Introduction
The concept of
career is changing (Lyons, et al., pp. 9–10), and as working professionals
become more mobile and flexible in their definitions of a career, employers
must learn to meet their needs in order to engage a motivated and experienced
workforce. Academic librarians and libraries are no exception. Librarians
wrestle with questions like how they bring their authentic selves to work, how
they understand work and life balance throughout their careers, and how they
perceive career advancement, and at what time. To meet the needs and
expectations of their staff, library administrators must ask how to continue to
retain a pool of driven and satisfied professionals, how to continue to support
librarians as their needs change throughout their careers, and how to create
workplace cultures that offer flexibility and space in support of a diverse
workforce.
This study is an
application of Mainiero and Sullivan’s Kaleidoscope
Career Model. The model uses three phases—Authenticity, Balance, and
Challenge—as a non-linear approach to understanding the mapping of career
trajectories (Figure 1). In the Authenticity phase, professionals have a need
to be genuine and to act in ways congruent with their values. In the Balance
phase, they desire a more balanced personal life. In the Challenge phase, they
seek exciting, stimulating work. Professionals can be in one or several of the
phases at any given time and can move through the phases as the circumstances
and motivating forces in their lives change. For example, while a professional
may start their career in the Challenge phase, later in life they may find
themselves more strongly identifying with Balance or Authenticity before ending
their career back in Challenge.
Figure 1
Kaleidoscope career
model.
Mainiero and Sullivan (2006a) argue “because most
organizations have not acted, individual workers have acted instead. Women and
men are working within and outside corporate boundaries to better blend their
own needs to authenticity, balance, and challenge. These men and women are
making adjustments to their careers to find a regression line that balances
work and family. They are developing new definitions of success” (p. xii).
Though not in the corporate world, academic librarians, too, must grapple with
the impact of economic background, age and ageism in the workplace, gender
identity, care-giving roles, absence of diversity, ableism, and mental health
when determining how best to shape their careers.
In this
female-dominated profession, understanding how women perceive their career
trajectories will help administrators and colleagues determine how to provide
flexible organizational cultures to support their work. Women’s professional
lives are less often characterized by a linear trajectory. Based on the
findings, this study examines how academic librarians conceive of and perceive
their career path trajectories as they relate to their overall sense of
satisfaction with their careers to date and their feelings of support from
their employers.
The initial
findings of this study, drawn from 433 survey responses, suggest that for those
participants who most strongly identify their current career phase as one of
Authenticity, they’re intrinsically motivated by values and sense of “fit”
within their library or the profession. For those who strongly identify with
Challenge, they’re extrinsically motivated by traditional rewards, such as
higher salary and more responsibilities. Intertwined within each of these two
phases is Balance, as the characteristics of that phase heavily impact how
academic librarians perceive their overall career paths. Applying the
Kaleidoscope Career Model in the academic library context enables practitioners
to equip their profession with the language and data to describe themselves as
well as provide an opportunity for self-reflection. As a result, we can better
understand how perceptions of career trajectory impact the industry and its
ability to retain talent.
Literature Review
There exists a
gap in the literature addressing career path changes. This literature review is
divided into a discussion of career progression, a discussion of the increasing
demand for a flexible workforce in response to changing expectations in higher
education, and a discussion of job satisfaction. The literature that explores
these areas focuses almost exclusively on different phases in one’s career,
with the assumption of a linear or stagnant progression into management roles.
While some of the work presented here explores these issues, little research in
libraries has focused on cyclical or nonlinear progression. This study
addresses this gap in the literature through the application of Lisa Mainiero and Sherry Sullivan’s Kaleidoscope Career Model.
Career Progression
In their book The
Opt-Out Revolt: Why People are Leaving Companies to Create Kaleidoscope Careers,
Mainiero and Sullivan (2006a) argue creating adaptive
career paths have fallen to employees because most organizations have not proactively
developed such structures of support. Their study included survey instruments
and interviews with men and women of different generations and industries.
Based on the data they collected, we developed a new framework for conceiving
of career trajectories. They define the Kaleidoscope Career Model as “a career
created on your own terms, defined not by a corporation but by your own values,
life choices, and parameters. Like a kaleidoscope, your career is dynamic and
in motion” (p. 11). The authors go on to argue that “as your life changes, you
can alter your career to adjust to those changes rather than relinquishing
control and letting a corporation dictate your life for you” (p. 111). Their
research revealed that “for men the prospect of a linear career within the same
firm or industry is still highly valued” (p. 107). By contrast the authors
argue “for women, a ‘career’—often defined as a series of interrupted jobs,
transitions, and shifts—cannot be separated from a larger understanding of
their lifestyle priorities” (p. 107). Mainiero and
Sullivan conclude with an analysis of the impact of people’s changing
perceptions of their career trajectories on industry: “For employers,
understanding the importance of the Kaleidoscope Career is critical . . . Until
now, career paths and succession plans within corporations have [not] been
based . . . on the . . . (challenge-balance-authenticity) Kaleidoscope Career
pattern that characterizes most women” (p. 153). The study presented here
employed the Kaleidoscope Career Model survey tool and explores how the field
of academic librarianship complements or complicates the findings in
professions writ large.
Two years after
they completed their book, Sullivan and Mainiero
(2008) published an article aiming to provide suggestions for reconsidering
human resource development programs with women’s career trajectories in mind.
They argue that by mid-career the women in their study were predominantly
concerned about the issue of balance (p. 36). The authors underscore the ways
in which women evaluate opportunities and make decisions, through the lens of
relationalism (p. 37). Drawing on their Kaleidoscope Career Model career
phases, they argue that to meet women’s needs and fit within their framework
for decision making, organizations should consider how women perceive their
current career phase. When working with those in the Authenticity phase,
organizations should focus on corporate social responsibility and company
efforts to promote total wellness in mind, body, and spirit. Organizational
mission should align with women’s personal values and promote ethics and values
(p. 38). By contrast when working with a woman in the Balance phase,
organizations should reward actual performance, regardless of “face time” in
the office, and create actual “family friendly” programs that consider needs
outside of work (pp. 39–40). Finally, for those women in the Challenge phase,
the authors argue organizations should create equitable access to challenging,
meaningful job assignments and training opportunities and should design career
development programs with opportunities (pp. 40–41). These recommendations
highlight the need to find solutions that fit with individual needs and goals,
rather than treat one’s workforce as a monolith. Based on the data presented in
this study, librarians have similar unmet needs and desire differing levels and
systems of support from their organizations throughout the lifecycle.
Applying Mainiero and Sullivan’s (2006a, 2008) work to the field of
health care with nurses in Australia, O’Neill and Jepson (2017) conducted a
two-phase study to better understand the interplay of women's Kaleidoscope
career intentions and life roles. They found “some women seek to transform
their worker and leisure life roles as they desire authenticity in their life
and will pursue paid and unpaid work as well as leisure activities to do so”
(p. 971). Volunteer work was one example of the kind of unpaid work these women
might pursue. Based on their data, the authors conclude “individuals with a
high leisure life role commitment may seek authenticity in their late career
and want to engage in leisure life roles that provide them with internal
fulfilment and satisfaction” (p. 973). Surprisingly, the authors found that
women seeking balance struggle more when caring for aging parents than when
caring for children. Women also seemed to continue to pursue challenging work
late into their career. These women may have fewer commitments to non-work life
roles, such as caregiving or leisure pursuits than others in their study. The
authors stressed the importance of considering the impact and flux of care
responsibilities and other non-work life pursuits throughout the life cycle
when recruiting and retaining women nurses. Furthermore, they underscored the
importance of providing both organizational support for evolving needs, and the
role governmental programs play in women’s ability to successfully navigate
care duties. Published in 2017, this article is one of the first to apply the
Kaleidoscope Career Model to a female-dominated profession, which in that
regard is similar to librarianship.
Meeting the Demand for a Flexible Workforce
Narrowing down
to the field of librarianship within higher education, Maggie Farrell (2013)
highlights the changing nature of career progression in her article, “Lifecycle
of Library Leadership.” Farrell contends “a librarian might move from a
management position to a non-management position and then to a high-level
leadership position. Our organizations are far more fluid today, challenging us
to rethink how an individual progresses within libraries” (p. 257). As Farrell
argues, academic libraries have continued to experiment with non-traditional
organizational hierarchies and job duties. She states “one view of leadership
development is that you progress from a position to a supervisor to a manager
to a leader. Another perspective is that positions change and individuals
develop their skill sets but not necessarily in a linear fashion” (p. 264). Farrell’s
work does not include data indicating the experiences of those whose careers
proceed in a nonlinear path.
Though Farrell
acknowledges such a path exists, her discussion of management and leadership
skill acquisition follows traditional assumptions about such senior roles. The
hard and soft skills needed to be successful as first a manager and then, as
Farrell argues, as a leader do not come into play before one prepares to or
enters those advanced positions. Once one has those skills, should a senior
leader choose to enter into a practitioner role again, “you can take these
skills with you . . . Whereas tradition outlined a linear, developing path for
leadership development, our libraries today require aspects of these skills
throughout our organization. Leadership development at all levels of our
libraries will enhance our work” (p. 264). It seems as though Farrell is not
necessarily advocating for leadership skill development at all levels; rather
she recognizes the benefit of taking advantage of those skill sets once a
senior manager returns to a role elsewhere in the organizational hierarchy.
Michael Ridley’s
(2014) work, “Returning to the Ranks,” explores similar benefits to library
organizations as Farrell. He argues for those library deans and administrators
who have term limits or choose to leave those roles and assume duties outside
of library administration within their organization to consider that many
“former chief librarians often have unique and valuable skill sets that can be
exploited” (p. 4). In librarianship, we tend to think of career paths as a
linear progression rather than cyclical. According to Ridley, senior leaders
often feel they experience a “professional de-skilling” as they move into
administration (p. 3). Their work becomes increasingly focused on external
stakeholders, and their peer group shifts from librarians to senior
administrators in other university units. Facilitating this transition requires
overcoming key challenges including how the former leader develops the most
productive relationship with their new boss and the person’s transition to a
new role, which may include a sabbatical or vacation time and—if
applicable—being part of a union again. Moreover, Ridley highlights the dearth
of librarians willing to enter into senior administrative roles and encourages
decision-makers to develop “a more supportive policy and reward structure that
facilitates returning to the ranks [which] might encourage librarians to
explore management and administrative roles without feeling that they are
somehow ‘leaving the profession’” (p. 9). Ridley’s work makes a valuable
contribution to the literature; his recommendations emerge from conversations
with four senior leaders, including himself, who “returned to the ranks” of
librarianship. These lessons learned offer a useful starting point for further
analysis of librarian career paths.
Sources of Motivation and Job Satisfaction
Determining
sources of motivation and job satisfaction are two related areas that impact
one’s career path and form the cornerstone of this study. In their 2009
article, Mallaiah and Yadapadithaya
describe the findings from a survey they distributed to fifteen academic
librarians working at universities throughout Karnataka. Focused on exploring
intrinsic motivation, the authors concluded that library work, itself, and a
sense of personal worth were two drivers. Considering the broader implications
of their work, Mallaiah and Yadapadithaya
argue “motivation is culture specific, industry-specific, and organization-specific
and context or situation-specific in nature” (p. 41). Related to sources of
motivation is job satisfaction.
Authors Adigwe and Oriola (2015) found among Nigerian librarians “with
increased length of service, the importance of job satisfaction decreased for
factors such as self-actualization and conditions of work, but the importance
of pay increased” (p. 782). For those in American academic libraries seeking to
increase their salaries, few pathways exist other than entering formal
leadership and management positions. Kathy Pennell (2010) underscores an
increasing interest in “shifting away from the use of narrowly defined job
descriptions toward more flexible ones that are not skill based but are based
on job roles. The flexibility allows the latitude necessary to provide
opportunities for job rotation or stretch assignments to help develop
high-potential employees” (p. 286). As a result, employees can better meet
their professional and personal needs and goals throughout their careers, while
employers gain a more satisfied and motivated workforce.
This study
contributes to the existing literature in three critical ways. First, no researchers
to date have addressed the evolving needs of practitioners through a lifecycle
model lens. The research presented here builds on Mainiero
and Sullivan’s (2006a) work by applying the model to the academic librarian
context. The Kaleidoscope Career Model provides the library profession and
organizations with an approach through which to critically reflect on their
current practices, values, and support mechanisms. Second, examining the career
paths of those in senior as well as mid-level and entry-level positions in
academic libraries fills a gap in the literature that to date has focused
almost exclusively on senior-level positions. Third, unlike previous analyses
of librarians’ motivations, the conclusions presented here address both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Aims
This study
addresses two interrelated questions: What motivates library professionals in
doing their work, and what can library administrators do to retain and inspire
their staff? Library professionals should have a better understanding of what
motivates them in their work, why they may or may not choose a traditional
career advancement path, and how priorities in their life may shift over time
and change their career perspectives. This study also underscores the important
role library administrators play in understanding the individual motivations of
their staff and supporting their employees with a more holistic approach
throughout their careers. The application of the Kaleidoscope Career Model,
with its Authenticity, Balance, and Challenge phases, is one framework through
which library professionals and administrators can understand how such
motivators could, and likely do, change throughout the lifecycle.
Methods
We adapted the
Kaleidoscope Career Model survey tool (Mainiero &
Sullivan, 2006b) with permission, which was obtained via email from Mainiero and Sullivan. This survey had been validated as
part of the previous research projects Mainiero and
Sullivan conducted. We piloted but did not validate the adapted survey tool.
Following the guidelines in Fink’s (2013) How to Conduct Surveys, we
pilot tested the survey by emailing a link to the adapted survey available
through Qualtrics to seven academic librarians and received feedback from five
people. We made subsequent edits to the survey based on this feedback. Changes
to the tool included briefer terms on the statements of agreement scale and an
adjustment in some language to be less corporate and more congruent with the
academic library work environment. The survey tool included thirty statements
with a five-point scale, allowing participants to express how much they agreed
or disagreed with each statement. The answers to those thirty statements
resulted in the score participants received, indicating which of the three Kaleidoscope
phases they most closely identified with. The remainder of the survey included
questions about how they felt about their results (Appendix), whether they felt
supported by their library administration, if they supervise or want to
supervise, and if they consider themselves a leader or want to be a leader. The
survey also asked several demographic questions related to institutional
affiliation, gender/gender identity, age, and time spent working in the
profession. The questions were a mix of close-ended and open-ended questions.
We developed the survey using Qualtrics, which enabled us to easily capture
participant responses and begin analysis after data collection.
After receiving
approval from the Institutional Review Boards at both the University of
Arkansas and the University of Rochester, we sent a call for participation with
the link to the survey to six library electronic mailing lists via email in
October 2019. The mailing lists included Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of
the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), Society of American
Archivists, University Libraries section of the ACRL division of the American
Libraries Association (ALA), College Libraries section of the ACRL division of
the American Libraries Association (ALA), and the former Library Leadership and
Management Association division of ALA. The email included an information
letter describing the research project. Participants had one month to complete
the survey. We emailed two reminders as the survey window continued.
Once the survey
closed, we exported initial statistics from Qualtrics to determine the
breakdown of participants by career phase. We reviewed the demographic data and
charts Qualtrics generated and used an open coding method to analyze the qualitative
responses to open ended questions included in the survey. First, we read
through those responses and then identified common words, phrases, and ideas,
which became initial codes. Each of us coded and analyzed each question. We
then shared our analyses with one another for reliability. Once compared, we
worked together to finalize codes for each question based on the context of the
original participant responses. Then we reviewed the codes and determined
themes common in the data. Those themes then informed the discussion and
recommendations shared below.
Results
The results are
interpreted through three categories based on the questions asked in the
survey: participants’ general demographic information, participants’ sense of
administrative support, and participants’ interest in taking on or continuing
in leadership or supervisory roles.
Demographics
A total of 433 people completed the survey. The
majority worked at 4-year doctoral-granting universities (Table 1). Nearly half
of all respondents worked in public services with nearly one-fifth working in
special collections/archives (Table 2). About one-quarter of participants had
twenty or more years of work experience in librarianship (Figure 2). The
largest group of participants (23%) were aged 34–40 (Figure 3). The authors use
the term early-career to refer to those participants aged 22-33; the term
mid-career for those 34-52; and late-career for those 52 and older. The vast
majority (74%) of participants identified as female (Figure 4).
To contextualize the demographics in this study, the
authors exchanged emails with ACRL staff, who provided the 2018 ACRL member
survey data. Of 3,029 respondents, 1% of respondents were aged 18–24 years old,
20% were 25–34, 25% were 35–44, 24% were 45–54, 22% were 55–64, and 9% were 65
and older. Of the respondents, 77% were female (or 2,332.33 respondents), and
20% were male (or 605.8 respondents), with 1% indicated a different gender
identity (or 30.29 respondents) and 2% preferred not to say (or 60.58
respondents). The age and gender demographics in this study were consistent
with the 2018 ACRL survey. The gender demographics were also in line with the
ARL Annual Salary Survey 2018–2019 (Morris, 2019), which found that in U.S. and
non-U.S. libraries, men comprise 36.9% (or 3,541) of staff and women comprise
63.1% (or 6,050 of staff).
Table 1
Institution Type
of Participants
|
Institution
|
Participants
|
|
4-year doctoral-granting
university
|
54% (235 participants)
|
|
4-year masters-granting
university
|
16% (68)
|
|
4-year bachelors-granting
university
|
10% (43)
|
|
Other (e.g., public,
distance, special, nonprofit, seminary, Library of Congress, government
agency, consortium, health sciences, research)
|
5% (24)
|
|
2-year community/vocational
college
|
5% (21)
|
|
Left blank
|
10% (42)
|
Table 2
Functional Area
of Work of Participants
|
Functional
Area
|
Participants
|
|
Public services
|
41% (176 participants)
|
|
Special collections/archives
|
18% (74)
|
|
Administration
|
13% (57)
|
|
Technical services
|
10% (43)
|
|
Other
|
8% (35)
|
Figure 2
Years of
experience.
Figure 3
Age ranges of
participants.
Figure 4
Gender identity
of participants.
Focusing on the breakdown of participants in each
career phase (Figure 5), 60% of respondents identified as being in the
Authenticity phase, 15% in Challenge, and 18% in the Balance phase. Some
respondents identified as a combination of phases: 3% of all respondents
identified as Authenticity and Balance, 3% as Authenticity and Challenge, and
1% as Balance and Challenge. We have not focused on these results, as the small
percentages do not warrant generalizations and therefore do not factor into the
study’s overall findings.
Figure 5
Breakdown of
participants by career phase.
Among those in the Authenticity phase (Figure 6)
nearly one-fifth were entering mid-career and were between the ages of 34–40.
This age group was the largest in the survey population. A mere 3% of
participants were 65 years old or older. A similarly small percentage (4%) were
aged 22–27 and were at the beginning of their careers.
Figure 6
Age ranges of
Authenticity participants.
Nearly one-third
of participants in the Challenge phase (Figure 7) were between the ages of
34–40 and 12% were aged 59–64 or nearing retirement age. There were fewer
participants in the Challenge phase in what is traditionally thought of as
mid-career than in the Authenticity phase.
Figure 7
Age ranges of
Challenge participants.
The largest
group (30%) who identified as in the Balance phase (Figure 8) were aged 34–40
years old. Similar to the age breakdowns of the other two phases, there were
few participants early in their careers or nearing retirement.
Figure 8
Age ranges of
Balance participants.
Sense of Administrative Support
Overall, most
participants expressed positive reactions when asked if they felt supported by
their administration. Drawing on participants’ comments to this question, they
define “supported” as having a supervisor who fosters accountability; displays
behavior to indicate they trust workers, including offering flexible schedules,
professional development, work–life balance, and autonomy to develop new
projects and structure work more generally; advocates for workers; fosters
creativity and collaboration; and engages with the work while not
micro-managing. The phrases participants used when they described not feeling
supported by their supervisors included not feeling respected, valued, or
understood; feeling there was incompetent leadership in the organization; and
not feeling connected to staff, patrons, or work culture.
Figure 9
Feeling of
support from administration.
When asked if they felt supported (Figure 9), those in
the Authenticity phase reported the highest overall level of satisfaction,
followed by those in the Challenge and then Balance phases. Among the
participants who responded negatively, those in the Balance phase represented
the largest percentage of participants who did not feel supported by their
supervisor at 38%. Of the Authenticity phase, 28% responded negatively, and of
those in the Challenge phase 31% responded negatively.
When considering the participants’ age together with
their career phase, those in the Authenticity phase experienced peak feelings
of support between the ages of 47–52 with 81% of respondents answering
positively (Figure 10). That percentage steadily declines amongst older
participants with only 29% of respondents ages 65–70 answering positively.
Those in the Balance phase experienced peak feelings of support between ages
65–70 at 100% followed by ages 41–46 with 75% of respondents answering
positively. The youngest (100% of those 22–27) and the oldest (100% of those
65–70) participants in the Challenge phase reported feeling supported. Unlike
the participants in the other two phases, those in the Challenge phase
experienced feeling lower levels of support between 47–52 and 59–64 years old,
with 57% and 40% respectively responding positively.
Figure 10
Feeling of
support by age and career phase.
Interest in Leadership and Supervisory Roles
Interest in serving in a management or leadership role
varied across age groups as well as career phases. When asking participants
about their interest, we defined management to mean a formal supervisory
position and leadership to be a little more ambiguous, including non-formal
roles such as project manager, mentor, or other influential role outside of
direct supervision.
Figure 11
Overall interest in supervising or leading.
Looking at the overall picture, there was high
interest in becoming both a supervisor and an organizational leader from the
youngest cohort (Figure 11). However, interest diminished amongst the older age
cohorts, with the lowest interest showing in the 47–52 age group, before rising
slightly again.
This can further be broken down by career phase, which
reveals more nuance about when interest peaks by age group (Figure 12). For
example, when asked their interest in becoming a supervisor, those between ages
28–33 were the peak age group in the Authenticity phase. For the Balance phase,
the peak occurred with librarians between ages 22–27 who are at the very
beginning of their careers. However, the peak was at a later age group, between
ages 34–40, for the respondents in the Challenge phase.
Figure 12
Interest in becoming a supervisor by age. (The gaps
between columns represent those age ranges with no participant responses.)
When
participants in the Authenticity phase were asked about their interest in becoming
a leader, those earlier in their careers responded more favorably than those
age 34 and older (Figure 13) Those who were early in their careers and in the Challenge phase expressed noticeable
interest in becoming leaders.
Interestingly, no participants aged 53–58 in the Balance and Challenges
phases answered this question. Interest in becoming an organizational leader
showed a noticeable drop in age groups older than 34 across all phases.
Figure 13
Interest in becoming a leader by age. (The gaps between
columns represent those age ranges with no participant responses.)
This sometimes reluctance in supervision and
leadership work can seem a stark contrast to the overall interest shown by
experienced librarians in either continuing in their role as a supervisor or in
their perception of themselves as organizational leaders (Figure 14). Younger
cohorts already working as supervisors or in leadership positions were less
enthusiastic about continuing, with the lowest numbers in the 28–33 range.
Figure 14
Overall current perceptions of supervision and
leadership.
The data reveals the intersections of age with career
phase, suggesting opportunities for administrators to nurture these
professionals and encourage them to continue in supervisory or leadership
roles.
Common to each phase, practitioners seem interested in
continuing in a supervisory role when earlier on in their careers (Figure 15).
However, older cohorts in the Balance phase are less interested than those in
the other two phases in continuing to supervise. For those in the Authenticity
phase, interest peaked at mid-career between ages 47–52. For those in the
Challenge phase, interest was highest among the 41–46 cohort.
Figure 15
Interest in continuing to supervise by age. (The gaps
between columns represent those age ranges with no participant responses.)
Those in the Authenticity phase identified most
strongly with being organizational leaders between the ages of 47–52 (Figure
16). Each cohort in the Challenge phase strongly identified as leaders, with
peak interest among those in mid-career and approaching retirement. Cohorts in
the Balance phase do not identify as consistently with being leaders, with
significant declines occurring among those ages 28–33, and again among the
59–64 years old.
Figure 16
Consider themselves a leader by age. (The gaps between
columns represent those age ranges with no participant responses.)
Discussion
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations drive the
decisions and goals participants have made in their careers. When asked to
reflect on their perceptions about their career paths, and specifically to
consider the level of support they experienced and their interest in assuming
or continuing to serve in management or leadership roles, these sources of
motivations surfaced. Those in the Balance phase felt the least supported when
compared with those in the other two phases. When reflecting, one participant
commented “at my previous institution, my boss wanted us to take time for
ourselves, but he was also aggressive, critical, and unequal in his treatment.”
This group is managing extrinsic sources of motivation including care and life
responsibilities. That lack of support surfaced regardless of age, whereas in
the other two phases participants of different ages experienced varying levels
of support.
Those in the Authenticity phase responded more
positively to assuming leadership, as opposed to management, roles. One such
participant shared “I just took on new responsibilities and a new title (lateral
move) that is giving me the opportunity to add value to my organization.” This
finding speaks to the intrinsic motivation that participants expressed and
their interest in the non-hierarchical nature of such duties that do not
necessarily include supervisory responsibilities. Higher salary, an advanced
title, and the drive for greater responsibilities are the types of
intrinsically focused motivations that push those in the Challenge phase to
pursue and remain in management and leadership roles. As one participant
responded, “I came into librarianship as a second career after a divorce. My
motivation has primarily been focused on advancement . . . to provide for my
children. That being said, I also love a challenge, and leadership roles
provide those more than other positions.” Though this group certainly benefits
from being supported, they possess a strong drive to pursue advancement on
their own.
Support
The most consistent feelings of support across all age
groups, regardless of career phase, were expressed by those in the Authenticity
phase. One participant shared the following:
I am given
respectful space to share both my opinions and my ideas. When I provide enough
evidence of my position, I am generally permitted to move forward as I wish.
When I have not, I am respectfully challenged to collect more information and
strengthen my case. If an endeavor ultimately does not turn out to be
successful, I still feel respected for trying.
As someone who has strong personal values,
characteristic of the Authenticity phase, this participant appreciates being
given the opportunity to share their opinions and ideas. Working for someone
who then explains their decision helps the person to continue to feel respected
in the workplace. In contrast to those in the Challenge phase, those in the
Authenticity phase felt the least supported at the ages of 34–46 years old. As
one participant in this cohort explained,
I am in the
middle of changing careers and want to be more involved in Heritage
Preservation, especially international, intangible and theoretical. So I am back in school myself. I feel that archivy [sic] is a calling, that it called me and for the
last 20 years I have served, but I am burnt out and tired of the same old
battles. Also, this field does not pay well enough.
Mid-career practitioners, who identify as in the
Authenticity phase have tried to fit themselves into the values mold of their
organization and have not found a good fit. Participants entering mid-career
seem to experience a crossroads where they confront their own values and those
of their organization. As a result, practitioners appear more inclined to make
a career pivot that more closely aligns with their personal values.
The highest percentage of respondents who did not feel
supported were those in the Balance phase. Mainiero
and Sullivan (2006a) point to support and flexibility as key drivers for women
making career decisions. Such support to juggle work and life responsibilities
can come from their spouses or partners, employers, or family members. The
responses from this study’s participants echo Mainiero
and Sullivan’s (2006a) conclusion that the absence of such support in women’s
quest for balance strongly impacts their career decisions (p. 193). Such
responses suggest that supervisors have not found or implemented adequate
strategies to best meet the needs of those who balance family, relationships,
caregiving, and personal health and emotional conditions throughout the
lifecycle. One participant reflected on the supportive relationship they have
with their supervisor:
My current
supervisor is also a mother and is very supportive of taking time off to attend
kid things, staying home with sick kid, etc. I feel that the administration at
my current job are very understanding and supportive of work-life balance. I
also have been supported in professional development and I know that my
supervisor wants me to succeed in my career.
Older participants reported an absence of support,
suggesting that supervisors may not give as much attention to work–life balance
issues throughout the lifecycle. As one participant explained, “I feel that I
am on the B team and that the newer librarians have been given the support to
shine.” When analyzing these results by age, it is worth noting that only one
participant was in the 65–70 age group, so additional data would be needed to
determine if those in the Balance phase feel supported later in life.
The data indicates that for those aged 34–46 in the
Challenge phase, practitioners begin to take on advanced roles or move into
management positions as they feel a strong sense of support from their
supervisors. One participant responded “I have the resources I need and am
encouraged to pursue my own interests and professional contributions.”
Intrinsically motivated, this participant’s comment highlights the individualistic
nature, rather than values-driven or work–life balance focus, of those in the
Challenge phase. By contract, practitioners approaching retirement feel waning
support. Participants aged 47–52 experienced a lower level of support with 57%
responding positively, while only 40% of those aged 59–64 felt supported. This
finding suggests that once practitioners have less that challenges them
professionally, they feel less supported to pursue their goals.
Interest in Leadership and Supervisory Roles
Participants who identified themselves as being in the
Authenticity phase seemed much more interested in leading informally rather
than advancing through formal management structures. One participant reflected:
“I am currently in middle management and find the work challenging and
fulfilling. I'm not sure I want to go further up the ladder because it might
mean having to make decisions that are inconsistent with my values.” Those in
the Authenticity phase are also strongly interested in their lives outside of
work and a focus for them is work–life balance. Participants’ interest in being
a supervisor peaked at the 28–33 age range, which suggests the beginning of a
values misalignment with their organization or profession. The issue of
competing priorities and misaligned values led one participant to share that
these struggles are “at the root of the burnout issue, especially for women who
find it difficult to be managers at work and caretakers at home . . . many of
us do not feel listened to or respected in dysfunctional academic libraries.”
These early experiences and misalignment with their personal values lead
practitioners to pull back from formal supervisory roles and seek out
alternative career paths. Practitioners seemed to shift and more strongly identify
themselves as organizational leaders at the 34–40 age range. One participant
stated:
I prefer to lead
in less formal ways like chairing campus committees or being part of task
forces or working groups. I find it more satisfying to work on a project and
see it completed or implemented rather than having to deal with ongoing issues
with no end in sight.
Overall, these participants expressed more sources of
extrinsic motivation, such as finding fulfillment through making a difference
in students’ lives, rather than sources of intrinsic motivation, such as
building a career through promotions. An informal role could position those in
the Authenticity phase to become strong leaders of project-based work with
concrete objectives and timelines; thereby enabling these practitioners who are
values-oriented to feel a sense of accomplishment, which can be harder to
attain when in a formal supervisory role.
This source of motivation contrasts quite noticeably
with participants who identified as being in the Challenge phase. Participants
expressed interest in new positions, the opportunity to supervise and earn
promotions and increased salaries. One participant stated their goal as:
Yes, I would
like to become more of an organizational leader, but not at my current place of
employment. I would like to work at an organization where I felt there were
more opportunities for the kind of work I enjoy doing, so that there would be
clearer lines towards leadership opportunities.
This participant identified their career goal and
sought to advance by leaving the organization and working in a library with an
organizational culture oriented toward leadership opportunities. Those in the
Challenge phase aged 28–33 responded positively with 60%, considering
themselves to be organizational leaders earlier in their careers. Of the three
groups, this group showed the highest satisfaction at being a supervisor later
in their career.
Finally, those in the Balance phase most strongly
indicated that they do not feel prepared for management positions. Rather than
seek out leadership or supervisory responsibilities, those in the Balance phase
may find themselves asked to assume those roles before they have gotten the
training or identified an advancement path as a career goal. One participant
stated, “I became a leader somewhat unwillingly and in a time of need for our
library. I often feel inadequate and unprepared in my work.” This participant’s
experience underscores the impact of being extrinsically motivated. Overall,
those in the Balance phase do not show a strong propensity for wanting to be
supervisors, especially early in their careers. One participant commented: “I
think the profession as a whole needs to reconcile how
librarians can translate their skills across positions/organizations/etc. I
have no idea how to leverage the experience I have to transition to a different
type of library work.” Such practitioners can feel stalled as they may be organizational
leaders, but not supervisors, due to the limitations of the library’s
hierarchy. Taking a more a passive approach to their careers highlights the
importance of training and organizational support for those prioritizing
work–life balance.
Looking across the career phases amongst those who are
not already supervising, the strongest interest (58% of respondents) in
assuming such a role came from the youngest cohort, who are the newest to the
profession and most enthusiastic to take on the roles. But for those aged 34–40
that interest dropped to below 30% with subsequent age cohorts even less
interested in assuming management roles. The surprisingly low interest in
continuing to supervise amongst those in their late twenties and early thirties
is also concerning. Why don’t these young professionals want to keep
supervising? One participant commented: “Right now, I'm feeling very drained
from having no support from my supervisor + having direct reports that clearly
don't care for my supervisory role . . . external factors like low morale and
lack of institutional support are affecting my views and values . . ..” Their
younger counterparts expressed strong interest in supervising, and yet this
group of similarly aged individuals seemed uninterested in continuing to
supervise. Not getting enough training or support could be an indicator. The
responsibilities of the position may compete too strongly with raising a family
or participating in outside activities. The interest in continuing to supervise
noticeably rises in the next age cohort (34–40), suggesting the impact of a
degree of maturity, increased wisdom, and comfort due to job experience.
Additional research is needed to determine the root causes of this uninterest
in the younger group.
Leadership perception and interest from participants
followed a similar pattern. One participant stated, “I am very interested in
what library leadership looks like outside of the traditional management role
or model. There are many, many ways to exercise leadership skills that do not
involve becoming a direct supervisor or manager.” The 28–33 age group was least
likely to consider themselves current leaders; this group also displayed the
lowest interest in being a supervisor and seems to be struggling with issues related
to both formal and informal leadership, in ways that the age cohorts that are a
little younger and older, do not. One participant who identified as in the
Authenticity phase commented:
While I have had
a few promotions earlier on in my career, I feel like I have more or less
plateaued. I am not really seeking new opportunities or challenges because I
don't feel that I can take much more on at this point in my life.
This sentiment exactly matches the results from the
supervision question, suggesting, perhaps unsurprisingly, that older librarians
are less interested in being leaders. Experiencing burnout may be one cause. As
one participant reflected, “I get tired and need more vacation and down time
[than] in the past. At times I feel burned out with the long hours and social
events required of my position.” It is notable that interest in continuing to
supervise peaked among the mid-career group of 41–46, which suggests career
burnout could be more likely to occur during this age range. Each subsequent
cohort also showed a 20% difference between interest in being a leader vs.
interest in being a supervisor.
Limitations
The gender breakdown of participants is the principal
limitation of this study; 74% of the sample identified as female. Therefore,
the analysis and recommendations presented here may not be generalizable to
those practitioners who identify as male or gender variant/non-conforming. The
authors also acknowledge that they did not collect data on race, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, disabilities, or other identity-related categorizations
that could have provided further data on the social hierarchies inherent in
libraries. Further research is suggested on identifying library career
motivation issues from an intersectional perspective.
Recommendations
When considering how administrators and supervisors
can best foster leaders and managers and support their work forces overall,
this research yields several key contributions to the literature.
Administrators should seek out information about employees’ career phases as
part of onboarding by implementing specific strategies. Such strategies could
help to identify sources of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, career goals,
personal values, and non-work-related interests and responsibilities. Employers
can then be better positioned to support their staff as they develop.
When working with librarians who identify with the
Authenticity phase, administrators should work with their employees to develop
career goals that are extrinsically based, such as what can be achieved through
good work rather than striving for a dream position. Administrators should
provide these librarians with the latitude to better align their job with work
goals, such as giving someone who loves to teach the chance to teach more or
take a leadership role in developing an instruction program. These librarians
embrace opportunities to lead via projects, committees, and other
non-hierarchical leadership work. Administrators should proactively engage
those librarians in the Authenticity phase aged 34–46 in discussions of
organizational values and priorities, which may help librarians to feel better
aligned with their organizations. Due to the high value those in the
Authenticity phase place on principles, administrators should include them,
when possible, in institutional and departmental visioning and goal setting and
allow them to align their work to the bigger picture. The majority of survey
respondents (60%) identified with the Authenticity phase; if this figure is
consistent with the general library population, then library administrators
would do well to offer numerous informal leadership opportunities and provide
inclusive ways for librarians to influence the work culture.
Librarians in the Balance phase would benefit from
early opportunities to develop leadership roles or serve in supervisory roles.
These early opportunities better fit with their efforts to prioritize
non-work-related responsibilities later in life. Training must precede such
opportunities to best support and encourage skill development. They should
encourage their staff to seek out mentors as they consider potential new roles.
Administrators should also provide more hands-on support through conversation,
feedback, and opportunities for stretch assignments.
For those who identify with the Challenge phase,
administrators should work with them to find early opportunities to fill a
leadership role or supervise others. Organizations should implement formal
promotion guidelines, which will benefit all employees, and keep this group
engaged. Librarians in the Challenge phase are intrinsically motivated to
achieve and strive. They may experience disappointment as newer career
librarians continue to advance while they begin to plateau later in life.
Regardless of age, these librarians continue to crave the latitude to redefine
their position or take on new responsibilities to alleviate potential boredom.
Whichever career phase a librarian identifies with,
administrators should strive to nurture and support young supervising
librarians in order to foster better managers and leaders and sustain their
interest in the role. Such strategies could include offering flexible
scheduling to accommodate care duties, options to work part of their time
remotely, or adjusting job duties as care duties demand. Feeling as though the
administration has their backs was the most common response from participants.
As one participant shared, “my immediate supervisor . . . [is] very attentive
and points out when I'm working towards burnout. The[y] remind me to try to
balance everything.” Librarians working in an organization that demonstrates it
supports all of its employees will be more engaged and motivated. When
considering strategies to maintain current levels of support or to address gaps,
administrators should certainly get to know their employees to find out what
kind of support would best work for them and what future roles and
responsibilities best fit with their aspirations.
At their core, the recommendations described here are
intended to develop and maintain a highly engaged workforce. Clear
communication, transparency, and creative problem solving will be key to
implementing these recommendations. Organizational culture heavily impacts
personal behavior and a leader’s ability to bring about change (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2006a, p. 243). At a fundamental
level, such leaders must consider the kinds of changes their organization can
withstand as they strive to best support and foster the growth and development
of all of their employees.
Conclusion
The findings from this study underscore the importance
of providing academic librarians flexibility and support as practitioners seek
to craft their own career paths. Such paths may include advancing into senior
leadership positions and back out again, being fulfilled in a non-managerial
position that gives practitioners time to spend on care responsibilities, or
being in roles that align with their personal values and ethics. Not mutually
exclusive, this study illustrates how career paths intersect with life events,
goals, and experiences. Practitioners shift between those Challenge, Balance,
and Authenticity phases as their needs evolve over the course of their careers.
Each phase provides leaders with its own framework through which to communicate
with their employees and best meet them where they are, in terms of their
priorities and what they value or need at that particular time.
Leaders can no longer afford to be complacent when it
comes to talent development and retention. As this study highlights,
practitioners are looking for more than just a paycheck in recognition of their
time and contributions. Rather, leaders should consider the intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations that guide each of their staff members to provide
opportunities that fit with the employees’ career phases and senses of
themselves within that phase. These phases provide organizations with a new
framework to imagine structuring work, roles, and support within libraries and
to allow academic librarians a lens for viewing their careers that replaces the
straight linear progression of the past. Academic library leaders must
recognize the changing needs of their workforce and strive to evolve their
practices, policies, and cultures to best support their teams.
Author Contributions
Lori Birrell: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing Marcy A. Strong: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing
References
Adigwe, I., & Oriola, J. (2015). Towards an understanding of job
satisfaction as it correlates with organizational change among personnel in
computer-based special libraries in Southwest Nigeria. The Electronic
Library, 33(4), 773–794. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2014-0018
Barclay, S. R., Stoltz, K. B., & Chung, Y. B. (September 2011).
Voluntary midlife career change: Integrating the transtheoretical model and the
life-span, life-space approach. Career Development Quarterly, 39,
386–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.tb00966.x
Betz, N., & E. (2003). A proactive approach to mid-career
development. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(2), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000002250478
Farrell, M. (2013). Lifecycle of library leadership. Journal of
Library Administration, 53, 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2013.865390
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th
edition). Sage.
Franks, T. P. (2017). Should I
stay or should I go? A survey of career path movement within academic, public
and special librarianship. Journal of Library Administration, 57(3),
282–310, https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2016.1259200
Fyn, A., Heady, C., Foster-Kaufman, A., & Hosier, A. (2019). Why we
leave: Exploring academic librarian turnover and retention strategies. Association
of College and Research Libraries Conference Proceedings http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2019/WhyWeLeave.pdf
Lacey, S., & Stewart, M. P. (2017). Jumping into the deep: Imposter
syndrome, defining success, and the new librarian. Partnership: The Canadian
Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v12i1.3979
Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. S.W. (2015). How have careers
changed? An investigation of changing career patterns across four generations. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 8–21. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1108/JMP-07-2014-0210
Mainiero, L. A., &
Sullivan, S. (2006a). The opt-out revolt: Why people are leaving companies
to create Kaleidoscope careers. Davis-Black Publishing.
Mainiero, L. A., &
Sullivan, S. (2006b). The Kaleidoscope Career Self-Assessment Inventory: A
guide to understanding the career parameters that drive your motivation for work.
Unpublished manuscript.
Mallaiah, T. Y., & Yadapadithaya, P. S. (2009). Intrinsic motivation of
librarians in university libraries in Karnataka. DESIDOC Journal of Library
& Information Technology, 29(3), 36–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.29.250
Montgomery, D. L. (2002). Happily ever after:
Plateauing as a means for long-term career satisfaction. Library Trends, 50(4),
702–716.
Morris, S. (2019). ARL Annual Salary Survey 2018–2019.
Association of Research Libraries.
O’Neill, M. S., & Jepsen, D. (2017). Women’s desire for the
kaleidoscope of authenticity, balance, and challenge: A multi-method study of
female health workers’ careers. Gender, Work, and Organization, 26(7),
962–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12317
Pennell, K. (2010). The role of flexible job descriptions in success
management. Library Management, 31(4/5), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121011046344
Power, S. J., & Rothausen, T. J. (2003).
The work-oriented mid-career development model: An extension of Super’s
maintenance stage. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(2), 157–197. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000002250479
Ridley, M. (2014). Returning to the ranks: Towards an
holistic career path in academic librarianship. Partnership: The Canadian
Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 9(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v9i2.3060
Sullivan, S., & Mainiero, L. A. (2008).
Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to understand the changing patterns of
women’s careers: Designing HRD programs that attract and retain women. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 10(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422307310110
Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero,
L. A. (2009). Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to examine generational
differences in work attitudes. Career Development International, 14(3),
284-302. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966442
Appendix
Survey
Instrument
The Kaleidoscope
Career Model (Mainiero, et al), uses three phases:
challenge, authenticity, and balance, as a non-linear approach to understanding
the mapping of career trajectories, agency and decision-making power to the
individual, rather than the organization, based on the person’s own values and
choices. Applying this model in the academic librarian context, we seek to
better understand where those pivot points exist for professionals, and more
broadly how these perceptions impact their sense of satisfaction with their
career trajectories, and sense of support they receive from their employers.
This survey
contains questions about your experiences and/or feelings concerning how you
conceive of and perceive of your career path.
We would like
you to complete the whole survey, but you may skip any questions that you don’t
feel comfortable answering or can discontinue your participation at any time.
The survey data results will be kept for analysis purposes only and will not be
released in any publication or report; they will be destroyed once the analysis
is complete. Only the investigators will have access to your individual
responses. All the information received from you will be strictly confidential
and will be stored on a password protected local (non-networked) hard drive.
You will not be identified nor will any information that would make it possible
for anyone to identify you be used in any presentation or written reports
concerning this project. Only summarized data will be presented in any oral or
written reports.
Your
participation in this project is completely voluntary. You are free not to
participate or to withdraw at any time, for whatever reason, without risk. No
matter what decision you make, there will be no penalty or impact to your
employment. The Institutional Review Boards of the University of Arkansas and
the University of Rochester approved this study. Your participation in this
survey indicates your consent to these terms.
For
more information about this project you should contact: Lori Birrell by phone at 479-575- 8443, or by email at:
lori@birrell.us or Marcy Strong by phone at 585-273-2325, or by email at
strongstuff@gmail.com.
By
clicking on the red arrow below, you are agreeing to participate in this
survey.
[The
Kaleidoscope Career Model statements and answer scales have been redacted for
publication.]
In
what ways, if any, do the characteristics of the phase you scored the highest
in describe your current thinking about your career path? (open ended)
In
what ways, if any, do the characteristics of the phase you scored the highest
in NOT describe your current thinking about your career path? (open ended)
Do you feel supported by your library administration?
Please enter any details you'd like to share in the text box next to your
response.
Yes _______________________________________
No ________________________________________
Are you
currently a supervisor (defined as managing faculty, staff, students, interns,
or volunteers)?
Yes No
If yes, would
you like to continue to be a supervisor in the future?
Yes No
If no, would you
enjoy the opportunity to become a supervisor in the future?
Yes No
Do you consider
yourself to be a leader in your organization? (Defined here as someone who:
does project management tasks, large-scale decision making, coaching/mentoring
of others).
Yes No
If no, would you
enjoy the opportunity to become an organizational leader in the future?
Yes No
Do you have any
other thoughts about your career path, the self-inventory tool and Kaleidoscope
Model, or this topic more generally that you’d like to share? (open ended)
The following
are demographic questions: What kind of library do you currently work in?
- 4 year, doctoral degree granting university or college
- 4 year, masters degree granting university or college
- 4 year, bachelor
degree granting university or college
- 2 year, community
or vocational school
- Other (please describe below)
What area of
librarianship do you currently work in? (For this question, we’re asking about
your primary job duty. Department heads, please indicate the functional area
you work in)
- Administration
- IT
- Public Services
- Technical Services
- Special collections/archives
- Other (Please enter your area of librarianship in the text box.)
How many years
have you worked in the library science profession?
- Less than 2 years
- 2-5 years
- 6-10 years
- 11-15 years
- 16-20 years
- 25+ years
Please select
your age range.
- 22-27
- 28-33
- 34-40
- 41-46
- 47-52
- 53-58
- 59-64
- 65-70
- 71-75
- 75+
Please identify
your gender.
- Male
- Female
- Gender Variant/Non-Conforming
- Other
- Prefer not to answer
Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice
2022 Birrell and Strong. This is an Open Access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.