Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Management in libraries: the Nut Island effect reversed?

A confluence of events seems to have led to the Nut Island effect in academic libraries. It seems to me that administration views librarians as enacting the Nut Island effect. I propose a second Nut Island is in effect, that of administration enacting the Nut Island effect.

“Two sides of the coin” comes to mind perhaps reflecting the fact that both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Lack of communication is key to the Nut Island effect. Admittedly, this is a surface view and would require a case study, at minimum, to comprehensively investigate whether Nut Island is in effect at the management level but it seems an apropos analogy on the surface. It would be more interesting to research the effect of Nut Island across multiple libraries.

1. The steps of Nut Island are listed below (from Wikipedia), square brackets as my edits, representing the view, I suspect, of our library administrations:

•    Management distraction and team autonomy – A climate exists where management is consumed by other issues [budget cuts, swiftly changing LIS context, etc.] and the team is a cohesive unit of highly motivated and skilled individuals who thrive on autonomy and avoid publicity [academic librarians].
•    Assumptions and resentment – Management assumes team self-sufficiency and begins to ignore requests for assistance [requests for assistance means requests for control over workplace environment and professionalism as management increases control in response to uncertain LIS environment, shift to electronic resources and a centralized budget, changing job descriptions, etc.], resulting in team resentment of management.
•    De-facto separation – The team cohesiveness and resentment of management results in a full separation characterized by limited communication and complete refusal of outside assistance [this assistance is management assistance].
•    Self-rule – In order to satisfy external requirements the team creates self-imposed regulations which create hidden problems [librarians refuse to change their work as the extreme versus those fighting specific activities that result in de-professionalization, all resulting in estrangement with management, polarization and a lack of communication].
•    Chronic systemic failure and collapse – Management indifference [frustration leading to indifference and a more autocratic notion of “leadership”] and misguided team self-regulation become systemic, resulting in repeated failure and eventual catastrophic collapse.

2.    Nut Island from the academic librarian’s point of view with major changes all over the place:

•    Team distraction and management autonomy – A climate exists where the team is a cohesive unit of highly motivated and skilled individuals who thrive on autonomy and avoid publicity (academic librarians carrying out duties on the front line watching the LIS context changing and trying to make sense of it at an activity-based level, which I would state is not easily possible esp. as is one-sided approach) with Management consumed by other issues (budget cuts, swiftly changing LIS context including the centralization of control over electronic budgets, etc.).
•    Assumptions and resentment – Teams work self-sufficiently at an activity-based level but resentment of management arises as management starts to make decisions regarding the work of librarians with little or no reference to librarians. Strategic management becomes operational management under/with librarian input, which does not resolve the bigger picture issues facing management, nor the future of LIS issues. Librarians ignore requests for assistance, in terms of helping develop responses to various issues, as much of their input is ignored in the long run. Management also begins to ignore requests for “assistance”. These requests are for leadership and joint decision making, NOT autocratic control over workplace environment and librarian professionalism. Management increases control in response to the uncertain local conditions and LIS environment, issues including the shift to electronic resources and a centralized budget, modifying job descriptions, etc. and transforming librarianship without librarian input.
•    De-facto separation – The team cohesiveness and resentment of management results in a full separation characterized by limited communication and complete refusal of outside assistance. Management’s ‘disappointment” in the refusal of librarians to just go along with local and LIS changes (which are not set in cement, all is “pilot testing” these days, testing the waters) means management stops communicating on issues it wishes to ensure get “pushed through” for “strategic” or other reasons thereby exacerbating the situation.
•    Self-rule – In order to satisfy external requirements Management creates self-imposed regulations which create hidden problems. Management no longer communicates or even manages (to some extent) cooperatively and iteratively with their librarians resulting in de-professionalization, more estrangement, polarization and a continuing lack of communication.
•    Chronic systemic failure and collapse – Librarian indifference [frustration leading to indifference and a lack of proactive input) and misguided Management self-regulation becomes systemic, resulting in repeated failure and eventual catastrophic collapse.

Does this sound familiar? If yes, what stage are you at?