On Friday I presented a revised organization chart to the joint reorganization committee. I want to thank them for their intense and very productive efforts during the past few weeks. I also want to thank each of you who took the time to participate, through the LFA, the reorganization committee, this blog or by conversations with me and the directors. It has been a very helpful and constructive process.
The revised organization chart that I posted this morning has several changes that reflect your advice and conversations. It is available on the blog site and at http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/Smathers_Libraries_Reorg03062008.pdf.
It proposes one new associate dean, responsible for technology and support services. As the chart shows, this includes acquisitions (including the current CM support unit), preservation and conservation, metadata/cataloging, access support (which includes those parts of Access Services that are not specific to Library West or the storage facility), digital services, IT and facilities.
Special and Area Studies Collections, Government Documents (including maps/GIS), Library West (as the H&SS branch library), Marston and the other branches report directly to the Sr. Associate Dean, John Ingram. The major change in this column is the creation of Library West as a branch library, incorporating elements of collection management, H&SS reference services, and access services. The other branches (AFA, Education, Journalism and Music) will select a rotating chair from among their faculty and report through that individual.
As in the earlier proposal, the Associate Dean for Development, Sam Huang, reports directly to me, with development, public information and grants reporting to him. Also as in the earlier chart, the SUS shared storage facility, which will be created from our auxiliary library facility, reports to me. Brian Keith, as our financial and human resources officer, will report to me as will a new emerging technologies group. This group will lead a number of cross-organizational teams and task forces to explore and rapidly implement new technologies to improve our services to our users.
This proposal does not require any changes to tenure homes. The Library Faculty Assembly is evaluating two proposals, one for a single tenure home for the Libraries and the other for two tenure homes, one for the technology and support services and the other for the collections and branches. They will also consider other models. They will present their recommendation to me and to the Libraries faculty. No changes in tenure homes will occur until the LFA makes its recommendation and the appropriate faculty votes are taken.
This reorganization will not be implemented immediately, although planning and preparations will continue. The current reporting structure will remain in place until the successful completion of the search for that new Associate Dean for Technology and Support Services.
Later this week, we will poll the faculty and staff of the Libraries to determine your opinion of the proposed reorganization. I encourage you to fill out and return the questionnaire that you receive. The administration of the Libraries and Library Faculty Assembly value your opinion.
As the next level of reorganization occurs, we expect to use a similar process to consult with the faculty and staff in each area. For example, the faculty and staff who will be part of the new Library West Branch will participate in determining the organizational structure of the branch and the faculty and staff reporting to the new Associate Dean for Technology and Support Services will participate in establishing the structure for that division.
Again, my sincere thanks for your active participation and for the hard work of the Library Faculty Assembly officers and the joint reorganization committee. I believe that we have an improved proposal because of your efforts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
FYI, the link to the new reorg chart is currently not working.
I apologize for the anonymous setting on this post, in a perfect world it wouldn't be needed.
With all due respect Dean Russell, I believe you may be underestimating the severe lack of confidence shared by a large number of faculty and staff in John Ingram. I'm not sure how easy it is for someone in your position to take the true pulse of those that work under you, but I think it might profit you greatly to allow an anonymous poll that would give you more of a sense of where those who work at the libraries stand on this issue.
There is a working link on the left of the page under Useful Links.
I'd be up for a vote of no confidence myself re: Ingram
I agree on the vote. I think it is an important enough position the Dean needs to know how everyone feels. At the meeting it appeared that he did not have the presence to lead. He just kind of faded into the background.
Agreed. John is a very nice person and I certainly respect him, but his leadership style may not be what we need for this key, key position. He is a 'big picture' person and is simply not strong with the daily details of actually running an ARL library. These details include such things as signing and returning license agreements on time, calling timely meetings to discuss budget freezes, following up on questions that have been asked of him, etc.
If Judy is going to be out 40% or more of the time fund raising, the person in the position of Senior Associate Dean will be the one actually running the Library day to day. He or she will need to be here, in the building, the vast majority of the time. He or she will need to be scrupulous with details, available to answer questions and willing to make the hard decisions while at the same time building consensus and showing leadership qualities in this time of vast change within the library world.
There is no question in my mind that we must post the Senior Associate Dean position nationally if this reorg AND THIS LIBRARY are going to succeed.
Ingram and Russell put their names on their suggestions. That is hard when everybody complains and throws mud. It is easy to throw mud when nobody knows who is saying stuff that might not be true. If you say you speak for a large number or throw mud you should sign your name.
Lazlo Toth
Lazlo Toth? Hammer or Treason?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazlo_Toth
I'll sign my name to a lack of confidence vote, without any mud slinging, breaking of art work or treason.
Erich Kesse
"Ingram and Russell put their names on their suggestions. That is hard when everybody complains and throws mud. It is easy to throw mud when nobody knows who is saying stuff that might not be true. If you say you speak for a large number or throw mud you should sign your name.
Lazlo Toth"
With all due respect, there are obviously times when someone needs to speak out through anonymity.
I don't think anyone is slinging mud for the sake of slinging mud but rather there are those of us that are very much concerned that someone who does not have the required skill sets or professional personality might be put in a permanent position that they are ill suited for.
There are numbers of people who might know this better than Dean Russell, not because she is inept but because others have known and worked with this person for a much longer period of time.
Unfortunately, "Office politics" exist in all offices to a degree and it could be very detrimental to someone who has earned a degree or has toiled in the trenches for years to step forward and ask these questions.
This is quite an important position we are talking about and I'm sure that Dean Russell is giving these comments some serious attention.
Wouldn't it be better that there be a national pool of applicants to choose from? The assumption would be that the best person for the position would end up in the position, whether it be from inside or outside the libraries.
Remember this isn't an emotional, loyalty or lack of loyalty issue. We are not in easy times and it is these sort of times that make this sort of choice all the more important.
I believe Dean Russell allowed there to be anonymous comments on this blog because she wanted to better get an idea of what the "rank and file" felt about things. This may not be exactly what she had in mind, but she now knows that it is a concern of some of us.
I also believe she knows that no one will come forth and decry these things in public, so the only way to know what people think is to all ow them to anonymously vote whether they think the libraries would be better served to look at a bigger picture of candidates, to make sure we end up with the best one.
Okay, so I guess I was wrong about someone not stepping forward. But I think the rest of my comment is "spot on".
Well said, anonymous!
The position is important indeed. It should be subject to a national search regardless any individual position on Mr. Ingram.
A director serves at the discretion of the Dean. John is tenured in Special Collections, which currently lacks a Head. It is neither uncommon or unheard of that an administrator should return to a tenure home.
I have seen this type of position, an under-director, work elsewhere. Where it does work, ... and the University of Miami's Richter Library today is just one example ... the position has the skill set of a Chief Operations Officer.
Based upon my long observations here - I'd rather reserve the specifics for private conversation with the Dean, and as I told the Dean privately weeks ago, for as much as I may like John personally, this position needs that skill set.
I know that Judy is NOT vindictive. But, I believe sincerely that there are good reasons for bloggers to remain anonymous. Lazlo thought as much, ... or would have signed a name we all recognize. Truth is, there is no mud in the anonymous comments posted so far today. We've all be civil.
Enough said.
I don't understand why the proposed structure of March 6, 2008 is being put to a straight up or down vote.
I see things - other than the position of John on the chart that I believe merit more discussion or a NO vote should they remain as they stand.
Emerging Technologies - I applaud the desire to see change expressed in this fashion. But, knowledge of emerging technologies should be the responsibility of each of us, don't you think. It should be needs driven, or, at very least, tied to needs, rather than hanging out in the Dean's left field.
Or,
Why is a Virtual Business Library appended to Emerging Technologies? Does it never stop emerging? Or, once emerged, how does it differ from brick-and-mortar libraries?
Might Emerging Technologies not correlate to the Scholarly Resources & Research Services AG? Is it not a dotted box? Should it not arise from the AD Technology division if it had to exist? if a formalization were needed to inculcate the skill of seeing the emergent? ... or of communicating it across boundaries?
Don't get me wrong. If I were staying, I'd want to be in Emerging Technologies! (And, I'd probably be perfectly wrong for it ... but, if I were Jason or Laurie or Peter ... What resource budget might it have? Where are the dotted lines? What skill sets does it require? What support does it derive from others on this chart? How does it inculcate the emergent from its position?
The problem with any Org Chart is inadequate description of relations. I had hoped that the Joint Committee would have issued process graph. The chart in had seems the product of a rush to concretization. Not wholly bad. Too bad I'm asked to vote it up or down as a whole.
Erich
A few random questions/queries on the reorg charg:
I am curious about the term Associate Dean being used within the structure. Does this name change also reflect a change in pay. I know the it was stated that the reorganization has nothing to do with the current budget crisis, but in light of it the question has to be asked, how will this affect the budget?
If the Senior Associate Dean, Associate Dean of Tech and Support, West Chair, Marston Chair, Gov Docs Chair, Special Collections Chair, and Rotating Chair all have a vote when they meet. How does this new structure give the smaller branches an equal voice with Marston and West? It seems a rotating chair divides one vote among them.
The previous structure put significant emphasis on special collections, that emphasis seems to be lost in the present structure. What precipitated this change in vision?
Erich touched on the emerging technologies and digital library. Are we devoid of physical books and journals about business? I don't believe there is a physical collection separated from the rest of the library, but I'm sure we have a few books. Why separate this one collection, why not have a coordinator for virtual libraries? Is there enough work for one person to focus strictly on the web for one subject. I'm sure there is initially but once its up and running will it require 40 hours a week of updates?
I am saddened by the recent anonymous comments. While the bloggers may think they have the best interest of the libraries in mind, these comments serve only to diminish a process that has thus far been characterized by openness, honesty, and a willingness to compromise. Where were these naysayers during the town meetings and the open committee meetings? And why did they wait until AFTER the committee had made its final recommendation to post such mean-spirited comments? My reaction to the anonymous blogs can be summed up by one word, YUK!
Regarding the (current H&SS) Branches, and the Rotating Chair idea:
As far as I see it, the latest proposed chart gives the (HSS)branches the same amount of the organizational layering as the current chart (branch--->chair--->assoc.dean vs. branch-->chair--->assoc.director.) I suppose the difference is that on the proposed chart, the chair is "one of us."
In terms of advocacy, I do think that having a voice separate from Library West is good. I think it would be even more beneficial to report (and represent) as a separate entity. I don't see it so much as having a "vote" so much as an equal opportunity to bring things to the table.
There are some good things about having rotating leadership. For one thing, it gives more people the opportunity for that kind of professional development & experience, if they choose to put themselves forward. I think branch heads are often overlooked because we are geographically distant from the larger libraries, and our small staffs and specialized nature makes it more difficult to pull us out for for leadership opportunties such as interim management assignments.
I think the drawbacks of rotating leadership are a lack of continuity regarding supervision and vision for a "department" (or "department-like entity?)particularly as it relates to the library faculty involved. I think the nature of small branch librarianship puts its management in the role of advocate for their facility and specialized constituencies in a way that is perhaps not as evident or focused in the larger libraries. If the chair serves this function for his/her branch as well as for the "federation", it could lead to some conflicts of interest.
The logistics of how such a rotation would work are still not clear. We've been told there will be what I consider a small stipend for assuming this duty. Other details such as FTE designated for these duties, release from other assignments during the Chair term, and length of term have not been established. Regarding the latter, branch librarians did hold a meeting and suggested a 2-3 year term, but in the AFA meeting with John Ingram a couple of weeks ago, he mentioned 3-5 years. That's a significant difference in my mind. I would have liked to see these details more fleshed out before having to "vote" up or down on the concept.
As I understand it, we are separating the tenure-home discussion from the organizational/functional structure discussion. I can understand the usefulness of this to some extent, but I find the reporting structure with a rotating chair somewhat problematic in that kind of distributive environment, particularly in regards to T&P and the consistent mentoring of junior faculty.
Ann Lindell
It seems to me that the UF library system has two critical tasks: one internal and one external. The internal one is to re-invent the library infrastructure in light of the types of services and demands suggested in the ACRL Top Ten Assumptions for the Future of Academic Libraries. The external one: the institution as a business, while also noted by ACRL, is being imposed by our own university administration. Its impact can already been seen in the hiring of Sam and Dean Russell's 40% assignment to fund-raising type activities. Both of these tasks would require the full time attention of an individual, yet we have one Dean. It is somewhat unfortunate that Dean Russell is new to academia and to all of us. It takes a long time to identify the strengths and weaknesses of individuals and to understand the mysterious workings of this university. We have now added shared governance which adds another layer of complexity.
I believe that the skill sets Judy and Sam have were chosen primarily to address the external concerns of the university administration, while for many of us, the internal functioning is of primary importance. It is the internal concerns that lead Betsy and me to suggest the need for a Chief Operations Officer who is "responsible for the development, design, operation, and improvement of the integrated system of people and technologies that create and deliver the Libraries’ services to the University community. The COO understands the real work behind the Libraries’ core operations and
manages its day-to-day affairs with a focus on operations improvements." I believe this skill set is still what we need regardless of what title is given.
To be successful, I believe that the person needs to have a breadth of experience that includes both technical services and collection management services. If economic realities force us to look inward for such skill sets, I would propose that in considering our colleagues we have such an individual and that she is currently the interim head of Marston Science Library. I believe that in her many years of service at UF, Pam Cenzer has headed acquisitions, been interim director of personnel, helped develop the first Yankee plans, has been a selector for mathematics, has served on and been the chair of numerous T & P committees and other major committees, and is now the head of the largest branch.
While I know Pam is scheduled to retire in June, there is a precedence in this university to ask retired administrators and faculty to return for set periods of time to assist in transitions.
Perhaps this is our time to ask for such assistance.
That's the ticket!
Anonymity is crucial to this feedback process. This is an open forum, and as such people should be encouraged to share their opinion without fear of repercussions.
However, I believe that if non-tenured faculty and staff cannot be completely confident that their comments wont come back to haunt them in future, then the need for anonymity will continue.
With that being said, I think that there are a number of questions/suggestions/clarifications being asked of the Dean on the blog that aren't being answered. Her last reply to a question raised on the blog appeared on February 22nd, so it would be encouraging to see her feedback on issues raised since.
Non-productive, anonymous comments which cast aspersions, are generally not response worthy.
No surprise there.
...but what about the productive anonymous comments that don't cast aspersions? Are they not response worthy either?
For example:
Based on feedback submitted to date, what is the possibility of the Senior Associate Dean position being posted nationally?
Why is a Virtual Business Library appended to Emerging Technologies? Does it never stop emerging? Or, once emerged, how does it differ from brick-and-mortar libraries?
Why separate this one collection?
About the term 'Associate Dean' being used within the structure. Does this name change also reflect a change in pay? It was stated that the reorganization has nothing to do with the current budget crisis, but in light of it the question has to be asked, how will this affect the budget?
Rumor control question:
Does the administration hope or desire to take all or part of the Access Services area in Library West and turn it into public space, group study rooms, etc?
I don't think it's right to imply that the concerns about the Senior Associate Dean have been only late in the process or only anonymous. Looking back at some of the earlier comments, they are there, although more oblique.
I haven't worked closely with John, so I don't have a sense his skills myself; I don't speak to that.
Speaking globally, I would say that the current pattern of faculty "drifting" into positions of authority, or being in "acting" positions for long periods of time is inconsistent withthe kind of careful planning we need to do to meet the needs of the Libraries in extremely troubled times. We MAY have all the best people in all the right places; what I hear faculty asking is, "Could we please be certain?"
I disagree that it is mudslinging to suggest that a person may need to improve in certain areas in order to be suitable for a redesigned position. Especially if the people are citing specific and measurable actions (or failures of action).
This afternoon Joe Aufmuth, Brian Keith, Jimmie Lundgren and Vernon Kisling met to tally the results of the opinion poll on the Smathers Libraries reorganization. The question that was asked was if the proposed organizational structure (available at http://libreorg.blogspot.com/) was acceptable. The results are summarized below.
TOTAL:
There were 164 participants in the poll; 61 were faculty and 103 were staff. Overall, 113 (68.9%) answered yes and 51 (31.1%) answered no.
SUBTOTALS:
The answers from faculty and staff were tallied separately, with the following results:
Faculty: 46 (75.4%) answered yes and 15 (24.6%) answered no
Staff: 67 (65.0%) answered yes and 36 (35.0%) answered no
In addition, the answers from faculty and staff in the three departments that are most affected by the reorganization (Access Services, Collection Management, and Humanities & Social Sciences Reference) were tallied separately. There were 41 participants from these three departments; 19 were faculty and 22 were staff. Overall, 26 (63.4%) answered yes and 15 (36.6%) answered no.
Faculty: 15 (78.9%) answered yes and 4 (21.1%) answered no
Staff: 11 (50.0%) answered yes and 11 (50.0%) answered no
The results from each department were tallied separately, with the following results:
Access: 8 (50.0%) answered yes and 8 (50.0%) answered no
Collection: 5 (71.4%) answered yes and 2 (28.6%) answered no
Humanities: 13 (72.2%) answered yes and 5 (27.8%) answered no
The results for the faculty in each department were tallied separately, with the following results:
Access: 2 (100.0%) answered yes and 0 (0.0%) answered no
Collection: 5 (71.4%) answered yes and 2 (28.6%) answered no
Humanities: 8 (80%) answered yes and 2 (20.0%) answered no
The results for the staff in each department were also tallied separately, with the following results:
Access: 6 (42.9%) answered yes and 8 (57.1%) answered no
Collection: 0 (0.0%) answered yes and 0 (0.0%) answered no
Humanities: 5 (62.5%) answered yes and 3 (37.5%) answered no
Thank you all for your active involvement in the discussion of the reorganization and for your participation in the poll.
People prefer to know what is expected of them in any given situation. It’s common for morale to nosedive throughout an organization when employees lack clarity about management’s expectations. There is a lot of claim that we operate under such busy conditions and with such high stress that it’s easy to admit there is low morale but hard to identify which employees suffer from low morale. Yet, low morale brings about an attitude of defensiveness and/or apathy. Situations that create an environment for low morale include: changes in leadership, mergers or closing of depts.., high employee turnover and UNCLEAR expectations of direction (goals.
Another instigator of low morale is referred to as the “one bad apple” syndrome. Who could surmise the rampant damage an employee can cause to an organization? But as one bad apple rolls down the hill, it bumps into other directionless apples, and the combined energy inevitably causes disruption. Unfortunately, negative energy breeds like a wildfire. One bad apple may be known for establishing informal groups that invest time daily “venting” about the grueling injustices that abound. Clearly, these bad apples get some sort of release from spreading their negative energy (throught the grapevine), a release that apparently their work environment doesn’t otherwise provide.
Low morale affects: recruitment, relocation, training and learning curve, loss of efficiency, reduced productivity, vacancies and a domino effect. I think the “GOAL” here has not been identified, but only words have been mangled to rationalize what we are doing (albeit I am a strong supporter of the reorganization, I can admit how badly it has been handled). Clearer goal(s) can lead to averting the following: emotional crises, reduced quality of work, tardiness & absenteeism.
We can’t just freeze up either just because there is no easy answer to reorganizing. It would be management’s failure to address problems such as low morale and the cost involved. If management recognizes the damage that comes from low morale, this acknowledgement represents the best place for employers to focus on improvement. We are so focused on getting this reorganization right, we are ignoring the low morale at the same time.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment