Oud.indd Adjusting to the Workplace: Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians Joanne Oud This article discusses the experiences of new academic librarians as they adjust to theworkplace.In the processoforganizationalsocialization, new employees face surprises and differences from their pre-existing expec- tations about the job. A survey of new librarians at Canadian university libraries was done to discover what these surprises were so that more effective training and orientation programs can be developed. Findings included several areas of high and low pre-existing knowledge and dif- ference from expectation, including job skills and organizational culture. Implications for developing training programs are discussed. anadian academic libraries have li le experience recruit- ing and integrating new li- brarians into the workplace because of a lack of significant hiring over the past decades. A hiring boom in the 1960s and 1970s was followed by a period of virtual hiring freeze that has only just begun to improve.1As a result, a significant percentage of academic librar- ians in Canada are eligible to retire within the next 5–10 years, a situation similar to that in the United States.2 Projections of impending librarian shortages are wide- spread in the North American library literature, and, if these projections are true, libraries will need to work hard to recruit and retain good employees.3 Long-term retention is affected in part by the experiences of new employees during transition and adjustment to their new workplace, a process known as orga- nizational socialization. Black and Leysen note that, for academic librarians, “effec- tive socialization is critical to the success- ful transition from graduate school to the academic environment.”4 Organizational socialization is usually defined as the process by which a person acquires the knowledge, skills, a itudes, and behavior he or she needs to participate effectively as a member of an organization.5 Many aspects of a new job and organization are unfamiliar to a newcomer. New employees all bring expectations to their new jobs that are based on factors like their previous job experiences, their understandings of the profession, belief and experiences held by peers or family, promises made during recruitment, and their evaluation of the work situation during their interview.6 During initial socialization into their new work situa- tion, the new employee inevitably finds that there are differences from what he or she expected. These differences produce Joanne Oud is Instructional Technology Librarian at the Wilfrid Laurier University Library; e-mail: joud@wlu.ca. 252 mailto:joud@wlu.ca Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians 253 some degree of “reality shock,” which is followed by a period of learning how to “fit in” and adjusting to how things work in the new se ing.7 A substantial literature exists in the in- terdisciplinary field of organizational so- cialization. Researchers have investigated many aspects of socialization, including stages and characteristics of the process, methods that organizations use to social- ize new employees effectively, and how characteristics and behaviours of new employees affect socialization.8 However, researchers in this field have focused on a relatively narrow set of occupations that does not include librarians. Socialization of librarians has been discussed in the library literature, al- though not frequently. Existing studies fall into a few major groups. Studies in the first group look at the programs and methods used by libraries to assist in the socialization of new academic librarians.9 Studies in the second group focus on the socialization of academic librarians into the role of tenure-track faculty members. They compare the socialization process of new academic librarians with that of new professors, pointing out areas for improvement in graduate training and suggesting socialization strategies for libraries.10 In the third group, studies look at the initial a itudes and job ex- periences of new librarians.11 Studies of how librarians progress through various socialization stages are rare; for example, Ma hews reports on stages of transition for university librarians.12 Organizations need to understand the kinds of changes experienced by new employees during their adjustment to the workplace to formulate effective strategies for socialization. However, no research in the library literature, and li le in the orga- nizational socialization literature, has been done in this area. To fill the research gap, this study looks at changes experienced by new librarians using a conceptual model developed by Louis.13 Louis claims that the socialization process of new employees involves constant encounters with differ- ences in the new job se ing. Major types of differences include obvious changes such as a new office and phone number, as well as less obvious mental surprises where new situations contrast with pre-exist- ing expectations and assumptions based on previous experiences. The amount of difference from these pre-existing expecta- tions that employees face influences their adjustment process. Employees who face more differences in their transition period will have a more difficult adjustment to the organization, while new employees who enter with be er knowledge of the job and environment have an easier adjust- ment process and are less likely to leave their jobs.14 This study uses Louis’ concept of the socialization process as an encounter with differences as its starting point. In particular, I hope to discover the type and degree of differences that new librarians face in their process of transition to their new workplaces, and the relationship of those initial differences to job satisfaction. I hope that the findings will help libraries to develop be er strategies for easing the workplace socialization process, thereby helping to improve job satisfaction and retention of new librarians. Methodology For the purposes of this study, I defined a new academic librarian as a librarian with three years of experience or less who is currently working in a university library. Black and Leysen’s definition is similar in their survey of new librarians at ARL libraries.15 Difference, as defined in the study, has two components. The definition of difference includes how different various aspects of the job were from new librar- ians’ pre-existing expectations during their initial job experiences. The definition also includes the amount of pre-existing knowledge new librarians had before they started their first job as an academic librarian. One limitation of the study is its non- longitudinal approach. Although a lon- http:libraries.15 http:Louis.13 http:librarians.12 http:librarians.11 http:libraries.10 254 College & Research Libraries May 2008 gitudinal study tracking organizational socialization from the first weeks of work through the first year or eighteen months would be ideal, it was not practical given the constraints of the study. Relatively small numbers of recent graduates are hired at academic libraries in Canada each year, and there are no common starting times or ways to discover hires sca ered throughout disparate institutions, making it difficult to control survey feedback at consistent intervals for each participant. Therefore, the study involves a snapshot of the reported experiences of librarians new enough to remember their socializa- tion process. The study was done in two stages. In the first stage, semistructured exploratory interviews were conducted in person with six new academic librarians in summer 2003. The interviews gathered informa- tion about the librarians’ organizational transition processes and identified issues that they felt were important in their transition. Interviews were transcribed and data analyzed for pa erns and com- mon themes. Based on these pa erns, a questionnaire on initial job experiences was developed for wider distribution. Four questions in the survey measured differences from pre-existing expectations and pre-existing knowledge of various aspects of their job. Two questions were scales made up of a number of items measured by a Likert-type scale, where respondents indicated the degree of dif- ference from expectations or pre-existing knowledge of various aspects of their job. In addition, the survey included two open-ended questions: “When you first started working as an academic librarian, what was different from what you had expected?” and “What was the hardest thing for you to learn?” University librarians or human re- source officers at all 58 English-language or bilingual Canadian universities were asked to forward the names of new aca- demic librarians currently employed at their libraries. Two libraries did not re- spond, and fi een responded but had no librarians with three years of experience or less. A total of 111 new academic librar- ians were identified at the remaining 41 libraries. Since the survey population was small, questionnaires were mailed to the entire population in spring 2004. A total of 97 usable responses were returned, for a response rate of 87 percent. Results and Discussion Differences Encountered New academic librarians reported a relatively substantial degree of differ- ence from their pre-existing expectations when they started their first job. Possible scores on the Degree of Difference scale are 0–45, with higher scores indicating less difference from expectation. The average respondent score is 29.82, which shows a moderate degree of difference. However, the lowest score was 11 and the highest was 43, which shows that there was a considerable amount of variation in the experiences of difference reported by librarians. Scale score statistics are summarized in table 1. No relationship was found between the demographic characteristics of the librarians in the study and the degree of difference from expectation in their first job. Respondents’ Degree of Differ- ence scale scores were compared, using ANOVA tests and independent sample t-tests, with the age, sex, and salary level of respondents, the size and location of their library, the type of job they held (contract/permanent, part-time/full-time), and their previous experience (whether their current job is their first professional library job, whether they have prior ex- TABLE 1 Degree of Difference Scale 15 items; Chronbach alpha coefficient .762 N 87 Minimum 11.00 Maximum 43.00 Mean 29.82 Std. Deviation 7.06 Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians 255 TA B L E 2 In di ca te H ow D if fe re nt th e F ol lo w in g A sp ec ts o f Y ou r Jo b W er e fr om W ha t Y ou E xp ec te d B ef or e Y ou S ta rt ed W or ki ng a s an A ca de m ic L ib ra ri an Sa m e as E xp ec te d So m ew ha t D if fe re nt C om pl et el y D if fe re nt N o P ri or E xp ec ta ti on s M ea n St d D ev ia ti on V al id N H ow m uc h fe ed ba ck y ou re ce iv e on y ou r p er fo rm an ce 19 .1 % 43 .6 % 25 .5 % 11 .7 % 2. 17 0. 94 6 94 W he n yo u ca n m ak e de ci si on s on y ou r o w n 24 .2 % 52 .6 % 10 .5 % 12 .6 % 2. 39 0. 84 2 95 W ha t g et s re w ar de d an d w ha t d oe sn ’t 28 .7 % 36 .2 % 14 .9 % 20 .2 % 2. 54 0. 98 0 94 H ow d ec is io ns a re m ad e 29 .5 % 45 .3 % 12 .6 % 12 .6 % 2. 42 0. 87 0 95 H ow d is ag re em en ts a nd c on fl i ct s ar e ha nd le d 29 .8 % 27 .7 % 20 .2 % 22 .3 % 2. 54 1. 05 4 94 W ha t y ou r r ol e in th e m an ag em en t o f t he li br ar y is 31 .6 % 34 .7 % 14 .7 % 18 .9 % 2. 55 0. 96 5 95 W ha t p ro je ct s/ ta sk s ar e co ns id er ed im po rt an t 33 .7 % 48 .4 % 11 .6 % 6. 3% 2. 35 0. 76 9 95 W ho se o pi ni on s ar e co ns id er ed im po rt an t 35 .8 % 35 .8 % 12 .6 % 15 .8 % 2. 55 0. 90 8 95 H ow m uc h as si st an ce is a va ila bl e to y ou 36 .8 % 32 .6 % 12 .6 % 17 .9 % 2. 60 0. 92 7 95 H ow m uc h au th or ity y ou h av e in y ou r p os iti on 40 .0 % 34 .7 % 18 .9 % 6. 3% 2. 34 0. 85 8 95 H ow m uc h in iti at iv e is e xp ec te d of y ou 42 .6 % 31 .9 % 19 .1 % 6. 4% 2. 36 0. 86 6 94 W ha t m an ag er s’ e xp ec ta tio ns a re a bo ut y ou r p er fo rm an ce 47 .4 % 33 .7 % 11 .6 % 7. 4% 2. 51 0. 79 7 95 H ow li br ar ia ns a re s ee n by o th er s on c am pu s 50 .0 % 33 .0 % 12 .8 % 4. 2% 2. 46 0. 77 1 94 W ha t t he a pp ro pr ia te le ve l o f f or m al ity is in w or k re la tio ns hi ps 50 .5 % 30 .5 % 8. 4% 10 .5 % 2. 63 0. 78 6 95 W ha t l ev el o f r es pe ct y ou a re s ho w n by y ou r c ol le ag ue s 57 .4 % 21 .3 % 13 .8 % 7. 4% 2. 59 0. 82 2 94 256 College & Research Libraries May 2008 perience in another career). There were no significant correlations between re- spondent scale scores and any of these characteristics.16 Confirming Louis’ theory, the librarians in this study who reported a higher level of difference from expectations appeared to have a more difficult workplace transi- tion. Transition difficulties are reflected in lower levels of job satisfaction for librarians with higher levels of difference from expectations. Degree of Difference scores were compared with reported job satisfaction using the Pearson product- movement correlation coefficient. The measure for job satisfaction consisted of an eight-item scale, which included items on satisfaction with coworkers, supervi- sor, job duties, work environment, salary, terms of employment, opportunities for advancement, and professional develop- ment support. There was a moderate negative relationship between degree of difference and job satisfaction scores [r=-.355, n=81, p=.001], with higher levels of degree of difference associated with lower levels of job satisfaction. In addition to the amount of difference encountered by new librarians and its re- lation to job satisfaction, I looked at which individual features of their new job and work environment were most surprising. Table 2 summarizes the responses for each scale item and is sorted by percentage of respondents who indicated “same as expected.” New librarians were most surprised by the amount of feedback they receive: only 19 percent felt that they got the amount of feedback they had expected. Another major area of surprise was decision making. Librarians felt that both the way decisions were made at their libraries and the ability for them to make their own decisions were dif- ferent from their initial expectations. In addition, less than 30 percent of respondents felt that the system of rewards at their library and the way conflicts are handled were the same as they expected them to be. On the other hand, initial expectations matched reality fairly closely in a number of areas. More than half of new librarians felt that the way they are perceived on campus, the appropriate level of formal- ity in work relationships, and the respect shown by their colleagues were the same as they expected. However, most respon- dents reported a substantial level of dif- ference from expectations overall; fewer than half of respondents chose “same as expected” for almost all items. Librarians reported on other surprising aspects of their jobs in the open-ended question, “When you first started work- ing as an academic librarian, what was different from what you had expected?” This question was included to discover whether new academic librarians had been surprised by differences that I had not considered, and I found that they had. New librarians mentioned differences from expectations in many aspects of their jobs that were not included as Degree of Difference scale items. The significant pa erns of responses that emerged are summarized in table 3. The surprise that new librarians men- tioned most frequently in this question was the high degree of flexibility and independence involved in their job. This difference was a positive one for most re- spondents: “I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of independence I was given in terms of how I structured my workday and what kind of work I wanted to do. TABLE 3 Difference From Expectations Open- Ended Question: Major Themes • • • • • • • • • More flexibility/independence Greater variety of job responsibilities/tasks Bureaucracy, slow pace of change Negative workplace environment (politics, not collegial) Collegial workplace Busier/heavier workload Faculty and student attitudes to the library Difficult school-to-work transition Lack of training and time to learn http:characteristics.16 Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians 257 Being able to work on projects that I chose myself was refreshing.” However, some indicated that this freedom came with a degree of ambiguity that could be difficult or stressful for them: “You are really on your own. You are expected to jump in and contribute and no one really tells you what to do. You have a lot of freedom to develop your own ideas, change existing processes, and make improvements; but, as a new librarian, I didn’t feel that I was qualified to make changes and o en I didn’t know what would be an improve- ment.” Other positive surprises were the unexpected variety and diversity of job responsibilities and the collegial work environment. One respondent wrote: “I have a very diverse set of responsibilities. I expected a reasonably focused work- load, but I have my hands in a variety of projects. It makes for a great job, but I wasn’t expecting it.” Others praised their workplace as more “friendly and colle- gial” than expected and commented that “I was encouraged to get involved, and as a new librarian my ideas and opinions were valued.” However, many respondents reported less positive surprises in their workplace. The slow pace of change and the bu- reaucratic nature of the academic library workplace were the most commonly men- tioned frustrations. Many respondents commented on their initial surprise at the number of commi ees and meetings and found that “things take a long time to get done. So much paperwork. Everything has a lengthy unnecessary process. Too many policies on mundane things.” Many new librarians also commented on negative surprises related to their workplace culture and environment, including “unmotivated” or “negative” colleagues and a higher than expected level of workplace politics. Some librar- ians were also surprised at a lack of team- work and a noncollegial environment: “I expected there to be a high degree of col- legiality and team work, but I found that most librarians prefer autonomy in their offices and as li le personal interaction as possible. I’ve found the experience as an academic librarian much more isolat- ing than accepting.” Another group of respondents mentioned surprise at the degree of difference and hierarchy be- tween librarians and paraprofessionals in the workplace. Others were surprised at faculty and student a itudes toward the library and said that they had generally expected a higher level of enthusiasm and respect from those groups. Another group of responses focused on the higher than expected workload. This was generally not mentioned as a complaint but as a genuine surprise: “We are really busy!” and “I knew that there was a lot of work to do, but I didn’t real- ize how many balls needed to be in the air at one time.” Some respondents com- mented on the unexpected encroaching of work on their nonwork hours: “I knew that academic librarians were busy, but I still expected to have time to take lunch, which doesn’t happen o en.” However, a number of respondents mentioned that their work duties were easier than expected. In particular, several librarians found that the reference questions they dealt with were easier than they had assumed they would be and that their actual reference duties took up less of their time and energy at work than they had expected, given its emphasis in li- brary school. Relatively few respondents, however, mentioned any aspects of their daily job tasks as a source of difference from their initial expectations; instead, most responses focused on aspects of the workplace culture and environment. Finally, a number of librarians men- tioned surprise at the difficulty of their transition from being a student to being a professional: “The transition from school to work was more difficult than I thought it would be. Thus, in the beginning it was difficult to get my head around every- thing. I guess I did not think that being in a university environment as a student and then working in the same environment as a professional would be much different 258 College & Research Libraries May 2008 but it was.” Related comments focused on the amount to be learned at one time and the surprise at both the lack of train- ing and the short time allowed to get up to speed: “The amount I was expected to know as an ‘expert’ was overwhelming. That people immediately began refer- ring people to me a er one week came as a shock.” Pre-Existing Knowledge New librarians were asked about their pre-existing knowledge of various parts of their job when they first started work- ing as academic librarians. Responses were measured by a Pre-Existing Knowl- edge scale made up of 19 items. Unlike the amount of difference from expectation, the amount of pre-existing knowledge of the job did not affect job satisfaction. No significant relationship was found between Pre-Existing Knowledge scores and job satisfaction scores. Respondents’ pre-existing knowl- edge scores were also compared with their demographic characteristics using ANOVA tests and independent sample t-tests. There was no statistically signifi- cant relationship between the amount of pre-existing knowledge and age, sex, salary level, size or location of library, or type of job (contract/permanent, full- time/part-time). However, respondents’ previous expe- rience did make a difference. There was a significant difference between responses from librarians who were in their first pro- fessional library job and responses from those who weren’t. This vari- able, which was measured by a yes or no response in the survey, was compared to respondents’ Pre-Exist- ing Knowledge scale scores using an independent samples t-test. There was a statistically significant differ- ence in scores for those who are in their first professional library posi- tion (M=37.89, SD=8.84) and those who aren’t (M=42.49, SD=10.12; t(91)=–2.314, p=.023). The magnitude of differences in the means is moder- ate (eta squared=.056). Therefore, the data file was split and responses were analyzed separately for librarians who answered yes and no to “Is this your first profes- sional library job?” so that any differences would be more evident. Both groups reported medium levels of pre-existing knowledge of their job when they first started, but librarians with prior experience reported lower average levels of pre-existing knowledge than those in their first professional position. Pre-existing Knowledge scale scores for both groups are summarized in table 4. The possible range of scores is 0–76, with a higher score indicating less pre-existing knowledge. For those in their first librar- ian position, the mean score is 37.89. The lowest score is 21, and the highest is 65. For those who are not in their first librar- ian position, the mean score is 42.48, the lowest score is 19, and the highest is 67. In addition to general levels of pre-ex- isting knowledge, I analyzed which parts of their job new librarians knew most and least about when they started. Table 5 summarizes responses from librarians in their first professional position to indi- vidual items in the Pre-Existing Knowl- edge scale and is sorted by percentage of respondents who indicated “knew well” for each item. New librarians in their first profes- sional position reported relatively low pre-existing knowledge in a number of aspects of their jobs. They reported espe- cially low pre-existing knowledge in two TABLE 4 Pre-Existing Knowledge Scale 19 items; Chronbach alpha coefficient .864 First Librarian Job—Yes First Librarian Job—No N 56 37 Minimum 21 19 Maximum 65 67 Mean 37.89 42.48 Standard Deviation 8.84 10.12 http:SD=10.12 Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians 259 TA B L E 5 In di ca te H ow M uc h Y ou A lr ea dy K ne w A bo ut th e F ol lo w in g A sp ec ts o f Y ou r Jo b W he n Y ou S ta rt ed W or ki ng a s an A ca de m ic L ib ra ri an . R es po nd en ts : F ir st P ro fe ss io na l L ib ra ry J ob K ne w W el l K ne w So m e K ne w ju st a L it tl e K ne w N ot hi ng N /A M ea n St d D ev ia ti on V al id N H ow to d ea l w ith li br ar y po lit ic s 5. 3% 29 .8 % 29 .8 % 33 .3 % 1. 8% 2. 88 1. 00 1 57 H ow to s el ec t r es ou rc es fo r t he li br ar y co lle ct io n 5. 3% 33 .3 % 42 .1 % 14 .0 % 5. 3% 2. 54 0. 98 3 57 H ow to s ay n o to a ss ig nm en ts /p ro je ct s 12 .3 % 26 .3 % 40 .4 % 15 .8 % 5. 3% 2. 49 1. 07 1 57 H ow to d o ou tr ea ch o r p ub lic re la tio ns w ith fa cu lty 14 .0 % 22 .8 % 38 .6 % 19 .3 % 5. 3% 2. 53 1. 12 0 57 H ow to in te ra ct w ith fa cu lty 15 .8 % 36 .8 % 29 .8 % 15 .8 % 1. 8% 2. 42 0. 99 9 57 H ow to e xp re ss d is ag re em en t e f f ec tiv el y 17 .9 % 48 .2 % 25 .0 % 5. 4% 3. 6% 2. 11 0. 88 8 56 H ow to p er fo rm m y co re jo b du tie s 19 .3 % 66 .7 % 14 .0 % 0. 0% 0. 0% 1. 95 0. 58 0 57 H ow to s ay th in gs in m ee tin gs s o pe op le w ill li st en 22 .8 % 38 .6 % 19 .3 % 17 .5 % 1. 8% 2. 28 1. 06 5 57 H ow to in te ra ct w ith li br ar ia ns w ho h av e hi gh er s ta tu s 26 .3 % 42 .1 % 24 .6 % 5. 3% 1. 8% 2. 05 0. 89 5 57 H ow to w or k w el l u nd er ti gh t s cr ut in y 26 .3 % 33 .3 % 12 .3 % 7. 0% 0. 0% 1. 58 1. 16 4 57 H ow to d o ef fe ct iv e lib ra ry in st ru ct io n 28 .1 % 28 .1 % 36 .8 % 7. 0% 0. 0% 2. 23 0. 94 5 57 H ow to m an ag e pr oj ec ts e ff ec tiv el y 31 .6 % 43 .9 % 17 .5 % 5. 3% 1. 8% 1. 93 0. 88 4 57 H ow to d et er m in e w or kl oa d pr io ri tie s 35 .1 % 43 .9 % 19 .3 % 1. 8% 0. 0% 1. 88 0. 78 1 57 H ow to w or k w el l o n co m m itt ee s or te am s 38 .6 % 38 .6 % 17 .5 % 1. 8% 3. 5% 1. 75 0. 85 1 57 H ow to m an ag e a he av y w or kl oa d 54 .4 % 31 .6 % 12 .3 % 1. 8% 0. 0% 1. 61 0. 77 4 57 H ow to w or k w el l w ith li ttl e su pe rv is io n 57 .9 % 28 .1 % 14 .0 % 0. 0% 0. 0% 1. 56 0. 73 2 57 H ow to w ri te e f f ec tiv e e- m ai l 61 .4 % 24 .6 % 10 .5 % 1. 8% 1. 8% 1. 49 0. 78 2 57 H ow to w or k on s ev er al p ro je ct s at o nc e 61 .4 % 28 .1 % 10 .5 % 0. 0% 0. 0% 1. 49 0. 68 5 57 H ow to in te ra ct w ith s tu de nt s 70 .2 % 24 .6 % 5. 3% 0. 0% 0. 0% 1. 35 0. 58 2 57 260 College & Research Libraries May 2008 areas: dealing with workplace politics and selecting resources for the library collec- tion. Only 5 percent of respondents felt that they knew how to do these things well when they first started working as academic librarians. Other areas with low reported pre-existing knowledge include how to say no to projects, how to do outreach and public relations, and how to interact with faculty. A relatively high proportion of new librarians also indicated that they started work knowing li le or nothing about how to do effective library instruction. New librarians in their first profes- sional positions did report a fairly high level of knowledge of some aspects of their jobs when they started. Areas with the highest reported level of pre-existing knowledge were how to manage a heavy workload, how to work well with li le supervision, how to write effective e-mail, how to work on several projects at once, and how to interact with students. Librarians who are not in their first professional position reported lower levels of pre-existing knowledge both in their mean scale scores and in their responses to individual items. Table 6 summarizes responses to scale items. In general, respondents in this group were less likely to select “knew well” and more likely to select “knew just a little” or “knew nothing.” In nearly all items, less than 10 percent of respondents selected “knew well.” By contrast, “knew well” was chosen by more than 50 percent of respondents for only one item. Librarians in this group and librar- ians in their first professional position reported that they had high and low lev- els of pre-existing knowledge for similar items, but in a slightly different order. New librarians who are not in their first job report that the areas with the lowest level of knowledge are how to say no to assignments/projects and how to select resources for the library collection. Other areas with low reported pre-existing knowledge include how to say things in meetings so people will listen, how to do outreach and public relations, how to interact with faculty, how to express disagreement effectively, and how to deal with workplace politics. Librarians in this group felt that they knew most how to work well with li le supervision, how to manage a heavy workload, how to mul- titask, how to write effective e-mail, and how to interact with students. Members of this group had somewhat more confi- dence in their initial knowledge of core job duties and in how to do effective library instruction than the group of librarians in their first professional position. In addition to the pre-existing knowl- edge scale, new librarians were asked an open-ended question, “What was the hardest thing for you to learn?” to find out what knowledge gaps created the most difficulty for them in their learning process. Several major pa erns emerged in the responses and are summarized in table 7. Scale items and pa erns found in the open-ended question overlapped each other substantially. Many of the scale items with low levels of reported pre- existing knowledge were also reported as being hard to learn. Library politics, o en mentioned as the hardest thing to learn, also had a very low level of reported pre-existing knowledge as a scale item. Other areas frequently mentioned as dif- ficult to learn include collection develop- ment duties, saying no to new projects, establishing effective relationships with faculty, and managing conflict. These areas correspond to scale items “how to select resources for the library collection,” “how to say no to assignments/projects,” “how to interact with faculty,” and “how to express disagreement effectively,” all of which had low scores for pre-existing knowledge. The most frequently mentioned area of learning difficulty not present in the scale items was “ge ing things done.” In this area, new librarians mentioned concerns such as when and how to take initiative, how to work around difficult supervi- sors, dealing with resistance to change, Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians 261 TA B L E 6 In di ca te H ow M uc h Y ou A lr ea dy K ne w A bo ut th e F ol lo w in g A sp ec ts o f Y ou r Jo b W he n Y ou S ta rt ed W or ki ng a s an A ca de m ic L ib ra ri an . R es po nd en ts : N ot F ir st P ro fe ss io na l L ib ra ry J ob K ne w W el l K ne w So m e K ne w ju st a L it tl e K ne w N ot hi ng N /A M ea n St d D ev ia ti on V al id N H ow to s ay n o to a ss ig nm en ts /p ro je ct s 5. 1% 20 .5 % 17 .9 % 51 .3 % 5. 1% 3. 05 1. 19 1 39 H ow to s el ec t r es ou rc es fo r t he li br ar y co lle ct io n 5. 1% 25 .6 % 28 .2 % 25 .6 % 15 .4 % 2. 44 1. 35 3 39 H ow to s ay th in gs in m ee tin gs s o pe op le w ill li st en 5. 1% 35 .9 % 30 .8 % 25 .6 % 2. 6% 2. 72 0. 99 9 39 H ow to d o ou tr ea ch o r p ub lic re la tio ns w ith fa cu lty 7. 7% 23 .1 % 33 .3 % 30 .8 % 5. 1% 2. 77 1. 13 5 39 H ow to in te ra ct w ith fa cu lty 7. 7% 43 .6 % 43 .6 % 17 .9 % 2. 6% 2. 62 1. 06 7 39 H ow to e xp re ss d is ag re em en t e f f ec tiv el y 7. 7% 43 .6 % 33 .3 % 15 .4 % 0. 0% 2. 56 0. 85 2 39 H ow to d ea l w ith li br ar y po lit ic s 10 .3 % 28 .2 % 33 .3 % 28 .2 % 0. 0% 2. 79 0. 97 8 39 H ow to in te ra ct w ith li br ar ia ns w ho h av e hi gh er s ta tu s 17 .9 % 38 .5 % 28 .2 % 15 .4 % 0. 0% 2. 41 0. 96 6 39 H ow to d o ef fe ct iv e lib ra ry in st ru ct io n 17 .9 % 48 .7 % 25 .6 % 5. 1% 2. 6% 2. 13 0. 86 4 39 H ow to w or k w el l u nd er ti gh t s cr ut in y 17 .9 % 38 .5 % 17 .9 % 7. 7% 17 .9 % 1. 79 1. 17 4 39 H ow to w or k w el l o n co m m itt ee s or te am s 20 .5 % 30 .8 % 25 .6 % 20 .5 % 2. 6% 2. 41 1. 1 1 7 39 H ow to d et er m in e w or kl oa d pr io ri tie s 20 .5 % 41 .0 % 25 .6 % 12 .8 % 0. 0% 2. 31 0. 95 0 39 H ow to m an ag e pr oj ec ts e ff ec tiv el y 26 .3 % 34 .2 % 31 .6 % 7. 9% 0. 0% 2. 21 0. 93 5 38 H ow to p er fo rm m y co re jo b du tie s 26 .3 % 36 .8 % 31 .6 % 5. 3% 0. 0% 2. 16 0. 88 6 38 H ow to m an ag e a he av y w or kl oa d 35 .9 % 35 .9 % 20 .5 % 5. 1% 2. 6% 1. 90 0. 94 0 39 H ow to w or k on s ev er al p ro je ct s at o nc e 38 .5 % 41 .0 % 17 .9 % 2. 6% 0. 0% 1. 85 0. 81 2 39 H ow to w ri te e f f ec tiv e e- m ai l 48 .7 % 33 .3 % 7. 7% 10 .3 % 0. 0% 1. 79 0. 97 8 39 H ow to in te ra ct w ith s tu de nt s 48 .7 % 41 .0 % 10 .3 % 0. 0% 0. 0% 1. 62 0. 67 3 39 H ow to w or k w el l w ith li ttl e su pe rv is io n 61 .5 % 35 .9 % 2. 6% 0. 0% 0. 0% 1. 41 0. 54 9 39 262 College & Research Libraries May 2008 and ge ing people to listen to their ideas. Others phrased their difficul- ties as learning “how to navigate the bureaucratic jungle” and “learning how the system functions (how deci- sions are made, where funding comes from, how best to propose projects or changes).” New librarians reported other difficult-to-learn areas, including local procedures for doing things, local collections and resources, and local structures. In particular, several respondents mentioned the difficulty of learning the structures and cultures of various areas within the university, com- menting that “the library environment is familiar but the university is not.” Al- though many respondents felt in the pre- existing knowledge scale that they were comfortable managing a heavy workload, this area was frequently mentioned as a difficult skill to learn in the open-ended question. Respondents reported that it was difficult to learn “to spend my time most effectively and make time for everything I need to do” and “time management, multitasking, balancing changing priorities, dealing with constant interruptions.” Implications In summary, the results of this study identify aspects of new academic librar- ians’ jobs that are different from their initial expectations, as well as areas where they have gaps in their pre-existing knowledge. Louis and other researchers found that a high degree of difference led to more difficulties in adjustment to the workplace, and this study supports those findings. New librarians with a higher degree of difference from expecta- tion in their initial job experiences have lower levels of job satisfaction. Levels of pre-existing knowledge, however, do not appear to have an impact on job satisfac- tion. Demographic variables such as sex, age, and salary do not have a significant impact on either degree of difference or pre-existing knowledge, although new TABLE 7 Hardest Thing to Learn Open-Ended Question: Major Themes • • • • • • • • Workplace politics/culture How to get things done Collection development Local procedures, resources, structures Time management/workload management Saying no Conflict management Relationships with faculty librarians with previous professional experience did report lower average pre-existing knowledge. Since the study did not include questions on cultural, racial, or linguistic diversity, additional research should be done to determine if these variables do influence experiences of difference from expectations. A goal for this study was to provide information to help libraries develop ef- fective ways to ease workplace transitions for new librarians. As Louis claims, an “appreciation of changes, contrasts and surprises characteristic of newcomers entry experiences is essential in designing organizational structures that facilitate newcomer transitions.”17 What practical implications do the findings have for designing strategies to ease initial job transitions? Since high levels of difference from expectation are related to difficult transi- tions and low job satisfaction, one strategy libraries can use to facilitate workplace transition is to minimize the amount of difference from expectation. New employees’ pre-existing expectations come from many past experiences, but employers can have an effect on some of these expectations during the recruiting and hiring process. Libraries can try to convey more reasonable expectations to candidates by paying careful a ention to advertising and communication during and outside the interview and by giving accurate depictions of the job and the work environment. One method of en- suring that candidates or new employees have a more realistic understanding of Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians 263 the job and the workplace is the realistic job preview. Realistic job previews are increasingly used in the business world to give applicants a more accurate picture of the job, and initial studies show that they are effective in producing increased performance and lower turnover in new employees.18 Realistic job previews use methods including brochures, detailed and specific job descriptions, discus- sions with potential coworkers, and opportunities for on-the-job observation to ensure that candidates have a solid understanding of what the job involves. This kind of tactic may help create more accurate expectations in new employees and, therefore, help with their adjustment process. However, even with these measures, some degree of difference from expec- tation is inevitable in new job se ings. Therefore, libraries need to develop good strategies to help the new librarian deal with these surprises as they arise in the first several months of employment. Training and orientation programs are the most common strategies used to facilitate workplace transitions, and the results of this study point out some areas where such programs could be augmented or developed. First, the results confirmed that most new academic librarians would benefit from more assistance in their adjustment to their new workplace. Respondents re- ported relatively high levels of difference from expectation and relatively low levels of pre-existing knowledge in many as- pects of their new jobs. However, in many academic libraries the new librarian is le to learn much of the job informally or on his or her own initiative: only 40 percent of respondents indicated that they had been offered any kind of formal orientation or training. These findings are similar to the findings of a major survey of Canadian libraries, The Future of Human Resources in Canadian Libraries. Researchers in that study voiced concerns over potentially large gaps in training, since nearly half of new librarians they surveyed reported that their training was inadequate for them to do their jobs well.19 The same study points out that “few institutions had formal structures either for determining what training is needed or for evaluating that training.”20 More formal, structured training programs would help address this gap and benefit both the new librarian and the library. Many researchers in organizational so- cialization have found a need for struc- tured training programs in producing effective new employee socialization. Ashforth and Saks point out that a rela- tively formal, structured approach to new employee socialization helps lower stress, conflict, and ambiguity for new employ- ees.21 Holton finds that “individuals were not using many deliberate strategies to adapt to their organizations, indicating enormous ignorance of the importance of the transition to work…This reinforces the notion that more interventions are needed in organizations and universities to teach organizational entry skills and strategies.”22 Most existing library orientation and training programs are focused on local procedures and specific job tasks and skills.23 Clearly, training in these core areas of the job is essential. However, job tasks were not commonly mentioned either as areas of difference of expecta- tion or of low pre-existing knowledge by survey respondents. The most notable ex- ception is collection development, which rated low in pre-existing knowledge and high in difficulty of learning. Respondents mentioned frequently that they had li le training in this area in library school and that their on-the-job training was lacking or inadequate. New librarians who had previous professional library experience did not feel be er prepared for collection development duties. This is not surpris- ing, since many short-term contracts and part-time positions do not include collec- tion development components. Outreach with faculty and library instruction are also areas of the job that respondents identified as difficult initially, and neither http:skills.23 http:employees.18 264 College & Research Libraries May 2008 are commonly included in library train- ing and orientation programs. Clearly, these three areas require further a en- tion in training programs that cover job responsibilities. The majority of areas identified by re- spondents as having either high difference from expectation or low prior knowledge, however, are related to the workplace environment. These areas involve the organization’s culture, or the unwri en rules of “how things work around here.”24 Organizational culture o en involves the aspects of the workplace that long-term employees take for granted and therefore may not think worthy of mention to new staff. Research has found that these major sources of knowledge gaps and differ- ences are generally not recognized or understood well by schools, workplaces, or even new graduates themselves.25 It is not surprising, then, that training for new librarians seldom includes aspects of the organization’s culture, although librarians reported that these aspects were o en the most different from their expectations and the most difficult for them to learn. For example, training programs rarely cover how to deal with library politics, how to work with a difficult supervisor, how to speak in meetings effectively, or how to manage conflict. In addition, training pro- grams are usually short and concentrated in the first few weeks of employment, while many of the “cultural” adjustments in the initial workplace transition take six to nine months or more.26 Given the difficulties reported by new librarians with learning the cultural as- pects of their new jobs and workplaces, more effort should be made to develop ways to assist new employees in this criti- cal area of their transition process. There are few models outlining what an effec- tive training program for organizational culture might include. In Holton’s model, there are four major areas of content that a new employee needs to learn about in a new job: the individual domain (in- cluding personal a itudes, expectations, and skills needed to adjust), the people domain (including relationships with coworkers and supervisors), the organi- zation domain (including organizational culture and roles), and the work task domain (including job skills). Training and orientation programs should inte- grate and address all four of these areas in a planned way, through a variety of programs and interventions that last for an employee’s first year. 27 In such a training program, there are likely to be many different tactics necessary for training in different areas. One specific strategy for assisting new librarians in the more nebulous areas of organizational culture is to assign a mentor or peer buddy. Mentoring has been well documented and researched as an effective strategy for career devel- opment,28 but it has also been researched and recommended as a effective strategy for new employee workplace adjustment. ACRL’s White Paper on recruitment and retention recommends mentoring as a retention strategy for academic libraries, and research on information technology professionals has shown that social and interpersonal strategies like mentoring has the most significant effect on new employees’ adjustment process.29 Mentoring is a potentially useful strategy for multiple reasons. At the most basic level, having a mentor means that new librarians have someone they can ask when they are confused or need information. New employees need to proactively seek out information to help them adjust to their new environment,30 but they may be hesitant because they are afraid that others will think that they are incompetent or lacking key knowl- edge.31 Workplace socialization research has shown that having a mentor or peer buddy is helpful because it provides the new employee someone whose purpose is to help and who expects questions.32 Research has also shown that people are more likely to proactively ask questions and seek out information when they have someone accessible for that purpose and have a good relationship with that per- http:questions.32 http:process.29 http:themselves.25 Transitions Faced by New Academic Librarians 265 son.33 Mentors can help new employees interpret incidents that happen in the new workplace and therefore gain a be er sense of the organizational culture and how it operates in various situations.34 However, mentors are o en arranged a er the employee has been on the job for some time, and mentoring is usually more focused on long-term career development than short-term adjustment. To be useful to new employees during the 6–9 months of their adjustment process, it would make sense to have a short-term initial mentor assigned for that period. Having a mentor available from the beginning, especially to help with questions about intangible areas of the organization’s culture, could be a useful socialization strategy for new librarians. Even if a mentoring program is not possible, scheduling regular opportuni- ties with supervisors or peers for feed- back and discussion would give new librarians an opportunity to ask questions and bring up areas of difficulty or confu- sion. Ideally, formal or informal training programs should let new employees know explicitly what issues may arise during their transition to the new work- place and what skills and strategies might be helpful for them to deal with their ad- justment process.35 However, people are o en not aware of these areas of potential difficulty. Holton points out that it may be necessary to train existing coworkers and supervisors in what potential difficulties a new employee might encounter, since people who have worked in an organiza- tion for some time tend to forget what newcomers don’t know.36 Having some open discussion, for both existing and new employees, would help to foster an environment where new librarians feel more comfortable asking for help and would stimulate awareness by both new and existing librarians of what issues and questions may arise. This kind of awareness is a first step in creating new kinds of training and orientation pro- grams to help new librarians deal with the surprises they encounter in their new work environment and, therefore, in improving long-term job satisfaction and retention. Notes 1. For more detail of hiring pa erns in Canadian academic libraries and their effect on re- cruitment and retention strategies, see William M. Curran, “Succession: The Next Ones at Bat,” College and Research Libraries 64, no. 2 (2003): 134–40. 2. Stanley J. Wilder, The Age Demographics of Academic Librarians: A Profession Apart (Chicago: Association of Research Libraries, 1995). 3. For a discussion of projected recruiting and retention issues in the United States, see ACRL Ad Hoc Task Force on Recruitment and Retention Issues, Recruitment, Retention and Restructuring: Human Resources in Academic Libraries (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2002); in Canada, 8Rs Research Team, The Future of Human Resources in Canadian Libraries, 2005. Available online from www.ls.ualberta.ca/8rs/8RsFutureofHRLibraries.pdf. [Accessed 21 Decem- ber 2006]. 4. William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, “Fostering Success: the Socialization of Entry-Level Librarians in ARL Libraries,” Journal of Library Administration 36, no. 4 (2002): 4. 5. John van Maanen and Edgar H. Schein, “Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization,” Research in Organizational Behavior 1 (1979): 209–64. 6. Denise M. Rousseau, “Schema, Promise and Mutuality: the Building Blocks of the Psy- chological Contract,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74 (2001): 511–41; E. Kevin Kelloway and Steve Harvey, “Learning to Work: the Development of Work Beliefs,” in Young Workers: Varieties of Experience, ed. Julian Barling and E. Kevin Kelloway (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1999): 37–57. 7. Debra L. Nelson, “Adjusting to a New Organization: Easing the Transition from Outsider to Insider,” in Career Stress in Changing Times, ed. James Campbell Quick and Robert E. Hess (New York: Haworth Press, 1990): 61–86. 8. For a useful overview and review of the literature of organizational socialization, see Talya Bauer, Elizabeth Morrison and Ronda Callister, “Organizational Socialization: a Review www.ls.ualberta.ca/8rs/8RsFutureofHRLibraries.pdf http:process.35 http:situations.34 266 College & Research Libraries May 2008 and Directions for Future Research,” Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 16 (1998): 149–214. 9. Janice Simmons-Welburn and William C. Welburn, “Organizational Entry, Sense Making, and New Professional Employees in Academic Libraries,” paper given at the 11th ACRL Confer- ence, Charlo e N.C., April 2003. Available online from www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/simmons- welburn.pdf [Accessed 5 August 2005]; Black and Leysen, “Fostering Success,” 3–26. 10. Barton Clark and Thomas Gaughan, “Socialization of Library School Students: a Framework for Analysis of a Current Problem,” Journal of Education for Librarianship 19 (1978–79): 283–93; W. Bede Mitchell and Bruce Morton, “On Becoming Faculty Librarians: Acculturation Problems and Remedies,” College and Research Libraries, 53 (1992): 379–92; Mary Bushing, “Academic Librarians: Perceptions of the Acculturation Process,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 19, no. 1 (1995): 33–41. 11. Nan McMurry, “From Library Student to Library Professional: Smoothing the Transition for the New Librarian,” North Carolina Libraries 46/47 (Winter 1988): 209–13; Ria Newhouse and April Spisak, “Fixing the First Job: New Librarians Speak Out on Problems in the Profession,” Library Journal 129, no.13 (Aug. 2004): 44–46. 12. Catherine J. Ma hews, “Becoming a Chief Librarian: an Analysis of Transition Stages in Academic Library Leadership,” Library Trends 50, no. 4 (2002): 578–602. 13. Meryl R. Louis, “Surprise and Sense-Making: What Newcomers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Se ings,” Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (1980): 226–51. 14. Louis, “Surprise and Sense-Making”; John D. Kammeyer-Mueller and Connie R. Wanberg, “Unwrapping the Organizational Entry Process: Disentangling Multiple Antecedents and Their Pathways to Adjustment,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5 (2003): 779–94. 15. Black and Leysen, “Fostering Success,” 24. 16. All statistical tests used assume significance at less than p=.05. 17. Louis, “Surprise and Sense-Making,” 239. 18. Jean M. Phillips, “Effects of Realistic Job Previews on Multiple Organizational Outcomes: A Meta-analysis,” Academy of Management Journal 41, no. 6 (1998): 673–90. 19. 8Rs Research Team, The Future of Human Resources in Canadian Libraries, 18. 20. Ibid. 21. Blake E. Ashforth and Alan M. Saks, “Socialization Tactics: Longitudinal Effects on New- comer Adjustment,” Academy of Management Journal 39, no. 1 (1996): 149–78. 22. Elwood F. Holton, “College Graduates’ Experiences and A itudes During Organizational Entry,” Human Resource Development Quarterly 6, no. 1 (1995): 59–78. 23. 8Rs Research Team, The Future of Human Resources in Canadian Libraries, 18. The majority of training programs focused on job skills and technology, followed by customer service and management. 24. For a more detailed explanation of organizational culture and its importance in libraries, see William Sannwald, “Understanding Organizational Culture,” Library Administration and Management 14, no. 1 (2002): 8–14. 25. Nigel Nicholson and John Arnold, “Graduate Entry and Adjustment to Corporate Life,” Personnel Review 18, no. 3 (1989): 3–14. 26. Nelson, “Adjusting to a New Organization.” 27. Elwood F. Holton, “New Employee Development: A Review and Reconceptualization,” Human Resources Development Quarterly 7, no. 3 (1996): 233–52. 28. Christina M. Underhill, “The Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs in Corporate Se ings: A Meta-analytical Review of the Literature,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (2006): 292–307. 29. ACRL Ad Hoc Task Force on Recruitment and Retention Issues, Recruitment, Retention and Restructuring: Human Resources in Academic Libraries, 31; Ruth C. King, Weidong Xia, James Campbell Quick, and Vikram Sethi, “Socialization and Organizational Outcomes of Information Technology Professionals,” Career Development International 10, no. 1 (2005): 26–51. 30. Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison, “Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Information Seeking on Newcomer Socialization,” Journal of Applied Psychology 78, no. 2 (1993): 173–83. 31. Jeffrey B. Vancouver and Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison, “Feedback Inquiry: the Effect of Source A ributes and Individual Differences,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62, no. 3 (1995): 276–85. 32. Ashforth and Saks, “Socialization Tactics.” 33. Vancouver and Morrison, “Feedback Inquiry.” 34. Lisa K. Gundry and Denise M. Rousseau, “Critical Incidents in Communicating Culture to Newcomers: The Meaning Is the Message,” Human Relations 47, no. 9 (1994): 1063–88. 35. John P. Wanous and Arnon E. Reichers, “New Employee Orientation Programs,” Human Resource Management Review 10, no. 4 (2000): 435–51. 36. Holton, “New Employee Development.” www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/simmons When You Need Targeted and Intelligent Research, Aim First for Annual Reviews. Annual Reviews publications operate as a high quality filter, for the Biomedical, Life, Physical, and Social Sciences. Insightful Research Starts With An Annual Reviews Site License Annual Reviews offers a variety of site license solutions, ensuring seamless access to high quality publications and permanent data rights to subscribed content. Forthcoming Annual Reviews Titles Include: Analytical Chemistry | Marine Science Economics | Financial Economics | Resource Economics ANNUAL REVIEWS A Nonprofit Scientific Publisher Call: 800.523.8635 (Toll Free US/CAN) 650.493.4400 (Worldwide) • Fax: 650.424.0910 Email: sitelicense@annualreviews.org Access Librarian Resources Online www.annualreviews.org http:www.annualreviews.org mailto:sitelicense@annualreviews.org