Research Article
The Effects of Counterproductive
Workplace Behaviors on Academic LIS Professionals’ Health and Well-Being
Christy Fic
Formerly Archivist &
Special Collections Librarian
Shippensburg University of
Pennsylvania
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania,
United States of America
Maggie Albro
Agriculture & Natural
Resources Librarian
University of Tennessee,
Knoxville
Knoxville, Tennessee, United
States of America
Email: malbro@utk.edu
Received: 21 Apr. 2022 Accepted: 8 July 2022
2022 Fic and Albro. 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.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30153
Abstract
Objective – This study seeks to investigate the degree of counterproductive
workplace behaviors (CWB) experienced by library and information science (LIS)
professionals and how these behaviors contribute to physical, mental, and
chronic health outcomes. While health outcomes may be present independent of
CWB, this study seeks to explore the relationship between the two to provide
context to the growing incidence of burnout among academic LIS professionals.
Methods – This quantitative study analyzed 327 responses to a survey about colleague
behavior and health sent to LIS professionals through library community
electronic mailing lists. The survey contained demographic questions, questions
about CWB, questions about health experiences, and questions about the
perceived relationship between work and health. Counterproductive workplace
behaviors were rated on a seven-point Likert scale. A behavior score was
calculated by adding the Likert values of the 12 behavior questions. This score
was used when comparisons about CWB were compared by demographics and health
responses. Statistical analysis of survey results was performed using RStudio.
Results – The mean total behavior score was 39. 107 respondents’ total behavior
scores fell in the low range, 202 in the moderate range, and 18 in the high
range. There was no significant relationship found between demographic factors
and behavior score. A negative relationship was observed between duration of
employment in an academic library and presence of mental health issues (F(5, 310) = 10.114, p = 5.5e-09). A similar relationship was
observed between duration of employment in the respondents’ current library and
presence of mental health issues (F(5, 311) = 9.748, p
= 1.15e-08). Level of CWB experienced was found to have a relationship with the
perceived ability to maintain good mental (F(2, 324) =
36.34, p = 5.75e-15), physical (F(2, 324) = 23.82, p = 2.24e-10), and chronic
health (F(2, 323) = 13.04, p = 3.57e-06). Generally speaking, lower levels of
CWB were associated with fewer challenges maintaining health.
Conclusion – Low to moderate levels of CWB are common in academic libraries. These
behavior levels are associated with an increase in health challenges. LIS
professionals perceive work as being a factor that contributes to having
trouble maintaining good mental and physical health and toward successfully
managing chronic health conditions. Further study is needed to determine the
degree to which experiencing CWB in the workplace affects health. Further study
is also needed to determine if certain behaviors impact health outcomes more
than others.
Introduction
Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB) encompass a
wide range of detrimental employee actions. CWB are commonly understood to
include employee behaviors that “harm their organization or organization
members, such as theft, sabotage, interpersonal aggression, work slowdowns,
wasting time and/or materials, and spreading rumors” (Penney & Spector,
2002, p. 126). This study explores the degree of counterproductive workplace
behaviors experienced by academic librarians and archivists and how these
behaviors contribute to physical, mental, and chronic health outcomes. While library
and information science (LIS) professionals may have pre-existing health
conditions independent of facing counterproductive workplace behaviors, this
study seeks to investigate the relationship between the two in order to provide
context to the growing incidence of burnout among academic librarians and
archivists.
To examine this issue, the researchers disseminated a
survey about colleague behavior and health to LIS professionals through library
community electronic mailing lists. This study will provide insight into trends
that contribute to burnout among academic information professionals. The
interprofessional dynamics of librarians and archivists have not been
thoroughly studied. Knowledge of the types of counterproductive workplace
behaviors coworkers engage in will allow academic libraries to mitigate their
occurrence, and this may enhance morale and work satisfaction. Preventing
negative behaviors that cause LIS professionals stress may reduce burnout.
Literature Review
Librarians and library leaders have shown great interest
in burnout’s impact on the LIS profession. Alves et al. (2019) noted that
burnout is negatively associated with academics’ quality of life, including
their physical and mental health. When examining the issues that contribute to
librarian burnout, previous studies have focused on external factors including
funding streams, salaries, sabbatical leaves, work-life balance, patron
interactions, understaffing, heavy workloads, management decisions, and the
demands of the tenure clock (Badia, 2018; Flaspohler, 2009; Galbraith et al., 2006; Heady et al.,
2020; Howlett, 2019; Johnson, 2018; Kennedy & Garewal,
2020; Nardine, 2019; Petek,
2018; Sheesley, 2001; Shupe et al., 2015; Spires,
2007). An important area that researchers have not explored is the connection
between academic librarians’ and archivists’ interprofessional relationships
and their well-being. Several contributing factors related to burnout served as
foundational elements of this study: workplace climate and organizational
culture, counterproductive workplace behaviors, and the role of library
management.
The trouble with the existing LIS literature on burnout
is that it focuses on issues individual librarians and archivists cannot
control. Many studies explore the impact of workplace climate and
organizational culture (Affleck, 1996; Ajala, 2011; Akakandelwa & Jain, 2013; Albanese, 2008; Bartlett,
2014; Blessinger & Hrycaj,
2013; McCormack & Cotter, 2013; Hall, 2015; Heady et al., 2020; Henry et
al., 2018; McHone-Chase, 2020; Nardine, 2019; Oyintola et al., 2014; Spires, 2007; Steiner, 2018).
Additionally, while LIS research is deeply concerned with how to improve the
experience of library patrons, there is little attention given to making
libraries better workplaces for employees (Blessinger
& Hrycaj, 2013).
Organizational culture creates the systemic factors that
contribute to employee burnout. According to a pivotal study on the topic,
Howard Schein (1984) defines organizational culture as “the pattern of basic
assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in
learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration, and that have . . . to be taught to new members as the correct way
to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 3). In academic
libraries, many of the “problems” Schein describes are related to the work
environment. More recently, Heady et al. (2020) found that academic librarians
were most dissatisfied with their work environment followed by other factors
including compensation, professional responsibilities, and personal issues.
They discovered that unsupportive organizational cultures and poor management
contributed to low morale, which caused librarians to leave their current positions.
Library management has the power to shape the work
environment in academic libraries. Unfortunately, library managers often fail
to address counterproductive workplace behaviors such as incivility and
bullying. Freedman and Vreven’s 2016 survey of
Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) members revealed that
when library administrators noticed bullying behaviors such as coworkers
withholding information or excluding colleagues, they failed to stop it. While
53% of librarians surveyed witnessed bullying in the workplace, only 46% of
administrators reported they had witnessed bullying. Freedman and Vreven (2016) noted that “these findings suggest a gap in
bullying perception between library administrators and librarians [and] . . .
This result is a clear example of how library leadership and, in particular,
avoiding confrontation are motivating structures for bullying” (p. 740). A
survey of American Library Association (ALA) members, conducted in 2018, found
that the vast majority of librarians (91%) have experienced incivility at work
(Henry et. al.). ALA’s respondents suggested that libraries could create a more
civil workplace through stronger leadership and setting clear expectations
regarding behavior.
Although LIS scholars have begun to explore
counterproductive workplace behaviors in academic libraries (Bartlett, 2016;
Freedman & Vreven, 2016) and librarians’ mental
health (Burns & Green, 2019), additional research needs to be conducted to
understand the variety of coworker behaviors that can lead to stress and
burnout. While Kendrick (2017) found that low morale can be triggered by abuse
from coworkers, the current literature is limited in that it does not explore
the less extreme counterproductive workplace behaviors that may lead to stress,
burnout, and other health conditions. While these actions may not be as severe
as bullying or harassment, they may impact librarians’ mental and physical
health. Much of the current literature on this subject takes the form of
personal essays. In her column about how new librarians can deal with difficult
coworkers, Stephanie Walker (2011) acknowledges that colleagues may be rude,
insensitive, manipulative, lazy, incompetent, and deceitful. She recommends
that librarians “try to see the reason behind the behavior” (p. 182), “talk to
the coworker . . . talk to your supervisor . . . [and] talk to a unit
designated to help with employee complaints” (p. 183). However, those
suggestions place the burden of change on newer, often younger, less experienced
librarians with lower organizational status. These types of personal experience
think pieces do not address the need for systemic change within academic
libraries.
Aims
The purpose of this study was to expand upon the research focused on burnout
among academic librarians and archivists. Specifically, this article explores
the connection between challenging coworkers and librarian and archivist
health. Two research questions guided this study:
- To what degree are counterproductive workplace
behaviors occurring in academic libraries?
- How does the degree of counterproductive workplace
behaviors experienced contribute to physical, mental, and chronic health
outcomes among LIS professionals?
Methods
A survey (see Appendix) was used to collect data about colleague behavior
and mental and physical health of academic librarians in the United States. The
survey contained demographic information, questions about specific
counterproductive workplace behaviors, and questions about health status and maintenance.
CWB were selected for inclusion based on anecdotal discussions among the
authors, discussion with librarians they spoke to about their study, and other
surveys and validated measures that featured negative acts (Freedman & Vreven, 2016; Heady et al., 2020; Henry et al., 2018;
Spector & Jex, 1998).
The survey, available through Qualtrics, was distributed widely to the
academic library community through professional electronic mailing lists in
late October 2020. Librarians over the age of 18 who were employed in an
academic library at the time of the survey distribution were eligible to
participate, and respondents self-selected for participation. The survey
received 356 responses. There were 29 responses discarded due to
incompleteness, leaving 327 responses for analysis.
Counterproductive workplace behaviors were rated on a seven-point Likert
scale, and the Likert responses were transformed into numerical values with
“strongly agree” receiving the value of 1 and “strongly disagree” the value of 7.
A behavior score was calculated by adding the Likert values of the 12 colleague
behavior questions. This score was used when comparisons about CWB were
compared by demographics and health responses. Scores less than 31 were
considered low. Scores between 31 and 67 were considered moderate. Scores
greater than 67 were considered high. Statistical analyses of survey results
(one-way ANOVA, ANCOVA, and Tukey-HSD, as well as summary statistics) were
performed using RStudio (2020).
Results
Demographics
327 survey responses were used for analysis. Respondents
worked across several areas of the library, with some respondents working in
multiple areas (see Table 1). 64 (19.6%) respondents worked at a college, 39
(11.9%) at a community college, 219 (67.0%) at a university, and 5 (1.5%) at
some other type of institution.
Table 1
Areas of the Library in Which Survey Participants Work
|
Area of the library |
Number of participants |
|
Access services |
45 |
|
Technical services |
52 |
|
Collection management |
74 |
|
Reference |
169 |
|
Instruction |
165 |
|
Archives and/or Special collections |
65 |
|
Management |
91 |
|
Other |
38 |
The duration of time respondents have
worked in academic libraries ranged from zero to 31+ years (see Table 2). The
same range of time was again seen when participants were asked how long they
have worked in their current library (see Table 2).
Table 2
Duration of Time Employed in Academic Libraries and in
Current Library
|
Duration of Time |
Employment in Academic
Libraries |
Employment at Current Library |
|
0-5 years |
67 |
154 |
|
6-10 years |
90 |
70 |
|
11-15 years |
52 |
37 |
|
16-20 years |
43 |
27 |
|
21-30 years |
50 |
27 |
|
31+ years |
25 |
12 |
Respondents' ages varied as follows: 31.8% were between
22 and 37 years of age, 42.2% were between 38 and 53 years of age, 25.7% fell
between the ages of 54 and 72, and 0.3% were between the ages of 73 and 90.
Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors
Respondents reported varied experiences with counterproductive workplace
behaviors. The CWB reported as most common were gossip about colleagues
(48.9%), requests for last-minute coverage of duties (43.4%), lack of
appropriate record keeping (42.5%), lack of initiative (40.1%), and refusal to
take responsibility for one’s own actions (36.7%). Behavior scores ranged from
12 to 80 out of a possible total of 84. The mean total behavior score was 39.
There were 107 respondents with total behavior scores in the low range, 202 in
the moderate range, and 18 in the high range (see Table 3).
Table 3
Behavior Score Outcomes
|
Score Range |
Number of Respondents |
|
Low (<31) |
107 |
|
Medium (31-67) |
202 |
|
High (>67) |
18 |
Behavior scores were examined in the context of respondents’
demographic factors. One-way ANOVAs found no significant relationship between
behavior score and type of institution (F(3,323) =
2.453, p = .0633), duration of employment in an academic library setting
(F(5,321) = 2.036, p = .0732), duration of employment at current library
(F(5,321) = 0.662, p = 0.653), or age (F(3,323) = 0.26, p = 0.854).
Health
Respondents were asked if they had any mental, physical, or chronic health
issues. The results were varied: 58.72% of respondents agreed in some way to
experiencing mental health issues, 40.98% agreed in some way to having issues
with physical health, and 39.45% indicated they experience a chronic health
condition.
Mental Health
Responses to the presence of mental health issues were examined in the
context of respondents' demographic factors. An ANCOVA showed a significant
relationship between duration of employment in an academic library and presence
of mental health issues (F(5, 310) = 10.114, p =
5.5e-09). This relationship was not observed with age (F(3,
310) = 1.023, p = 0.383), and there was no combined effect of age and duration
of employment (F(7, 310) = 1.302, p = 0.249). A post-hoc Tukey-HSD showed
different durations of employment saw different overall levels of the presence
of mental health issues (see Table 4). Specifically, the longer someone is
employed in an academic library setting, the lower the level of mental health
issues seen.
Table 4
Differences in the Level of Mental Health Issues Present Based on Duration
of Employment in an Academic Library Setting
|
Duration of employment |
Mean level of mental health issues present |
Standard deviation |
Group |
|
0-5 years |
4.85 |
1.59 |
a |
|
6-10 years |
4.74 |
1.76 |
a |
|
11-15 years |
4.18 |
1.66 |
ab |
|
16-20 years |
4.12 |
1.58 |
ab |
|
21-30 years |
3.66 |
1.97 |
b |
|
31+ years |
2.44 |
1.56 |
c |
Note. Group a is
significantly different from groups b and c. Group b is significantly different
from groups a and c. Group c is significantly different from groups a, ab, and
b.
A similar relationship was observed by ANCOVA between
duration of employment in the current library and presence of mental health
issues (F(5, 311) = 9.748, p = 1.15e-08). Again, the
relationship was not observed with age (F(3, 311) =
2.051, p = 0.107) or as a combined effect of age and duration of employment in
the current library (F(6, 311) = 0.947, p = 0.462). Post-hoc Tukey-HSD showed
different durations of employment at the current library had different overall
levels of the presence of mental health issues (see Table 5). Similar to overall duration of employment, the longer
someone is employed in their current library, the lower the level of mental
health issues seen.
Table 5
Differences in the Level of Mental Health Issues Present Based on Duration
of Employment in Current Library
|
Duration of employment |
Mean level of mental health issues present |
Standard deviation |
Group |
|
0-5 years |
4.75 |
1.63 |
a |
|
6-10 years |
4.35 |
1.79 |
ab |
|
11-15 years |
3.62 |
1.91 |
bc |
|
16-20 years |
4.56 |
1.65 |
ab |
|
21-30 years |
3.07 |
1.84 |
c |
|
31+ years |
2.25 |
1.54 |
c |
Note. Group a is
significantly different from groups bc and c. Group c
is significantly different from groups a and ab.
Physical Health
Responses to the presence of physical health issues were examined in the
context of respondents’ demographic factors. An ANCOVA showed no significant
relationship between duration of employment in an academic library and presence
of mental health issues (F(5, 310) = 0.810, p =
0.543). This relationship was not observed with age (F(3,
310) = 0.337, p = 0.798), and there was no combined effect of age and duration
of employment (F(7, 310) = 1.031, p = 0.409).
Similarly, no significant relationship was observed by ANCOVA between
duration of employment in the current library and presence of physical health
issues (F(5, 311) = 0.388, p = 0.857). Again, the
relationship was not observed with age (F(3, 311) =
0.287, p = 0.834) or as a combined effect of age and duration of employment in
the current library (F(6, 311) = 0.801, p = 0.570).
Chronic Health
Responses to the presence of a chronic health condition
were examined in the context of respondents’ demographic factors. An ANCOVA
showed no significant relationship between duration of employment in an
academic library and presence of a chronic health condition (F(5,
310) = 0.923, p = 0.466). This relationship was not observed with age (F(2, 310) = 0.324, p = 0.723), and there was no combined
effect of age and duration of employment (F(7, 310) = 0.631, p = 0.730).
Similarly, no significant relationship was observed by
ANCOVA between duration of employment in the current library and presence of a
chronic health condition (F(5, 311) = 0.417, p =
0.837). Again, the relationship was not observed with age (F(2,
311) = 0.471, p = 0.625) or as a combined effect of age and duration of
employment in the current library (F(6, 311) = 0.880, p = 0.510).
Health and Work
Respondents were asked if work made it difficult to maintain mental or
physical health or manage chronic health conditions. The results were varied:
54.43% of respondents indicated that work makes it difficult to maintain good mental
health, 44.34% indicated work makes it difficult to maintain good physical
health, and 21.71% indicated work makes it difficult to manage a chronic health
condition.
Mental Health
Level of CWB experienced was found to have an effect on whether or not it
was difficult to maintain good mental health due to work by one-way ANOVA (F(2, 324) = 36.34, p = 5.75e-15). A post-hoc Tukey-HSD test
found that those who experienced low levels of CWB (M = 3.07, SD = 1.68)
experienced a statistically significant difference in their perception of
work’s effect on maintaining good mental health as compared to those who
experienced moderate (M = 4.57, SD = 1.60) and high (M = 5.50, SD = 1.62)
levels of CWB. This implies that once a threshold of CWB is reached, there is a
greater toll on mental health.
Physical Health
Level of CWB experienced was found to have an effect on whether or not it
was difficult to maintain good physical health due to work by one-way ANOVA (F(2, 324) = 23.82, p = 2.24e-10). A post-hoc Turkey-HSD test
found that those who experienced low levels of CWB (M = 2.82, SD = 1.62)
experienced a statistically significant difference in their perception of
work’s effect on maintaining good physical health as compared to those who
experienced moderate (M = 4.04, SD = 1.62) and high (M = 4.78, SD = 1.90)
levels of CWB. This implies that once a threshold of CWB is reached, there is a
greater toll on physical health.
Chronic Health
Level of CWB experienced was found to have an effect on
whether or not it was difficult to manage a chronic health condition due to
work by one-way ANOVA (F(2, 323) = 13.04, p =
3.57e-06). A post-hoc Tukey-HSD test found that there were differences in
perception of work’s effect on the ability to manage a chronic health condition
between all three levels of CWB experienced (see Table 6). This implies that as
more CWB is experienced, it becomes a greater challenge to manage chronic
health conditions.
Table 6
Differences in Perception of Work’s Effect on Ability to Manage Chronic Health
Condition(s) Based on Level of Counterproductive Workplace Behavior Experienced
|
Behavior score level |
Mean perception of effect on chronic health management |
Standard deviation |
Group |
|
Low |
2.49 |
1.60 |
c |
|
Moderate |
3.23 |
1.71 |
b |
|
High |
4.39 |
1.75 |
a |
Discussion
Counterproductive workplace behaviors appear to be pervasive in academic
libraries at a low to moderate level. Exposure to, and experience with, these
behaviors is not dependent upon demographic factors such as type of
institution, duration of employment, or age. This suggests a level of
consistency to these behaviors that is not necessarily a product of place or
experience. Since participants across the board reported experiencing CWB, the
organizational culture and expectations within academic libraries must permit
these behaviors to proliferate. This is a systemic issue in academic libraries
that may impact the well-being and effectiveness of LIS professionals more
broadly than this survey was able to capture.
Health issues were present at a moderate level among survey respondents.
When these health issues were examined in the context of demographic factors,
connections were only observed in the area of mental health. A significant
relationship was observed between duration of employment in an academic library
and presence of mental health issues. Librarians who had shorter durations of
employment either in an academic library setting, or in their current library,
experienced a higher level of mental health issues. These findings may be related
to the uncertainty many librarians experience early in their careers,
especially if they are in term or contract positions and their future
employment is unknown. Additionally, newer hires must adjust to their job,
which is typical of any workplace. LIS professionals who have worked in
academic librarianship, or at their current library, for a shorter duration are
also most likely to be facing the demands of tenure and promotion processes,
while those who have been with the institution longer may have already achieved
tenure and promotion. These factors could all contribute to higher stress
levels and pronounced mental health conditions in librarians and archivists who
are either new to the profession or to their current library.
The percentage of respondents who indicated work made it difficult to
manage health conditions was similar to the percentage of respondents who
experienced health conditions in the first place, suggesting the work
experience may differ depending on pre-existing conditions. This corresponds to
Burns & Green’s (2019) finding that many academic librarians with invisible
disabilities, including mental illness, believe their disorder negatively
impacted their work, and that stress at work exacerbated their health
condition. Further research is needed to verify the connection between
pre-existing conditions and library workplace stressors.
Level of CWB experienced was found to have a relationship with the
perceived ability to maintain good mental, physical, and chronic health. Generally speaking, as the level of CWB increased, a greater
level of mental, physical, and chronic health difficulties was experienced.
Previous research indicates that librarians will leave, or consider leaving,
workplaces that permit CWB. Heady et al. (2020) found that although librarians’
reasons for leaving an institution vary, librarians “are not fleeing their
positions, they are fleeing work environments they feel are toxic” (p. 591).
Low morale and burnout, which can be caused by toxic work environments, leads
to higher turnover (Kennedy & Garewal, 2020).
Other studies (McHone-Chase, 2020) have found that individuals coped with toxic
work environments by practicing self-care. This method puts the burden of
mitigating systemic problems on individual librarians and archivists. Library
leaders need to ensure safe and healthy working environments so that their
employees can focus on providing the services and resources patrons expect.
Limitations
This study faced several key limitations. The sampling method used for
survey distribution did not provide for a comprehensive sampling of all
academic librarians and archivists. Recruitment was conducted via email
notification to nine local and national electronic mailing lists the authors
had access to, as well as through posts on two national Facebook groups for
librarians and archivists. Those who participated in the survey self-selected
to be included in the sample, meaning their experiences may not be
representative of the entire population of academic LIS professionals.
The survey itself was delivered without definitions. This allowed for
participants to interpret the questions, which may have led to some
inconsistencies in responses. Additionally, the survey did not account for
demographic factors, such as race or gender, that could have an impact on the
amount of conflict experienced. Future studies are needed to explore the
intersections of demographic factors on experience with CWB, health
consequences, and burnout.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, library managers and LIS professionals
considering moving into leadership positions should seek additional education
and training on change management to learn how to reduce counterproductive
workplace behaviors. Colleen Harris-Keith’s (2015) doctoral dissertation on
academic library work experience and leadership development showed that
academic librarians lacked opportunities to develop measurable leadership
skills. They only had the chance to grow as leaders once they were promoted to
a top position such as library director. Jennifer Bartlett (2014) argues that
for librarians “leadership does not come naturally . . . we enter leadership
roles from other specialties with no formal management training” (p. 5).
Library deans and directors are often librarians who get promoted with limited
management experience, which explains why they may struggle to be effective and
supportive managers. In their study of the relationships between leadership,
interpersonal conflict, and counterproductive workplace behavior, Kessler et
al. (2013) found that transformational leadership was associated with a
decrease in conflict, while passive or avoidant leadership correlated with
negative emotions and counterproductive workplace behavior. It is management’s
responsibility to enforce consequences for counterproductive workplace
behavior, take reports of these behaviors seriously, and resolve reported
issues.
Managers operating in a unionized environment should consult relevant
collective bargaining agreements and determine what methods they can use to
minimize employees’ counterproductive workplace behaviors. These managers may
be able to develop a performance improvement plan for an employee with a
history of engaging in such behaviors. Alternatively, managers may need to be
more involved in training employees on appropriate workplace conduct and make
themselves more visible.
Additionally, academic library leaders should build a workplace culture
that reduces mental and physical challenges on librarians and archivists’
health:
●
Establish a
community of practice centered on emotional intelligence (Gola & Martin,
2020) or other issues personnel face.
●
Conduct regular
stress assessments of employees to spot negative trends and react in a timely
manner to mitigate stressors.
●
Determine
strategies for clear and effective communication between management and
personnel, and between coworkers.
●
Review job descriptions
and assess library needs to align individual duties with what needs to be done,
resulting in reasonably dispersed workloads.
●
Establish
behavioral expectations for all employees, focusing on healthy workplace
culture.
By making changes that prioritize the mental and physical
well-being of employees, academic libraries can reduce the occurrence of
burnout among librarians and archivists, ultimately creating a stronger, more
empowered workforce. When employees do not have to worry about support structures
for facing challenging coworkers, dealing with burnout, or coping with mental
and physical health challenges, they are able to perform to the best of their
potential. Supporting initiatives that reduce these stressors on employees can
go a long way toward transforming the library workforce.
Notes
The methodology for this study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board at both Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania and
Clemson University.
Author Contributions
Christy Fic: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Maggie
Albro: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft
References
Affleck, M. A. (1996). Burnout among bibliographic instruction librarians. Library & Information Science Research,
18(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(96)90018-3
Ajala, E. B. (2011).
Work-related stress among librarians and information professionals in a
Nigerian university. Library Philosophy
& Practice, 21–31.
Akakandelwa, A., &
Jain, P. (2013). A comparative study of perceived work
related stress among library staff in two academic libraries in Southern
Africa. Library Management, 34(8/9), 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-03-2013-0018
Albanese, A. R. (2008). Take this job and love it. Library Journal, 133(2),
36–39.
Alves, P. C., Oliveira, A. d. F., & Paro, H. B. M. d. S. (2019).
Quality of life and burnout among faculty members: How much does the field of
knowledge matter? PLOS One, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214217
Badia, G. (2018). Forty
ways to survive IL instruction overload; Or, how to avoid teacher burnout. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 25(1),
65-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2017.1364077
Bartlett, J. A. (2014). “That’s how we do things here:” Organizational
culture in libraries. Library Leadership
& Management, 28(3), 1-6.
Bartlett, J. A. (2016). Workplace bullying: A silent epidemic. Library Leadership & Management, 31(1), 1–4.
Blessinger, K., & Hrycaj, P. L. (2013). Workplace
culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Burns, E., & Green, K. E. C. (2019). Academic librarians’ experiences
and perceptions on mental illness stigma and the workplace. College & Research Libraries, 80(5), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.5.638
Flaspohler, M. R.
(2009). Librarian sabbatical leaves: Do we need to get out more? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(2), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.01.009
Freedman, S., & Vreven, D. (2016). Workplace
incivility and bullying in the library: Perception or reality? College & Research Libraries, 77(6), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.6.727
Galbraith, Q., Fry, L., & Garrison, M. (2016). The impact of faculty
status and gender on employee well-being in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 77(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.71
Gola, C. H., & Martin, L. (2020). Creating an emotional intelligence
community of practice: A case study for academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 60(7), 752–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1786982
Hall, L. W. (2015). Changing the workplace culture at Flinders University
Library: From pragmatism to professional reflection. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.985773
Harris-Keith, C. S. (2015). An
exploratory study of the relationship between academic library work experience
and perceptions of leadership skill development relevant to academic library
directorship [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga]. ERIC.
Heady, C., Fyn, A. F., Foster Kaufman, A., Hosier, A., & Weber, M.
(2020). Contributory factors to academic librarian turnover: A mixed-methods
study. Journal of Library Administration,
60(6), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1748425
Henry, J., Eshleman, J., Croxton, R., &
Moniz, R. (2018). Incivility and dysfunction in the library workplace:
Perceptions and feedback from the field. Journal
of Library Administration, 58(2),
128–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2017.1412708
Howlett, A. (2019). Differences in work/life balance and stress at work
between male and female academic librarians. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 14(4), 188–190. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29649
Johnson, A. M. (2018). Librarian sabbaticals: Overcoming the hurdles and
realizing the benefits. College &
Research Libraries News, 79(11),
607–624. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.11.607
Kendrick, K. D. (2017). The low morale experience of academic librarians: A
phenomenological study. Journal of
Library Administration, 57(8),
846–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2017.1368325
Kennedy, S. P., & Garewal, K. R. (2020).
Quantitative analysis of workplace morale in academic librarians and the impact
of direct supervisors on workplace morale. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 46(5).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102191
Kessler, S. R., Bruursema, K., Rodopman, B., & Spector, P. E. (2013). Leadership,
interpersonal conflict, and counterproductive work behavior: An examination of
the stressor–strain process. Negotiation
and Conflict Management Research, 6(3), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12009
McCormack, N., & Cotter, C. (2013). Managing
burnout in the workplace: A guide for information professionals. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
McHone-Chase, S. (2020). Library burnout: It’s common and okay to admit! ILA Reporter, 38(2), 24-28.
Nardine, J. (2019). The
state of academic liaison librarian burnout in ARL libraries in the United
States. College & Research Libraries,
80(4), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.4.508
Oyintola, I. A., Abdsalam, A. S., & Ajani, F. O. (2014). Occupational
frustration variables of the librarians in public universities in South-West
Nigeria. The Information Manager, 14(1&2), 38-45.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and
counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10(1-2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00199
Petek, M. (2018). Stress
among reference library staff in academic and public libraries. Reference Services Review, 46(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-01-2017-0002
RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio:
Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review (Pre-1986), 25(2),
3-16.
Sheesley, D. F.
(2001). Burnout and the academic teaching librarian: An examination of the
problem and suggested solutions. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 27(6),
447–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(01)00264-6
Shupe, E. I., Wambaugh, S. K., & Bramble, R.
J. (2015). Role-related stress experienced by academic librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.016
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998).
Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain:
Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale,
quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
Spires, T. (2007). The busy librarian: Prioritizing tenure and dealing with
stress for academic library professionals. Illinois
Libraries, 86(4), 101–108.
Steiner, S. (2018). Burnout culture shift: Strategies and techniques for
preventing and addressing library worker fatigue and demotivation. International Information & Library
Review, 50(4), 319-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2018.1526832
Walker, S. (2011). Dealing with difficult colleagues when you’re the “new
kid.” Bottom Line: Managing Library
Finances, 24(3), 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/08880451111186026
Appendix
Librarian Professional
Relationships and Well-Being Survey
Demographics
In which area of the library do you work? (Select all
that apply.)
Access services
Technical services
Collection management
Reference
Instruction
Archives and/or Special collections
Management
Other: _______________________
At what type of institution do you work?
Community college
College
University
Other:
_______________________
How long have you worked in an academic library setting?
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-30 years
31+ years
How long have you worked at your current library?
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-30 years
31+ years
What is your age?
21 or younger
22-37
38-53
54-72
73-90
91+
Coworker Behaviors
Rate each of the following items from strongly disagree
to strongly agree.
Coworkers ask you to cover their responsibilities, or
fill in, at the last minute.
Coworkers show lack of initiative.
Coworkers do not contribute to group projects or
discussions
Coworkers do not respect your time.
Coworkers do not record data that is necessary to assess
unit goals (example: reference transitions, instruction statistics, etc.)
Coworkers treat you like a child.
Coworkers tell you how (or how not) to do your job.
Coworkers talk down to you.
Coworkers stifle your creativity by saying things like
“that’s not how we do things here.”
Coworkers limit your ability to pursue new initiatives.
Coworkers do not take responsibility for their actions.
Coworkers gossip about you or other colleagues.
Health and Work
Please rate each of the following items from strongly
disagree to strongly agree.
I experience mental health issues.
Work makes it difficult to maintain good mental health.
I have issues with my physical health.
Work makes it difficult to maintain good physical health.
I experience a chronic health condition.
Work makes it difficult to manage my chronic health
condition(s).