The realities of teams in technical services at Michigan State University Libraries

Pergamon Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 17%187, 1997

Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

0364-6408/97 $17.00 + .00

PII S0364-6408(97)00012-4

FEATHER RIVER INSTITUTE 1996

THE REALITIES OF TEAMS IN TECHNICAL SERVICES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

RITA ECHT

Serials Acquisit ions Team Manager

Michigan State University Libraries

East Lansing, MI 48824-1047

Internet: [email protected]

Abstract--After a year-long process of self-assessment, research, and planning, Michigan State University Libraries has implemented a flexible team-based organizational structure. This structure permits us to more effectively fulfill our primary role of service to the Libraries and provides the ability to respond in an environment of continuous change. We have been operating successfully within this new structure since the fall of 1992. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords--Teams, Reorganization, Libraries, Technical Services

BACKGROUND

In order to more fully understand the current organizational structure in Technical Services at Michigan State University Libraries and how it is working, it is important to know where we have been. Michigan State University is a major land grant/AAU institution consisting of 14 colleges enrolling 40,000+ students. The Libraries have an annual budget of approximately $12 million, 13 branch libraries, a staff of 170 employees including librarians, administrative professionals, and clerical technicals, as well as some 500 part-time student assistants. The librarians have academic appointments and carry faculty status within the University community with respect to academic governance. However, the Libraries maintains its own system of continuing appointment which is parallel to faculty rank and tenure in accordance with the MSU Bylaws for Academic Governance. The support staff are hired through a separate personnel process and are members of collective bargaining units. In the fall of 1989, a new Director of Libraries was appointed and very soon thereafter we embarked on the formulation of a long-range strategic plan for the Libraries. The

179

180 R. ECHT

University's strategic planning document called for refocusing, rebalancing, and refining Univer- sity programs and budgets. The Libraries' effort to assess its role and future direction was a response to the University's plan. The Libraries' plan called for a revitalization of the collection, staff, and services with a major assessment of the organizational structure. Technical Services was the first unit charged with planning and implementing a strategic plan that would prepare us for meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

The Technical Services Department undertook a year-long process of self-assessment, research, and planning. One desired outcome was to design and implement an organizational structure that positioned us to more effectively fulfill our primary role of service to the Libraries. Reorganization also presented an opportunity to achieve a greater empowerment of individuals in their roles as staff members. The plan also had to provide for organizational flexibility and the willingness of staff to work within flexible, dynamic, and continuously changing organizational structures. Susan Lee, Associate Librarian for Administrative Services at the Harvard College Library, stated that "...there is a growing awareness that research libraries may be in a permanent white water situation" [1], She takes this description from a model created many years ago by Kurt Lewin regarding the change process, which he termed "unfreezing-moving-refreezing." The white water between the two lakes is analogous to a state of continuous uncertainty, a state requiring that we be able to respond to rapid change [2].

The planning process of organizational restructuring for Technical Services was in progress for approximately 1 year. During that time, a number of Technical Services staff members from all levels and classifications participated in various stages of the development of the plan. Three models were considered with each having the " team" as the basic organizational unit. Each team would consist of a team leader and members with functional expertise in a variety of areas. Teams would include staff from various levels, cutting across existing units and departmental boundaries. The management of the team and supervision of its members would be the responsibility of the Team Manager.

The library administration had assured us that we could be creative with our ideas and that it was open to any reasonable and workable recommendations. The Assistant Director for Technical Services was excited at the range of possibilities open to us. We looked forward to the prospect of improving workflow and eliminating the knowledge barriers that were currently in existence. However, during the strategic planning process, the Director of Libraries announced a new overall organizational structure for the Libraries with Technical Services no longer existing as a separate division. While Technical Services was seeking input from all of its staff, the library as a whole was being altered with new individuals in key administrative positions appointed without similar staff input. It became quite clear that a more conservative plan would eventually be adopted for Technical Services rather than one of the more creative approaches being considered. The result was, in fact, a more traditional revised model for which very strong preference had been expressed by the Libraries' administration.

The model in its current formation retains the team concept but is based on Acquisitions and Cataloging Teams rather than cross-functional, subject-based teams that we had hoped to implement. Interest Groups and ad hoc Working Groups consisting of staff from the various teams have been developed in place of the original models. We have been operating within this new structure since the fall of 1992 (Figure 1). In July 1994, the Director of Libraries resigned, with the new Acting Director reinstating Technical Services as a divisional unit.

Realities of Teams in Technical Services 181

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES TECHNICAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION CHART

ACQUISITIONS

I

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR)

_ _ _ _ ~ Technical Services Management Team 1

I Secmt~ial Support

CATALOGING

J r ~ogir~ Po~i~ I L Working Gro~os I

I I

Figure 1. Michigan State University Libraries Technical Services Organization Chart.

THE TEAM STRUCTURE IN TECHNICAL SERVICES

One of the most distinguishing characteristics of a team is that its members have, as their highest priority, the accomplishment of team goals [3]. There are many kinds of teams that can function in the workplace, but in order to be a successful team, members should support one another, collaborate freely, and communicate openly both among each other and with other teams [4]. In order to accomplish this level of effectiveness in Technical Services, the library administration has had to demonstrate a commitment to support team building. This has meant selecting team managers and assistant team managers whose leadership style would build trust and encourage active participation. It has also meant providing opportunities for team leadership training as well as team building workshops for the staff. To date we have completed a number of team building sessions conducted by outside consultants as well as experts from the Michigan State University School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Project on Innovative Employment Relations Systems (PIERS). There is still much work to be done to improve the quality and performance of our teams and individual team members but we are totally committed to working toward success.

Acquisitions is divided into two teams. The Monograph Acquisitions Team consists of a team manager, assistant team manager, and 12 support staff. The team manager is a librarian. The others are all support staff. Using the INNOPAC acquisitions system they order, receive, and pay for all of the libraries' firm ordered titles and approval plans, some of which are shared with the Serials Acquisitions Team. Approximately 39,000 titles pass through Monographic Acquisitions annually. They also process books upon receipt according to criteria established for the PromptCat workflow.

182 R. ECHT

In the past year, unnecessary work has been removed from the system and is being performed at a more appropriate level of staff. Since the majority of English language firm order and approval books do not require any further editing and a significant number have full level Library of Congress records, a great portion of the work can be processed by lower classified staff in the Monograph Acquisitions Team [5]. The testing and evaluation of this workflow was an interteam effort coordinated by Monograph Acquisitions together with Serials Acquisitions, Copy Catalog- ing, and Database Management with very satisfactory results.

Serials Acquisitions is the other acquisitions team. The Team Manager is a librarian and the assistant team manager and ten other team members are support staff. They order, receive, and pay for 17,000 standing orders that are either purchased or acquired through gifts and exchange agreements. This includes current journals, monographic series, sets, and annuals. Over 200,000 items are processed each year. In addition, the team processes approval plans not handled in the Monograph Acquisitions team. Monograph gifts are located in this team as well. The monographs received in this team are processed applying the same criteria used in Monograph Acquisitions so that books with full level records already available no longer go to Copy Cataloging but are completed in Acquisitions. From time to time staff members are shared between teams in order to expedite work. This is particularly useful during busy receipt times and when students are on semester breaks. Cross training for current journal check-in, invoice payment, and approval plan and gifts processing has proven very effective.

Cataloging is composed of three teams: Copy Cataloging, Database Management, and a Self-Managing Original Cataloging Team. Copy Cataloging has a Team Manager who is a librarian, and nine support staff including an assistant team manager. They process cataloging in all formats for both Library of Congress and OCLC member copy records. The number of books directed to Copy Cataloging has decreased substantially since Acquisitions has begun processing straightforward monographic material. As a result, the copy catalogers are now able to concentrate their efforts on more complex formats that were neglected in previous years for lack of time and resources. The copy catalogers are higher classification support staff that can now do work that is more appropriate for their level of expertise.

The Database Management Team is headed by an Administrative Professional who is not a librarian but has been at the MSU Libraries for 25 years and has a very high level of expertise. There are 12 people on this team whose primary responsibility is the maintenance of the online catalog, including authority control, holdings maintenance, bibliographic record control, call number and edition problems, record conversion, labeling, and barcoding. In addition, the higher classified people share some cataloging responsibilities with Copy Cataloging for serials and software.

The Self-Managing Original Cataloging Team is a unique team within the Libraries. It is composed of five full-time and two half-time librarians with no support staff. There is no individual manager; the team is responsible for managing itself. They rotate team members for representation on the Technical Services Management Team. They are responsible for original cataloging in all formats in all languages. Searching and verifying bibliographic information is provided by searchers in the Acquisitions teams with the materials placed in a Central Processing area to await selection by Original Catalogers. The catalogers choose which items they will work on. Self- management is still under development, as it has only been 4 years since the team was formed. I will refer to other aspects of this kind of arrangement further in this paper. The Principal Catalog Librarian reports directly to the Assistant Director for Technical Services as do the Team Managers. The Principal Cataloger serves as the resource person in all aspects of cataloging, interpreting how cataloging rules affect local practices and assuring the quality and consistency of our catalog according to national standards.


The Technical Services Management Team consists of the Assistant Director for Technical Services, the Team Managers, Assistant Team Managers, the Principal Catalog Librarian, and a rotating representative from the Self-Managing Original Cataloging Team. The Chair of the Technical Services Management Team is rotated each month with each member having an opportunity to serve. Agenda items are submitted by any member of the group or anyone else in the libraries who has an issue to bring forward. The agendas and meeting notes are distributed on the Libraries' electronic bulletin board which is accessible to all library staff. Discussions usually relate to policy issues rather than procedural issues. These meetings provide an excellent opportunity for exchanging ideas and sharing information on issues that affect the department as well as other library units. This group meets twice each month. Personnel matters are not brought forward to this body.

The Assistant Director for Technical Services meets with the four team managers as a group once per month or more often as the need arises; she meets with the individual team managers and with a rotating representative of the Original Cataloging Team weekly. The managers are responsible for support staff annual performance appraisals according to the guidelines agreed upon by the University Human Resources Office in conjunction with the union contracts. Librarians are evaluated by the Head of Technical Services with the exception of the Self-Managing Original Cataloging Team members. They are responsible for evaluating each other and applying the same criteria that a supervisor or manager would use based on the Librarian Personnel Handbook. Librarians' performance is evaluated based on their success in achieving personal and unit goals and objectives. It is not an easy process for colleagues to rate one another in the same team as they must in the Self-Managing Team. The dynamics are complex when everyone is both colleague and supervisor and there is no separate manager or team leader. This appears to be an area of difficulty for this team and one that will require time to resolve. The Team has made progress each year in meeting the expectations of the librarian evaluation process; not surprisingly, this is a difficult exercise which will require additional learning and attention.

We have informal teams or working groups that deal with specific interest areas. One such group was the Acquisitions to Cataloging Working Group. The group consisted of members from each team whose recommendations were in part responsible for significant streamlining of workflow between teams. Other groups have included a format integration ad hoc group, a thesis workflow group, and an IEEE publications processing ad hoc committee, to name just a few. Group members represent different clerical and librarian ranks, all working together toward a well-defined goal. These have all functioned very well with everyone participating as an equal partner in the process.

Our organizational structure in Technical Services, with the exception of the Self-Managing Original Cataloging Team and the ad hoc working groups, is team based but not team managed. There are obvious differences. We are constantly working toward consensus and an ever more humane work environment with participation sought from all levels of staff, but we have retained middle managers whose responsibility it is to make certain that the library-wide and university- wide goals are met. We still have to focus our work on results, and results come from the performance of very traditional and sometimes tedious and repetitive tasks. It is the responsibility of the managers to facilitate setting the ground rules and keeping team members focused on the expectations of their jobs. It is also essential in a unionized environment that managers be charged with conducting performance appraisals. Peer review cannot be performed as it is for professional staff. There are other very realistic considerations for maintaining management positions. Baldwin and Migneault in their book Humanistic Management by Teamwork caution academic libraries considering team management that we should neither underestimate nor overestimate people. There are individuals who thrive and are extremely productive in a team-managed structure and others who will frequently take advantage of the system [6].

184 R. ECHT

OFFENSIVE SCORING

X X X BASEBALL • S t a r s

• .Sum

i x=4 x FOOTBALL • C h a i n / A d d i t i v e P r o c e s s

• W e a k L i n k

• Quality of Hand Off

X X

X, > X

BASKETBALL • M u l t i 4 u n c t i o n a l i t y

~ . I n t e r a c t i o n

High Quality Flexibility

Training materials developed by Professor Edilber Montemayor.

Figure 2. Offensive Scoring.

We have tried to organize our teams based on a logical structure and not a behavioral theory. Our efforts have been to design a viable structure that does not abandon well-defined responsibilities and channels of communication and authority. Again, Baldwin and Migneault strongly state that individuals and groups need structure and guidance [7]. It appears that what we have is a hybrid structure which is working quite well at this point. In a recent training session with John Beck, Professor of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University Project on Innovative Employment Relations Systems (PIERS), he diagramed three different team structures which he refers to as offensive scoring models exemplified in team sports (Figure 2). These models are derived from training materials developed by Edilber Montemayor, Professor of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University. The boxes represent three different methods for offensive scoring. The first box contains batters on a baseball team up at the plate. Each player can be a star scoring individually without any need for interdependence. The second box resembles a football team. The ball is put into play by snapping it to the quarterback who can either pass or hand


off to a back who might then lateral to another player. This is a chain process that may or may not have a weak link, but the objective for each member handling the ball is to score. The quality of the hand off is of prime importance. People have to rely on each other in this type of chain reaction. For the most part this is the kind of team concept we have in place in Technical Services. Materials arrive and, depending on their nature, may go from one person to the next for initial and then additional processing, either within the same team or between teams. The third model resembles a basketball team. The ball is put into play by the guards. It is passed back and forth, usually with a particular strategy in mind. It may go to the forward, back to the guard, and then in to the center to score, or you can have a variation of different plays. A high degree of interaction, multifuc- tionality, and flexibility is necessary in order to score. Each individual is called upon to be an expert with the appropriate skills essential to play different roles. In a library or other academic unit, these people would be considered experts in both content and process. We have aspects of this model in Technical Services, especially as they are played out within our management team and within the interest groups. Each person brings differing but equal expertise to the table.

Obviously, teams can function differently but they are still a team. One model is not necessarily better than the other. You select what is possible and works in the environment of your institution. In the Michigan State University Libraries Technical Services Division, a stable environment has been a contributing factor in maintaining a high level of expertise and flexibility of the "hand off ." Staff have been long-term employees and, for the most part, feel a sense of ownership in the success of the team's goals. However, there is a down side to long-term employment if it is accompanied by the inability to move up in the system, which is what has occurred in our unit. Years ago we spent a great deal of time hiring, training, and promoting on a regular basis. There was a great deal of mobility and positions were plentiful. In recent years, academic units on our campus have undergone extreme downsizing or, in the more acceptable terminology, rightsizing. The library has not been exempt, as we have experienced very severe attrition. In Technical Services we have reduced staff by 19.5 positions, or 27%, in the last 3 years [8]. Higher level positions have therefore become quite scarce as individuals leave and positions cannot be posted and filled. The inability to move up has created some stagnation and lowering of morale among an otherwise stable, expert clerical staff. It is evident that most employees are hard-working, dedicated people who want to perform well. But, according to Allen B. Veaner, the heaviest challenge to library managers comes from a small minority who dedicate their lives not to work but to private, interpersonal games, in particular those games that consume as much administrative time as possible [9]. Unfortunately, every organization employs a few of these people. Fortunately, there should not be very many even though, during crisis periods, it may seem as though there are more than less. These staff members do not recognize professional barriers; they may be librarians or clerical staff'.

Michigan State's Technical Services teams are not immune from such individuals. Their numbers are small but they can, at times, be quite vocal. A seasoned and/or well-trained manager can cope better with such individuals, especially if given the support of the library administration which is currently the case at MSU. It is not easy but no one has ever assured us that being a manager would be an easy road to hoe. Some people in a team environment would have us believe the notion that people can achieve higher levels of satisfaction as well as productivity by eliminating rules and structures and, perhaps, managers. This is precarious thinking [10]. Another very significant problem arises if a team becomes separately independent. They must be reminded that they are part of the larger organization and must serve its goals [11]. There is certainly this concern with regard to the Self-Managing Original Cataloging Team. At times they express that they are removed from "the loop," yet, their style is similar to the baseball team model in the offensive scoring design, individual players doing their own job. They appear to want to be part of

186 R. ECHT

the larger process but their exclusively individualized responsibilities contribute to their separation from the other teams. It is clear that all must make more of an effort to overcome possible isolation.

It has been our experience that certain commitments must be ongoing. Continuous support from the library administration for staff development, team building training, and middle management training is essential. Training must continue in order to maintain skills and knowledge for team members and to improve the understanding of the team environment [12]. Rigidity is not an option. Managers and staff must constantly examine further workflow improvements and be prepared to implement them. We have found, too, that leadership is a necessary ingredient for keeping the team environment viable and productive. Veaner's primary message is that the greatest challenge facing academic libraries in the next decade is not funding or technology, but leadership and administrative ability [ 13]. Michigan State University has initiated an Institute for Leadership Fellows with the Libraries as an active participant. Several of us are in the first class of Leadership Fellows selected from across the entire University. Within the next 5 years, the university plans to see increased development of leadership potential at unit levels across the campus. The University administration wants to provide opportunities that encourage participants to broaden their perspec- tives on higher education and their understanding of how Michigan State University operates. The primary emphasis of this initiative is decentralized so that all units can benefit at the unit level. Mentoring is highly encouraged in order to build a core of future leaders. According to Michigan State University President Peter McPherson, "it is in the interest of the university and in the interest of today' s leaders to prepare themselves and those who will succeed them. We must also distribute leadership to new associates and teams in order to encourage ownership and a new enthusiasm for innovation and change across the institution" [14].

So, it is clear that the direction of our institution is to train leaders who serve as role models for future leaders in a team environment. In Technical Services we find that our team structure is an evolving process that will require continuous refinement. Team, and what the term denotes, is a method of operation that emphasizes cooperation, or working together for the common good, in our case--service to the Libraries. Individual team structures can and should be modified frequently to accommodate getting our product out in a timely way and providing appropriate access for our patrons. In addition, we must maintain the accuracy and integrity of our database as well as our financial accounting operation. We are making every effort to work toward the success of this organization, but we are willing to recognize when change is necessary and that we should respond accordingly. Some of us still retain hopes for the original idea we had for team organization in Technical Services that was not accepted. It was an idea whose time had not yet arrived. Each team would be subject based, with members consisting of librarians, support staff, and student assistants, processing materials through the ordering, receipt, and payment process as well as cataloging and database management. This structure would be another example of teamwork which most of us would find creative, challenging, and productive. Perhaps some time in the future will be the right time, or perhaps the idea will no longer be as terrific as it seemed 5 years ago.

REFERENCES

1. Lee, Susan. "Organizational Change in the Harvard College Library: Aa Continued Struggle for Redefinition and Renewal," Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19 (September 1993), 225.

2. Ibid. 3. Quick, Thomas L. Successful Team Building. New York: American Management Association, 1992, p. 3. 4. Ibid. 5. Granskog, Kay. "PromptCat Testing at Michigan State University," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 18 (1994), 423.


6. Baldwin, David A., and Robert L. Migneault, Humanistic Management by Teamwork. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1996, p. 43.

7. Ibid.

8. Hyslop, Colleen F. "PromptCat Prototype: Accelerating Progress in Technical Services." The Future is Now: The Changing Face of Technical Services. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., 1994, p. 33.

9. Veaner, Allen B. Academic" Librarianship in a Transformational Age. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1990, p. 102. 10. Baldwin, p. 43. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Veaner, p. 102. 14. McPherson, Peter, Lou Anna K. Simon, and Roger Wilkinson. MSU Leadership ln#iative Announcement 1995-96. East

Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 1996, pp. 1-3.

Documents

The realities of teams in technical services at Michigan State University Libraries