, may not be measuring that specific construct. 28 Using educational organizations as an example, Karl Weick has argued that the prevailing image of organizations operat- ing through dense, tight linkages such as planning mechanisms is probably false. Educational organizations might be better described as loosely coupled systems . This characteristic of educational systems could promote more sensitivity to the en- vironment and localized adaptation. 29 Burton Clark suggests that the basic direc- tion of change in the bottom-level operat- ing units of the university is toward fragmentation and loose coupling. He in- dicates that the fundamental adaptive mechanism of :1niversities and larger adaptive systems is the capacity to add and subtract some fields of knowledge and related units without much distur- bance to others. The sources of change are the interests, ideas, and organization of each of these areas. 30 The diversity and fragmentation of the units creates intense competition for scarce resources. The Zaltman theory treats innovation as a process and distinguishes between the initiation and implementation stages. A five-stage model of innovation is pre- sented. The two major stages are (1) initia- tion and (2) implementation. The initia- tion stage is further segmented into three divisions, knowledge-awareness, forma- tion of attitudes, and decision. The imple- mentation stage is segmented into two di- visions, initial implementation and continued-sustained implementation . Zaltman suggests that complexity of the organization may have both positive and negative effects upon innovation: positive in the more loosely structured proposal stage but negative in the more tightly structured implementation stage. 31 The organizational characteristics facilitating Academic Library Services 405 innovation in the initiation stage are more complex but less formal and centralized . However, at the implementation stage or- ganizational characteristics facilitating adoption are lower in complexity, but higher in formalization and centraliza- tion. 32 Since the development of the original theory by Aiken and Hage, Hage and Rob- ert Dewar have found that none of the structural variables (complexity, central- ization, formalization) is as effective as the values of the elite inner circle of executives in predicting differential rates of program innovation. 33 The elite inner circle is com- posed of the executive director and those managers who participate in strategic de- cisions about policies, programs, person- nel, and promotions . Hage and Dewar find that the values of the elite inner circle are more influential than those of only the chief executive or of the entire staff, partic- ularly if one uses a behavioral rather than a formal definition of elite values .34 Hage observes that centralization generally will be positively related to innovation rate if the values of the dominant coalition (those participating in strategic decision making) are pro-change. 35 Argyris also studied the influence of top management upon orga- nizational innovation and found the dom- inant coalition to be influential. He con- cludes that management with weak interpersonal skills will cause deteriora- tion of innovation in the organization. 36 Henry Mintz berg's work on organiza- tional structures is also of interest. Mintz- berg defines innovation as breaking away from established patterns. Thus, the truly . innovative organization cannot rely on any form of standardization for coordina- tion. It must avoid all the trappings of bu- reaucratic structure, notably the sharp di- visions of labor, extensive unit differentiation, highly formalized behav · iors, and emphasis on planning and cor · trol systems. 37 However, Mintzberg L talking about radical innovation. He does observe that existing programs can be per- fected and standardized by specialists, but new ones usually cut across existing spe- cialty boundaries. 38 Mintzberg calls one organizational structure the ''professional 406 College & Research Libraries bureaucracy .'' The organization allows for both standardization and decentraliza- tion. Coordination is provided by employ- ees sharing a standard set of skills and knowledge that transcends organizational boundaries. The professionals use their skills in response to predetermined ser- vice categories. Clients are categorized in terms of the functional specialties the li- brary offers .39 Change in the professional bureaucracy occurs through altering of the type of people who enter the profession, their norms, skills, and knowledge ac- quired in professional schools and in sub- sequent continuing education .40 Other researchers have also found pro- fessional contacts to be important. Daft re- ported positive associations between pro- fessionalism and innovation in the technical area. 41 Professionalism can also have some negative effects upon innova- tion. Mayer Zald and Patricia Denton identify predictors of innovation as the breadth of organizational goals and the absence of a single dominating profes- sional ideology. 42 Aiken and Hage found that it is the current degree of involvement of staff members in extraorganizational professional activities, not the initial level of professional training, that is most highly related to successful implementa- tion of innovation. 43 In confirmation of this research, Katz found that isolation from sources providing evaluation, infor- mation, and new ideas is the most critical factor resulting in ineffective project per- formance. 44 James Utterback's work also indicates that the primary limitation on an organization's effectiveness in innovation is neither costs nor technical knowledge, but the ability to recognize the needs and demands in its external environment. 45 For Zaltman, the organization is an open system in continued interaction with its environment. The organization must determine which products or services will be most readily received by the end users and focus innovative efforts in those ar- eas. The organization must also adapt its technology to produce these new prod- ucts or services and monitor the environ- ment for feedback to determine if the in- novation is effective in meeting the demands of the environment. 46 September 1985 Hage and other theorists have con- cluded that innovation and efficiency are negatively related and appear to require opposing types of organizational struc- tures. Efficiency is usually positively asso- ciated with centralization and formaliza- tion , and may be either positively or negatively associated with complexity . Yet organizations must be both efficient and innovative to survive in a changing world .47 Jon Pierce and Andre Delbecq suggest that the solution to this paradox probably lies in capital venture systems, matrix systems for initiating and varying the organizational design using project groups in the initiation stages and struc- tured decision bodies in the implementa- tion stages. 48 The matrix system provides a dual focus when more than one orienta- tion is critical for managing the organiza- tion. An organizational structure, which Mintzberg terms the "adhocracy," uses the functional and market bases for group- ing in a matrix structure. The experts are grouped into functional units for normal purposes, but are deployed into project teams for the purpose of encouraging in- novation. 49 Mintz berg observes that even hospitals and universities, which are clos- est to the "professional bureaucracy" for their routine clerical and teaching work, are drawn to the "adhocracy" when they attempt truly innovative work. Specialists must join together in multidisciplinary teams to create new knowledge and skills. 50 Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the theoretical difference between typical hi- erarchical and less traditional structures in libraries. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND INNOVATION IN LIBRARIES Certainly innovation in itself is intrinsi- cally neither good nor bad. Multiple views have been expressed on the value of a re- cent innovation in librarianship, the adop- · tion of AACR2 . Another innovation in li- brary services, networking or resource sharing, also has both positive and nega- tive attributes. Networking can increase access to resources but may result in the loss of local library autonomy in setting LIBRARY DIRECTOR FIGURE 1 Academic Library Services 407 Example of Traditional Hierarchical Structure Coord ina t or fo r Lib~ary Systems ( Au t omat i o n) Admin i s trative Office S t aff Admin is t ra to r for Cir cula t ion Administrate~ f or Uedia ll!ll!lilil I ndicates 1 ibrarians Administ:-ato~ for hnical Serv D Indi cat es s ta ff Head of Archives Adapted from Patricia Senn Brevik, " A Model for Library Management," Personnel in Libraries: L] Special Report 11 10 (Ne~ York: Bowker, n.d.), p.9. FIGURE2 Sangamon State University Library Organizational Chart (April1978) 408 College & Research Libraries September 1985 User Education Program Online Program t--c I ,__. __ I I Referenr:e Program --· I --t---t I Collection Development Program ({) ti t-- 1 t-- 1 i I Individual librarian and/or Program Coordinator interaction with the Division Head Relationship of individual librarian participation to various divisional programs Individual librarian and/or Program Coordinator interaction with peers and/or other Program Coordinators Circled figure represents Program Coordinator Size of figure represents librarian time commitment to specific program Reprinted, by permission of the authors, from Joanne R. Euster and Peter 0. Haikalis, " A Matrix. Model of Organization for a Univer- sity Library Public Services Division, " in Academic Libraries; Myths and Realities, Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries (Chicago: ACRL, 1984), p.362. FIGURE3 A Schematic of Matrix Organization for the Reader Services Division of San Francisco State University budgets, service priorities, and collection development policies . Bibliographic in- struction and online database searching have also extended library services and enriched the interaction between the li- brary and its environment . Some argue that provision of these new services re- duces the resources available for the more traditional library services. Nonetheless, change is inevitable and the library that plans and encourages creativity is most likely to cope effectively . Much of the literature on innovation in libraries is a call for its exercise and /or list- ings of possible areas of need or applica- tion. Connie Dunlap suggests that colle- gial or participatory staff organizations will increase staff interest in library-wide concerns resulting in greater productivity and adaptability. The more prevalent ''bureaucratic organizations tend to pro- duce cot:formity and generally stifle crea- tivity.' "1 Victor Thompson states that a "well managed" organization "tends to define jobs and jurisdictions which lack variety and richness of cognitive inputs usually associated with creativity . The cre- ative process is characterized by slowness of commitment, by suspended judge- ment, by refusal to grasp the opportunity and make quick decisions." He surmises that "it is very difficult for the person cata- loging all day to be creative. '' 52 As a public service organization, the li- brary must constantly review its goals as an "open system" that is responsive to the public. Peter Drucker defines the pub- lic as: (1) "the people who depend on you,'' the library users, and (2) ''any group that can in effect stymie you." 53 In the latter case he suggests that modifying services to satisfy the patron will be diffi- cult because staff may not wish to aban- don established services in favor of new ones. He wagers, "that your really effec- tive resources, both human and money, will be invested in defense of yester- day. '' 54 Harvey Kolodny cautions against the apparent closed system that libraries have provided to the public. Management ''must stop functioning like librarians that are waiting for people to come to them be- cause they control the source of a particu- lar skill or knowledge or discipline ... " 55 Academic Library Services 409 DISCUSSIONS OF INNOVATION IN LIBRARY LITERATURE Automation, budget crises, increasingly sophisticated patron needs, complex copyright regulations, resource sharing, and demands for professional autonomy are factors leading to a flurry of demands in library literature for change, creativity, and innovation in libraries. 56 Mary Lee Bundy advocates the release of "powerful growth forces" to counteract tendencies toward conformity and restriction of ser- vice modifications. She proposes restruc- turing the organization into two areas: one would operate collegially in discipline units providing selection, indexing, and reference; the second area would be auxil- iary services, governed by committees of professionals who would set policy for the purchasing, processing, and inventory units composed of support stafe7 This ar- rangement is similar to the innovative structure successfully implemented at Sangamon State University. 58 Howard Dillon has described this experimental new organizational structure that freed li- brarians from administrative responsibili- ties. 59 Patricia Brevik later expanded upon the design. Bundy's structure could pro- vide responsible units and individuals with increased decentralization of deci- sion making. It would also decrease for- malization of professional activities while maintaining the high degree of formaliza- tion already present in auxiliary services and increasing the stratification of re- wards between support staff and librari- ans. Bundy proposes that support staff be compensated equitably for their work. The positive effects of collegiality and de- centralized decision making upon the rate of innovation, which are predicted in the Hage and Aiken model, might be negated by excessive formalization, rigidity, and stratification in auxiliary services. Robert Moran accuses academic li- braries of maintaining an organizational design that "addresses only internal mat- ters," hindering their response to the en- vironment. He proposes an "outside sur- veillance" unit, specifically collection development, which would be decentral- 410 College & Research Libraries ized and informal. An advisory group of librarians would be formed to provide the director with insights gained from partici- pation in external professional associa- tions. The director would assume respon- sibility for attending to external matters as well as internal needs. Moran states that this modified bureaucratic model would offer a more responsive, open system. 60 The organizational changes proposed by Moran are supported by Hage and Aiken's theory, which predicts that de- centralization and informality will in- crease the rate of innovation. Karl Musmann observes that libraries have the same problems with structure and innovation that Mintzberg outlined. As agencies that are externally controlled for the most part, their structure is highly formalized, bureaucratic, and centralized. Musmann says this is "not conducive to successful survival in a dynamic environ- ment nor is it especially suited to encour- age innovative behavior. " 61 The Booz, Allen, and Hamilton study of Columbia University in 1970-71 advo- cated restructuring the organizational de- sign so that the library would be better able to function as an open system and ef- fectively respond to the changing needs of the academic community. 62 Lowell Martin believes that libraries should consider Pe- ter Drucker's basis of organization. Drucker states that organizational struc- ture should flow from purpose and that the proper structure cannot be deter- mined until the organization's objectives are clarified. According to Martin, apply- ing Drucker's organizational ideas to a university library structure could result in two primary divisions: the instructional division and the graduate or research divi- sion. This structure would shift the orga- nizational emphasis from the traditional functions, such as acquisitions, catalog- ing, reference, and circulation, to a focus on the library's purpose and users. 63 Aca- demic library structures based upon un- dergraduate libraries and graduate re- search branches appear to incorporate the basic concepts embodied in Martin's two- divisional design. Another redesign suggestion comes from Gardner Hanks and James Schmidt, September 1985 who feel that the professional model is de- ficient because it discourages change. They argue that it encourages members to defend a stereotype of acceptable client needs and professional responses, creat- ing, in effect, a closed system. 64 They rec- ommend the replacement of the tradi- tional functional organization with one based on the types of clients served. They do not consider the possibility of a matrix structure with attention given to both spe- cial services to clients and the need to maintain efficiency in the delivery of stan- dard library services. Their recommenda- tion is supported by Mintz berg's model of the professional bureaucracy and Hage and Aiken's predictions that formaliza- tion reduces the search for better methods of doing work. 65 Hanks and Schmidt note that more emphasis in library schools on theoretical and applied sciences would help solve the problem by introducing to librarians an understanding of open sys- tems. Librarians might then demand less formal, more responsive libraries. Joseph McDonald also observes that profession- alism is a problem. He notes that organiza- tional design, i.e., the division into func- tions such as reference librarian, archivist, and bibliographer, "dictates how the user must approach the organization for ser- vice and how the service is offered to him. '' 66 In the professional bureaucracy, the division of work into narrow special- ized functions severely inhibits innova- tion and often creates difficulty in resolv- ing routine matters requiring communica- tion and cooperation between personnel in different functions. McDonald indi- cates that organizational design may be a key element in successful library services, but points to the problems of defining and measuring library effectiveness. Miriam Drake and Harold Olsen state that "inno- vation does not happen by chance. " 67 It is a response to the external environment or an attempt to increase effectiveness. Fiscal pressures will force libraries into "in- creased reliance on consumer self-service as a primary mode of operation." Helen Howard cites several doctoral dis- sertations, all of which found few differ- ences in formal academic library struc- tures . 68 The focus on investment of human resources in bibiiographic organization and the utilization of performance mea- sures appropriate to a closed system have constrained libraries from adopting new, more user-oriented organizational de- • 69 stgns. Charles Martell recommends an alterna- tive to the traditional functional design that brings librarians together into small work groups allied with designated client groups in the academic community. Li- brarians would perform multiple func- tions within these units: advanced refer- · ence, collection development, online searching, and original cataloging. He in- dicates that this design bears some resem- blance to the Booz, Allen, and Hamilton's design at Columbia but has greater em- phasis on client needs. 70 Support for Mar- tell's design can be found in current popu- lar works such as Corporate Cultures by Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy and In Search of Excellence by Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman . Deal and Kennedy predict that man- agers of the future will structure and nego- tiate appropriate economic arrangements with workers banded together into semi- autonomous units. Freedom and auton- omy will be gained when telecommunica- tions networks and systems exist to provide many of the communication links now requiring coordination of people in large organizations. Culture will become the bond that holds these units together. 71 This structure may also be more conduc- tive to innovation. In observing excellent companies, Pe- ters and Waterman note that these com- panies are "better listeners." They pay at- tention to their lead users, and most of their innovations come from the market- place. 72 Peters and Waterman also ques- tion the value of the matrix structure and note that it almost always ceases to be in- novative after a short time. They suggest that the product division is probably still the best form around for providing the simple structural form and lean staffing so necessary for organizational flexibility at the corporate level. They note that this simple structural form can be reorganized around the edges, e.g., by creating experi- mental units. ~here is evidence that large Academic Library Services 411 library organizations do not facilitate the . adoption of new technology. Musmann found evidence that the large size, com- plexity, and decentralization of power within the California State University and Colleges System contributed to an envi- ronment of slow decision making. 73 Thomas Shaughnessy warns that de- centralization can deteriorate into an over- emphasis on specialization at the expense of overall organizational needs. Organiza- tional redesign can be used to maintain the balance between specialization and at- tainment of overall goals. "Coordination by plan" is a mechanistic response, effec- tive in stable situations where units have standard tasks, policies, and interactions. ''Coordination by feedback'' is an organic response to dynamic, changing situa- tions. Shaughnessy sees the latter as be- coming more prevalent through the em- ployment of such devices as coordinator positions .74 Citing Alan Dyson's study of library instruction programs, Shaugh- nessy recommends increased support for coordinator positions in order to make the library a more open system. 75 Theoretical support for such a structure is provided by the Hage and Aiken model, which would predict an increase in innovation by de- creasing centralization, formalization, and stratification. Textbooks on library management usu- ally have not addressed the design of an organization as anything but a given. The library organization is consistently di- vided into public and technical services and is hierarchical. One exception is John Rizzo's text, which makes no attempt to review the literature of library manage- ment. Instead, Rizzo reviews the larger world of management theory and re- search for librarians, who are expected to make their own judgments on applicabil- ' ity. While the work devotes most of its at- tention to group dynamics and tech- niques, it does touch lightly upon aspects of organizational design as characteristics to be manipulated rather than accepted as permanent fixtures. Division of labor, task design, job enrichment, formality, cen- tralization, organizational development, project teams, matrices and committees, the need to tolerate ambiguity, and equita- 412 College & Research Libraries ble representation are mentioned. The work of Burns and Stalker is noted: "their data show that organizations that cling to the formalized hierarchy when their envi- ronment becomes dynamic do poorly in the marketplace." Those that shift to more organic forms tend to prosper. 76 Rizzo rec- ommends further reading in this area, but provides no model or review of the limited research that has been done. RESEARCH IN LIBRARIES . Helen Howard has done the most exten- sive research on the effects of organiza- tional structure in libraries. 77 She tested Hage and Aiken's hypothesis in four aca- demic libraries. Unfortunately, the study results may not be generalizable beyond these four libraries. Nonetheless, Hage and Aiken's model was successfully ap- plied, and Howard encourages other re- searchers to replicate the study to verify her findings. She defined innovation broadly as "the generation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas, pro- cesses, products or services for the first time within an organization. " 78 Howard found that the data largely supported Hage and Aiken's hypothesis that innova- tion would be negatively related to the de- gree of centralization, formalization, and stratification, and positively related to complexity. In other areas Howard's find- ings differed from Hage and Aiken's. In their study of health and welfare agency workers, occupational specialization and professional activities were the two in- dexes of complexity most positively re- lated to innovation. Professional training had a negative relationship. In her study of librarians, Howard found innovation to be more strongly correlated with profes- sional training (total subject and profes- sional degrees earned). Howard's find- ings should be replicated since they do not support McDonald's or Hanks and Schmidt's beliefs that professional train- ing serves as an obstacle to innovation. Specialization and professional activi- ties were only weakly associated with in- novation. Howard suggests this may be because librarians have been conditioned to think of themselves as generalists. While librarians may possess such specific September 1985 titles as "selector," "head of map room," or "East Asian bibliographer," these titles may not reflect much more than vague or- ganizational structures and fuzzy roles. A librarian's job title may not signify the clear distinction between occupational specialties found in another industry em- ploying a wide diversity of skilled person- nel with various professional degrees. The weak correlation between professional ac- tivities and innovation may indicate that the quality of professional activities needs to be strengthened in order to contribute to innovation as they do in the health and welfare professions. In systems of higher education, Clark observes that change promoted by exter- nal influence comes about in largely unno- ticed ways through boundary roles at the bottom level of the academic system. Pro- fessors engage in activities characteristic of boundary roles, such as information gatekeeping, transacting with other groups, and linking and coordinating with the inside and outside. 79 Charles Bunge reports that two-thirds of the refer- ence librarians in thirty-five libraries he surveyed relied on conferences and work- shops to update their knowledge and skills. 80 Howard's study raises an impor- tant question: Are professional associa- tions living up to their potential as cata- lysts for innovation? Participation in decision making was an- other strong indicator of innovation in li- braries. This supports Hage and Aiken's hypothesis that decentralization encour- ages innovation. The scales used in devel- oping the measures of centralization and formalization have recently been criticized by Robert Dewar, David Whetten and David Boje. 81 Further testing of the instru- ment is recommended before use in an- other study. Howard reports that 31 percent of the innovations were in organizational struc- ture (reorganizations of major portions of a library); 25 percent in the production process (e.g., adoption of OCLC); 25 per- cent in people, (e.g., appointment of new occupational specialists, staff develop- ment); and 19 percent in products and ser- vices. Howard states that the "reorganiza- tion total (31 percent) supports the literature, which gives the impression that all organizations are in a frenzy of reor- ganization whether they need it or not. " 82 This observation also coincides with Drucker's view that reorganization is of- ten used as a substitute for getting at the real cause of problems, especially person- nel problems. Maurice Marchant measured patron, faculty, and staff evaluations of academic libraries as an end product of an open sys- tem. His findings suggest that participa- tory management ultimately results in fac- ulty and staff perceptions of better service. 83 Further investigation is war- ranted to determine if the correlation Howard found between innovation and participation does indeed produce im- proved or more effective services. One should keep in mind Jane Flener's obser- vation that in most libraries less than 50 percent of the staff seemed interested in participating in management. 84 Beverly Lynch concludes that the tech- nology of library work, as defined by em- ployee perceptions, appears to vary in de- gree of difficulty or sophistication fairly uniformly across different libraries. She defines technology as II the actions that an individual performs on an object, with or without the aid of tools or mechanical de- vices, in order to make some change in that object" and bases her study on mea- sures of technology developed by Charles Perrow .85 Lynch found that professional work, as defined by functional depart- ments such as reference and cataloging, appears to be at a higher level than those that are largely support staff functions such as acquisitions and circulation. This measure should be verified against a care- ful analysis of skill, effort, and responsibil- ity, such as that done at the San Jose Pub- lic Library. 86 Research results could be compared with Howard's work to see if variations in the highly centralized, for- malized, and stratified institutions, such as those Lynch studied, demonstrate in- creased innovation when the organiza- tional structure is redesigned into a less traditional form. Wilson Luquire provides us with a study of technical services librarians' per- ceptions of an innovative system, OCLC. Academic Library Services 413 He finds that acceptance of the innovation correlates positively with participation in decision making, variety and interest in the work, professional training, and amount of preparation for the system. Lu- quire's results support the predictions of Hage and Aiken: organizational size cor- relates negatively with acceptance, which corresponds favorably with the hypothe- sis that centralization will have negative effects. However, larger libraries are more likely to have problems with the introduc- tion of shared cataloging systems, as they are more frequently the contributors than the benefactors, and may have a greater need for higher levels of cataloging that will distinguish between editions. 87 FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS Only limited study has been made of re- lationships between organizational de- sign and innovation in libraries. The present accounts in the literature on the positive effects of adopting a collegial management structure are limited in ap- plication . Based upon her experience at a small library, Dickinson College in Car- lisle, Pennsylvania, Joan Bechtel says, II the creativity and flexibility generated by our new library organization have yielded maximum results in efficiency and staff satisfaction. " 88 Research is needed to ver- ify · her assertions and determine if this system will function in a library with more than seven librarians. Many questions rem~in to be investi- gated. Louis Kaplan suggests several questions for study. For example, can top management II surrender its policy- making responsibility in a heteronomous, service-type agency?'' 89 Is it the situation or the manager that is participative or au- tocratic? To what extent will employees be willing to assume responsibility in a shared authority system? And when and why do managers use decision sharing?90 One of the greatest barriers to the inves- tigation of organizational design in li- .. braries is that it is difficult to measure ef- fectiveness. If innovation is desirable, it should be beneficial and in some propor- tion to its cost. Rosemary DuMont pro- poses an open systems approach that fo- cuses on process rather than product. A 414 College & Research Libraries library wifl be effective, she suggests, if (1) the employees affirm its goals; (2) it re- sponds to environmental changes; (3) it provides timely, relevant and accessible services; and (4) it monitors user needs. 91 What has been investigated so far and what do we know? Additional research based on organizational behavior theories and models would permit us to judge whether the results of innovation theories and studies of business firms can be gen- eralized to libraries. More study needs to be done to determine the effects of central- ization, complexity, formalization, and stratification upon innovation. These studies need to compare libraries of vari- ous types, sizes, and levels of wealth, pri- vate and public institutions, and those with common and divergent goals . These organizational variables must be mea- sured against the different types of inno- vation characteristics: cost, time required, impact on work group, administration, and users, compatibility with organiza- tion and employee goals, technicality, and payoff. Although Howard and Luquire have measured some of the organizational variables, no study has been done mea- suring the different characteristics of inno- vation. And these studies are a" snapshot in time," as it were, and do not purport to investigate the process of innovation: the initiation, introduction, adoption, and dif- fusion. Does the same innovation take on various hues when viewed from different employee points of view? How will re- source sharing affect innovation when in- stitutional boundaries are transcended? How does one define success or effective- ness, and is it the same across institutions? CONCLUSION There is no comprehensive theory of or- ganizational innovation to provide signifi- cant insight beyond the boundaries of our own field. Library research could contrib- . ute to the systematic study of organiza- September 1985 tions and provide information on innova- tion and organizational design. It is imperative that libraries take the initiative in times of limited funding. Richard Dougherty warns, "If innovation activi- ties are sacrificed in order to preserve ex- isting activities, librarians will eventually force their organizations into operational straightjackets. " 92 The operational straightjackets provide a closed system for libraries which could be devastating to their survival as organizations. Hage re- counts an instance when Burgess at Co- lumbia attempted to get the library to or- der new books for his courses and to be open for more than two hours a day. When the librarian refused to support his attempts to introduce innovative new courses, Burgess went to the Board of Re- gents and obtained 2ermission to start an entirely new library. 93 Recognition of the need for innovation is becoming more widespread . Carlos Cuadra provides an excellent summary of the need for librarians to understand and investigate how library organizations can encourage innovation: [t is in no way necessary or inevitable that li- brarians shift the balance of their holdings and services to include microforms, digital informa- tion, videotapes, holograms and other trap- pings of advanced technology . It is not neces- sary that libraries shift their concept of operations from circulation to outright distribu- tion . It is not necessary that libraries invest in computers and other paraphernalia to provide users with a higher order of access to reference materials. It is not necessary that libraries be- come elements of networks for the raised iden- tification and provision of materials to users, re- gardless of geographical location . However these functions are going to take place and if the library does not bring them about, some other type of agency will . That agency will then occupy the central role in the information business-the role that was once occupied by the library. 94 REFERENCES 1. Gerald Zaltman, Robert Duncan and Jonny Holbek, Innovations and Organizations (New York: Wi- ley, 1973), p.10. 2. George W. Downs, Jr., "Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly 21:701 (Dec. 1976). Academic Library Services 415 3. Henry Mintzberg, Structure in Fives: . Designing Effective Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1983), p.254. 4. Lawrence B. Mohr, "Determinants oflnnovation in Organizations," American Political Science Re- view 63:112 (Mar. 1969). 5. Ra}rmond Radosevich, "Designing Innovative Systems," Long Range Planning 10:80 (Apr. 1977). 6. Jerald Hage, Theories of Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1980}, p.188. 7. Ibid., p.165. 8. Downs, "Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation," p.709. 9. Michael K. Moch and Edward V. Morse, "Size, Centralization and Organizational Adoption of Innovations,'' American Sociological Review 42:716 (Oct. 1977). 10. Jerry Martin Rosenberg, Dictionary of Business and Management, 2d ed. (New York: Wiley, 1983}, p.90. 11. Chris Argyris, Organization and Innovation (Homewood, ill.: Irwin, 1965), p.2. 12. Zaltman, Innovations and Organizations, p.14-15. 13. Richard L. Daft, ''A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation,'' Academy of Management Jour- nal21:206 Gune 1978). 14. Ibid., p.209. 15. Zaltman, Innovations and Organizations, p.121. 16. Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2d ed. (New York: Wiley, 1978}, p.711. 17. Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, Social Change in Complex Organizations (New York: Random, 1970), p.122-23. 18. Kenneth E. Knight, "A Descriptive Model of the Intra-Firm Innovation Process," Journal of Busi- ness 40:483 (Oct. 1967). 19. James March and Herbert Simon, Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1958), p.182. 20. Ibid., p.174. 21. Ralph Katz, "High Performance Research Teams," Wharton Magazine 6:31 (Spring 1982). 22. Moch, "Size, Centralization and Organizational Adoption of Innovations," p.723. 23. Tom Bums and G. M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock, 1961). 24. Ibid. 25. Michael Aiken and Jerald Hage, "The Organic Organization and Innovation," American Journal of Sociology 5:79 Gan. 1971). 26. Ibid., p.75. 27. Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly 10:296 (Dec. 1965). 28 . Robert D. Dewar, David A. Whetten, and David Boje, "An Examination of the Reliability and Validity of the Aiken and Hage Scales of Centralization, Formalization and Task Routineness,'' Administrative Science Quarterly 25:127 (Mar. 1980). 29. Karl E. Weick, "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems," Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1-19 (Mar. 1976). 30. Burton R. Clark, "The Contradictions of Change in Academic Systems," Higher Education 12:104-6 (1983). 31. Zaltman, Innovations and Organizations, p.137. 32. Ibid., p.158-59. 33. Jerald Hage and Robert Dewar, "Elite Values Versus Organizational Structure in Predicting Inno- vation," Administrative Science Quarterly 18:285 (Sept. 1973). 34. Ibid., p.287. 35. Hage, Theories of Organizations, p.187. 36. Argyris, Organization and Innovation, p.193. 37. Mintzberg, Structure in Fives, p.254. 38. Ibid., p.209. 39. Ibid., p.189-93. 40. Ibid., p.213. 41. Daft, "A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation," p.208. 42. Mayer N. Zald and Patricia Denton, ''From Evangelism to General Service,'' Administrative Science Quarterly 8:234 (Sept. 1963). 43. Aiken, "The Organic Organization and Innovation," p.72. 44. Katz, "High Performance Research Teams," p.32. 45. James M. Utterback, ''The Process of Technological Innovation within the Firm,'' Academy of Man- agement Journal14:75-88 (Mar. 1971). 46. Zaltman, Innovations and Organizations, p.120. 416 College & Research Libraries September 1985 47. Hage, Theories of Organizations, p.44. 48. Jon L. Pierce and Andre L. Debecq, "Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innova- tion," Academy of Management Review 2:36 (Jan. 1977). 49. Mintzberg, Structure in Fives, p.256. 50. Ibid., p.268. . 51. Connie R. Dunlap, "Organizational Patterns in Academic Libraries, 1876-1976," College & Re- search Libraries 37:402 (Sept. 1976). 52. Victor A. Thompson, ''The Organizational Dimension,'' Wilson Library Bulletin 42:700 (Mar. 1968). 53. Peter F. Drucker, "Managing the Public Service Institution," College & Research Libraries 37:5 (Jan. 1976). 54. Ibid., p.7. 55. Harvey F. Kolodny, "Managing in a Matrix," Business Horizons 24:23 (Mar./ Apr. 1981). 56. See Sidney Forman, "Innovative Practices in College Libraries," College & Research Libraries 29:486-92 (Nov. 1968); "1985: New Technology for Libraries," Library Journal 105:1473-78 (July 1980); Don R. Swanson, "Miracles, Microcomputer and Librarians," Library Journal 107:1055-59 (June 1982). 57. Mary Lee Bundy, "Conflict in Libraries," College & Research Libraries 27:253-62 (July 1966). 58. Patricia Senn Brevik, ''A Model for Library Management,'' Personnel in Libraries: LJ Special Report #10 (New York: Bowker, n.d.), p.4-9. 59. Howard W. Dillon, "Organizing the Academic Library for Instruction," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 1:4-7 (Sept. 1975). 60. Robert F. Moran, Jr ., "Improving the Organizational Design of Academic Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 6:140-45 (July 1980). 61. Klaus Musmann, "The Diffusion of Innovations in Libraries," Libri 32:270 (1982). 62. Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, Inc., Organization and Staffing of the Libraries of Columbia University: A Case Study (Westport, Conn.: Redgrave Information Resources Corp., 1973). 63. Lowell Martin, Organizational Structure of Libraries (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1984), p.83,203. 64. Gardner Hanks and C. James Schmidt, "An Alternative Model of a Profession for Librarians," College & Research Libraries 36:175-87 (May 1975). 65. Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, "Program Change and Organizational Properties; A Compara- tive Analysis," American Journal of Sociology 72:511 (Mar. 1967). 66. Joseph McDonald, "Organizational Structure and Effectiveness of Information Organizations," Drexel Library Quarterly 17:50 (Spring 1981). 67. Miriam A. Drake and Harold A. Olsen, "The Economics of Library Innovation," Library Trends ' 28:89 (Summer 1979) . 68. Helen Howard, "Organization Theory and Its Application to Research in Librarianship," Library Trends 32:482 (Spring 1984). 69. Charles R. Martell, Jr., The Client-Centered Academic Library (Westport, Conn .: Greenwood, 1983), p.68. 70. Ibid ., p.72. 71. Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p.189. ' 72. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr., In Search of Excellence: Lessons From America 's Best- run Companies (New York: Harper, 1982), p.193-98. 73. Klaus Musmann, "The Adoption of OCLC by the California State University and Colleges: A Case Study of Diffusion of a Technological Innovation in a Complex Library Organization," (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Southern California, 1981). 74. Thomas W. Shaughnessy, "Library Administration in Support of Emerging Service Patterns," Library Trends 28:139-49 (Fall1979). 75. A. J. Dyson, ''Library Instruction in University Undergraduate Libraries,'' in Progress in Educating the Library User, ed. John Lubans (New York: Bowker, 1978). 76. John R. Rizzo, Management for Librarians: Fundamentals and Issues (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1980), p.122. 77. Helen Arlene Howard, ''The Relationship between Certain Organizational Variables and the Rate of Innovation in Selected University Libraries," (Ph.D . diss ., Rutgers Univ., 1977). 78. Helen A. Howard, "Organizational Structure and Innovation in Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 42:429 (Sept. 1981). 79. Clark, ''The Contradictions of Change in Academic Systems,'' p .113. 80. Charles A. Bunge, "Strategies for Updating Knowledge of Reference Resources and Tech- niques," RQ 21:231 (Spring 1982). Academic Library Services 417 81. Dewar, "An Examination of the Reliability and Validity," p.127. 82. Howard, "The Relationship between Certain Organizational Variables and the Rate of Innova- tion," p.155. 83. Maurice P. Marchant, Participative Management in Academic Libraries (Westport, Conn.: Green- wood, 1976). 84. Jane G. Flener, "Staff Participation in Management in Large University Libraries," College & Re- search Libraries 34:278 Guly 1973). 85 . Beverly P. Lynch, ''An Empirical Assessment of Perrow's Technology Construct,'' Administrative Science Quarterly 19:338 (1974). 86. Hay Associates, "City of San Jose Study of Management Classes (Classification of All Jobs in City Personnel Team, Training and Review)," (City of San Jose, Calif., Personnel Department, 198?). 87. Wilson Luquire, "Attitudes Toward Automation/Innovation in Academic Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 8:344-51 (Jan. 1983). 88. Joan Bechtel, "Collegial Management Breeds Success," American Libraries 12:607 (Nov. 1981). 89. Louis Kaplan, "The Literature of Participation: From Optimism to Realism," College & Research Libraries 36:477 (Nov. 1975). 90. Louis Kaplan, "On Decision Sharing in Libraries: How Much Do We Know?" College & Research Libraries 38:25-31 Gan. 1977). 91. Rosemary Ruhig Du Mont, ''A Conceptual Basis for Library Effectiveness,'' College & Research Li- braries 42:103-11 (Mar. 1980). 92. Richard M. Dougherty, "Libraries and Innovations," in Essays for Ralph Shaw, ed. Norman Stevens (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975), p .34. 93. Hage, Social Change in Complex Organizations, p.103-4. 94. Carlos Cuadra, "Libraries and Technological Forces Affecting Them," ALA Bulletin 63:767 (June 1969).