Do libraries want to be successful?
I saw this presentation, and went on a two hour writing spree on how the presentation applied to the library and information science profession:
Kenneth A. Tucker and Vandana Allman discuss their new book, “Animals, Inc” (Requires RealPlayer or Real Alternative)
Event Date: June 14, 2004
Gallup Organization executives Kenneth A. Tucker and Vandana Allman discussed their new book, “ANIMALS, INC.: A Business Parable for the 21st Century”, at the Library of Congress on June 14, 2004.
Yes, the book’s not new anymore. I found the link rooting through old bookmarks on my desktop this morning.
While I’ve written four pages in response to the webcast (I’m not sure what I’ll do with it yet), here’s a few my thoughts:
- Do libraries want to be successful?
According to the Ken Tucker, organizational success is based placing workers, internal or new hires, in positions where they have a passion and talent for what they’re doing, letting them succeed at what they’re naturally good at. At Gallup, they make an effort to hire the next cohort to be smarter than the last, which strengthens the organization. Yes, libraries don’t always have the money to hire more librarians, or the time or management to free up everyone and reassign them to do what they do best, especially in this time of cutbacks and closings. However, hiring practices seem to veer towards candidates who can help maintain the status quo. “Entry level” positions for MLS holders require 2-3 years of experience, which essentially means the profession is hiring from within the profession. Some libraries seem to be mired in internal politics, individual protectionism, whim, and surface data about candidates, with a somewhat defensive tone. It makes me wonder, do libraries really prefer the devil they know to change, growing pains, and subsequent success? - Are patrons recommending libraries?
Ken Tucker talks about how there are three things an engaged customer does: remains, returns, and recommends. The first two are conditional. But an engaged customer will always recommend, because they can either recommend for you or against you. Are library patrons engaged enough to recommend, for or against? The next step is to assess what interactions, and with who, positively affect customer interaction, and cause them to recommend “for”. If librarians were placed where they’re natural talents shine, instead of being mired in work that doesn’t suit them, could they better engage our patrons? This takes the library past being recommended to becoming *essential*. - Three farm animals and a scarecrow walk into a bar…
Libraries aren’t funded the way they should be, especially in a time of such evolution in the profession. It’s as though the farmer is telling a platypus, a goat, a cow, and a scarecrow that he needs eggs from them, and while platypus eggs aren’t actually edible the way the farmer’s criteria imply, and the scarecrow can’t actually *produce* anything, the animals need to make those platypus eggs do. However, most libraries won’t consider hiring unemployed MLS-grads into paraprofessional positions to mold them into qualified professionals while utilizing their skills, all the while at a bargain price, especially considering the supposed shortage of librarians in the field. Further, taking a paraprofessional position as a graduate seems to be a fuzzy debate, with pros and cons, but in which no one wants takes sides. We have passion, we have talent, we want to work in libraries. A pay cut means nothing when you get to do a job you’re trained for and you love.
The webcast isn’t very long, and it’s worth watching. Big kudos to LoC for such a cool resource. The book is now on my ever growing reading list.
Tags: librarianship
