Category Archives: library blogs

Thank you, NLS6

Thank you, NLS6 — sponsors, organizers, volunteers, delegates — for one of the best weekends I’ve had in a my professional arena in a long time.

I wasn’t just buttering up the audience when I said you were a great bunch of people to interact with. I meant that. I will smile when I remember this conference.

I promised different folks different online stuff, and I will follow through. My list includes:

  • Slides and notes from the Leadership workshop
  • Slides and notes from the Resilience workshop
  • Slides and notes from the Keynote
  • A pulling-together of my posts on applying and interviewing for jobs

If I said I’d do something other than those, please remind me in the comments or via email, and I’ll add it to my list. However, please be patient: I’m not touching the list til I’m back in America, because I need both reliable broadband and the will to do work stuff. For the next 7 days, I’m on vacation with no Australian data plan, and I’m going to visit beaches and parks and islands and pretend that I don’t know much about libraries. I hope you’ll understand. :D

Professionalism, organizational structures, and the fog of war

Shortly before I bugged out of the library and New York for the holidays, I had a conversation with a friend about organizational structures and how to revamp them. I said that I think that major structural overhauls require an external facilitator rather than being led by the current department head or the current department staff. I was reminded of that today, reading interesting words from interesting people.

Jason Griffey posted an interesting reflection on the organizational and staffing changes at his library, and Kendra K. Levine replied with her own reflection. I read both with interest; two very different libraries, two very different but equally passionate librarians… and a lot of “Hrm. Interesting problem we’re stuck RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF, I wonder what the right answer is?” from both of them.

Noting that there’s much discussion of a shift away from hiring librarians and deprofessionalization of libraries in our libraryland discourse, Griffey observes “… when we started examining our own structure, and the changes that have been happening organically for years now, it was somewhat of a shock to see that our library is doing the exactly opposite of this.”

And Levine concludes her piece describing the radical downsizing of her library with, “We’re not done with the transition yet, but it’s be pretty painful and I really wish we had more wisely focused our efforts when we had the staff to help”.

And so I say… fog of war.

Why can’t either library administrators or library staff do an awesome job of restructuring their own libraries while the need is pressing down upon them? Fog of war.

Our friends at Wikipedia tell me the phrase came from Carl von Clausewitz in 1837, the key bit translated as “(War is an area of uncertainty; three quarters of the things on which all action in War is based are lying in a fog of uncertainty to a greater or lesser extent.” I encountered the concept for the first time playing the original Blizzard-produced computer games Warcraft and Starcraft, which implement the concept as an obscured map that only reveals itself to you as you venture into it, leaving you to fight an obscured enemy on mysterious terrain.

Either Clausewitz’s way or Blizzard’s, it’s pretty apt for what I see our good library leaders doing. We look at the situation around us — whether opening a new library, downsizing an existing one, or just hiring for skills to replace a retiree — assessing our position within our institution, our existing financial and human resources, our goals, our weaknesses, and the big-picture landscape. And then we use that assessment to make a decision. But those decisions are always informed guesses. We’re guessing. We’re not flying blind, but we can’t see clearly, either. Those forces are all shifting and changing and resolve into a fog of war that prevents us from seeing more than a few steps ahead of us.

Perceptions of who our people are and what they’re capable of (and not capable of) are running on one flank, predictions about the technology horizon are floating in front of us, our financial forecast rides on the other flank, and institutional needs, pressures, and politics are driving us from behind. We can’t see through those things, and we can’t see what’s on the other side of them. We just do our best, make a good guess, and move forward, hoping they move, expose new ground, lead us forward, or just generally don’t result in teetering on the edge of a cliff.

Sometimes it’s a great tactical and strategic move. Sometimes… not.

And so sometimes, specifically when you’re dealing with big picture organizational structure issues, I think you have to call in a mercenary. Someone who has no loyalty to the things you can’t see around. Someone who can cut through your history and your misconceptions and your predispositions and your politics and say, “This is broken and your proposal doesn’t actually fix it.” (I think of this as “someone has to have the trait Ugly Truth“, but that’s a different post with different metaphors.) I think the fog of war metaphor still applies; von Clausewitz continues his definition with “The first thing (needed) here is a fine, piercing mind, to feel out the truth with the measure of its judgment).

Neither the administration nor the staff can see through their own fog of war, feel out the truth, predict what the right answer is, with much certainty. That’s not to say that we’re all screwing it up left and right; many of us are making smart decisions with what we have to work with, and doing okay. As Levine says, we’ll learn to swim when the ship sails, and as Griffey notes, we’re all playing the game to the best of our ability within the rulesets we’ve each been given.

At my place, we’ve made a lot of changes in the past three years.

  • We re-hierarchized (totally a word, shut up) our two-decades-in-the-making flat administrative system, adding more teams with Team Leaders, and putting a level of management between the Director and the librarians and staff on the front lines of daily work.
  • We’ve hired a few additional professional staff members — one brand new position, one librarian position transitioned into a professional archivist who is not a librarian — and are rewriting job descriptions for the other professionals, who all sit somewhere on the interesting and emerging spectrum between “librarian” and “clerk”.
  • We’ve filled every clerical vacancy that’s come up, maintaining a skilled and trained staff who do the work that keeps the blood of the libraries flowing. We’re also considering how we might adjust the workloads, workflows, and work product of all areas with clerical support, with a lot of enthusiasm from the staff in those roles.
  • We’ve replaced all of our retiring librarians, and created new job descriptions based on current and emerging needs for each new hire.
  • We created an Associate Director position to manage half the staff, relieving some of the management burden that I was drowning under.
  • And, as you might imagine, we’re crafting workflows to address how issues should move through and work within these new staff, new structures, new organizations.

And it’s been rocky. People who were hired to do Things arrived and I realized that though I had planned and prepped, I didn’t have a job description for them beyond Do The Things. Staff expectations of How Things Were are running smash up into How Things Are Now, sometimes with cool fireworks and sometimes with something more smoke-and-flames sinister. Things that I thought were obvious to everyone turn out to be … not so obvious, actually, at all. A few murky hollows of unsolvable issues remain mysteries to most of us, with no clear answer to the question of how to drain the swamp (and while it’s suggested to me more often than I’m comfortable with, I refuse to nuke the swamp). And I sometimes just do what I think is best because that’s my responsibility, and as a result I pray that as my scout moves forward on the game board the squares revealed beyond it aren’t scary as all hell.

But I also know this:

I made one of my smartest reorganization steps because a librarian who knew nothing about my organization, upon hearing me describe our hierarchy, said, “That’s insane.” And in that moment, as she pointed to my crappy line drawing of the uber-flat hierarchy and told me why she thought it was unsustainable, the fog of war lifted, and I could very briefly see the whole board. A lot of things clicked. I would never have gotten there on my own.

So. A lot of crunchy thoughts in my  head right now, about what I’ve done, what I hope to do, and what I can learn from what others are doing.

But in conclusion, I have one incisive thought: The fog of war is a bitch on decision-making. Hire mercenaries.

kittens, glitter, and unicorns

Whenever I post something highly incendiary — see my forays into cover letters and Jeff Trzeciak for examples — I hold my breath and obsessively hit refresh on my email, blog stats, and Twitter. Because people are assholes on the internet, but by god I’m going to make sure my voice is heard, and there’s good, bad, terrifying, and exhilarating in those contradictions.

So last week I scheduled the ACS post to go live on the 12th at 6 am after vetting the post through the librarians involved, the chemistry department, the Dean of Arts and Sciences, and the Provost. And then I got in the car and went on a 10 hour car trip to go see Amanda Palmer and the Grand Theft Orchestra play live in DC at the 9:30 club. (Kick ass show, btw.) So I had my iPad during the parts of the trip when I wasn’t driving, and I spent them obsessively checking my my mail, blog stats, and Twitter.

Holy crap, y’all.

You quadrupled my biggest blog day, and left more than 20 comments seemingly immediately. It was retweeted at least 65 times. There appear to be about 10 other bloggers boosting the signal and expanding the discussion, each with a conversation in the comments (librarians should check out In The Pipeline for perspective from working industry chemists). The post has gotten more than 6,000 views on its unique url, not counting those who read it from the front page, and it’s a few hundred hits away from passing the Trzeciak post, and 1500 behind the cover letters post. In six days. Not to mention that the Goog and its analytics tell me that the ACS staff have come to look at it about 100 times since Wednesday.

And on Friday I talked to a reporter from the Chronicle of Higher Education for 40 minutes, after giving a heads up to the Public Affairs office on campus.

Here’s the thing: I expect monkeys flinging poo when I write incendiary things on the internet; I’ve had enough shit thrown at me for speaking up and being disruptive that I brace myself every time. And this time out, there’ve been no monkeys. No attacks. I’ve gotten largely kittens, glitter, and unicorns. With a side of accolades like “brave” and “fiery” and several encouragements to run for ALA president (which made me laugh out loud and then stifle an endless giggle fit in the car when my boyfriend read it to me off the comments. Um. Thanks. NO.). People seem to think I’m on the side of the angels on this one, and for that I’m grateful. It says that my professional peers understand. It says that I was right, we have a real problem. It says that I was right to do the hard work I did on this. And it says I was right to talk about it, out loud, in public.

In any case, thanks Internet. You didn’t suck this time out, and I’d be happy to share the glitter and unicorns. But I’m keeping the kittens.

in which i apologize and ask for clarity

Warning: bad language ahead.

This morning, I wrote this:


@ this has to be the stupidest, most pointless kerfuffle I’ve EVER HEARD OF. Fucking bunhead librarians make me sick.
@jenica26
Jenica Rogers

I also wrote this:


Heartbreaking & appalling that w/all the issues facing libs, people are passionately complaining that they didn’t get free books at #ala12.
@jenica26
Jenica Rogers

And this:


@ I respectfully disagree. Posts i’m seeing = complaining that BLOGGERS TOOK OUR BOOKS, not that publishers weren’t available.
@jenica26
Jenica Rogers

 

It’s that first one that pissed people off, though.

Sorry about that.

No, really. I am. I apologize to those I offended. I use the phrase “bunhead librarian” to mean people in my profession who I believe are focused on small or outdated issues instead of important and big ones. It’s personal code. I also say fuck a lot. But I didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or call anyone names. I am generally opposed to those things, and broke my own rule. I was angry, and frustrated, and wrote something that was probably better sent as a DM to my friend Andy. I wrote it in public, though, and offended people.

I do that sometimes.

And while I am sorry for the upset, and my not-so-awesome judgement, I’m still waiting for someone to write something that’s clearer about why the bloggers and ARCs at ALA are a problem worthy of a) this level of passion, and b) an institutional response. From where I stand and in my experience, vendors give away free stuff to lure you to their booths so they can sell you things. If they run out of lures, we can still go get them to sell us things. I’m not clear where the crisis is, and the responses on Twitter are abysmally bad at doing anything other than making advocates look more shrill and shitty than I was.

What should I be reading to make sense of this?

Exploring what it means to “put something online”

I don’t do this very often on this blog, but this is totally worth it: Go read this.

So now, a little more than halfway through the class, students are asked to turn their digital expertise and expectations upside-down: to use online search tools specifically for the purpose of figuring out what’s not available to them with the click of a mouse, and to go through the process themselves of making a portion of that non-digitized world available in the network realm for future use.

This debrief on an assignment is a great counterpoint to my last post about C.E. Murphy’s self-publishing adventures. You can draw your own conclusions, but mine is simple: I LOVE THIS IDEA. Librarians, particularly future-focused ones, talk lightly and with casual flippancy about the online information environment, but it’s a smart and timely reminder to consider what it takes to create that world.