King County Library System KCLS Report

King County Library System (KCLS)

Report

The Year 2020 Plan

Executive Summary

The current culture of the library system can be described as ineffective, inefficient, and unproductive. The need for corrective measures to be undertaken so as to optimize the system for service delivery cannot be overstated. This will be the subject of the long-range plan. The problem to be addressed is two-fold. To begin with, there are inherent tensions at DAC that effectively get in the way of effective and efficient decision making. Secondly, branch personnel feel that their input is not taken into consideration and that they have no say in a variety of issues affecting their respective branches. In seeking to address these dual components, this document highlights the specific factors that tie to the said components, and offers recommendations backed-up by best practices in organizational behavior and management.

Assessment of Organizational Culture

In basic terms, culture has got to do with the various beliefs as well as attitudes and expectations that bring together a specific community and give it an identity. In that regard, therefore, for purposes of this report, organizational culture will be defined as the behavior of people in an organizational setting as governed by the beliefs and values they share. The organizational culture of the King County Library System (KCLS) is therefore the said system’s basic personality. It is on the basis of this culture that employees adapt their behaviors. Towards this end, employees also perform their day-to-day duties and tasks, act, and even dress based on this very culture.

At present, KCLS’s culture is not aligned with its mission and your desire to see the library system become “the county’s main source for reference information” as well as your aspiration to “expand the types of services offered by the library system to meet the growing needs of a diverse urban and rural community.” It is important to note that, in essence, the influence shared values have on the efficient running of an organization’s operations is often significant. In the case of KCLS, there is no common network of shared beliefs and values as a consequence of conflict between DAC and branch personnel, as well as conflict amongst DAC members. This effectively gets in the way of efficient and professional service delivery.

At the branch level, staff members feel that the decisions made by DAC are not consultative enough and often times end up impacting upon patrons as well as line staff negatively. A good example of this is the implementation of new policies or programs that affect branches without prior engagements with branch employees, i.e. overnight changes to the Public Access (PAC) Terminals without staff input or some training initiatives for staff members tasked with sensitizing the public on the said changes. Staff members also feel that their concerns are either deliberately ignored or forgotten altogether. For instance, there is one particular instance where a microfiche reader took a whole year to repair due to issues to do with the authorization of the repair work. At the same time, the Service Center team comprising of top management appears too focused on competing at the interdepartmental level. It is important to note that the informal running of DAC meetings provides perfect breeding ground for the said competition. With items being introduced ‘on-the-spot,’ only those who can either garner the support of their ‘friendly’ members, and/or can aggressively present and support their agendas hope to see the said agendas through. This effectively means that from time to time, excellent ideas could be disregarded or endlessly postponed not because they are ineffective, but because of sheer resistance founded on organizational politics. It should be noted that, in essence, the current way of doing things defines KCLS’ organizational culture, which leads to the formation of ‘de facto’ polices that not only provide guidance to employees and senior officers of KCLS, but also dictate the overall direction of the entire organization. Adaptations ought to be made if the library system you envision is to be achieved.

Issue Based Evaluation and Recommendations

In seeking to highlight the various alternatives that could be embraced in an attempt to formally address the organizational culture of the library system, this report will systematically identify the most critical issues that ought to be taken into consideration and the solutions that would be most viable towards this end. It is only after the organizational culture is fixed that KCLS would succeed in keeping with the ‘systems approach’ as far as the delivery of services is concerned.

A: Decentralization of Decision Making

To begin with, two of the most prominent issues that this report seeks to evaluate are bureaucracy and centralized decision making. KCLS is a hugely centralized organization. In essence, KCLS provides for a hierarchical structure of decision making where key decisions and deliberations are made by the senior management team which is referred to as the director’s Administrative Council (DAC). It comprises of a total of eight individuals and all the decisions made concerning the direction and management of the library system has to be deliberated upon by this group. It is, however, important to note that there are a number of other formations, like the Language committee, within the system that provide DAC with advisory assistance. With the formal decision making body being DAC, lower chain managers such as the 38 managing librarians have limited decision making potential. In that regard, therefore, they cannot implement policies and adopt drastic measures without DAC’s express approval. In essence, this structure has its advantages and disadvantages. While KCLS benefits from uniformity in decision making, in which case there can be better coordination across all the libraries, the system could lose in terms of delayed authorization of courses of action – which negatively affects service delivery. For instance, in what could be attributed to the downsides of centralized decision making, authorization to fix a microfiche reader took over 12 months. Bureaucracy in this case happens to be a consequence of centralized decision making.

Decision making ought to be decentralized, in which case several other individuals (apart from the 8 persons who sit in DAC), can share in the decision making responsibilities. Currently, the organization has an enviable percentage of staff that has professional training. In addition to having access to a graduate program at the University of Washington, KCLS requires that its librarians possess, at a minimum, a Library and Information Science (or equivalent) Master’s Degree. These are men and women capable of making rational and appropriate decisions with regard to the day to day management of library processes. I would recommend that the area administrators’ scope and authority be enhanced to include authorization of specific aspects of branch operations. There are currently three area managers, with each overseeing at least 11 of the 38 branches of the library system. Each of these area managers should be given authority to address service delivery issues that are unique to individual branches. Branch managers, on the other hand, could be given more authority in getting things done at their branch level, or addressing day-to-day concerns like minor repairs. Therefore, in essence, issues unique to a specific branch ought not to find their way into the monthly Public Services Meeting, or to DAC. It is my opinion that the Public Service Meeting ought to include only the three area managers, as opposed to the 38 managing librarians. Discussions and deliberations in this meeting should be limited to i) service delivery problems that affect multiple branches, and ii) policy issues originating from the Service Center. Only concerns or clarifications that cannot be addressed in this forum ought to be passed on to DAC.

Further, in keeping with the spirit of decentralization, there is also need to ensure that the physical offices of the 38 managers are located at branch level. The area supervisors should also have their physical offices relocated from the Service Center, in downtown Seattle. The reasoning behind this is to keep the said administrators and managers closer to branch personnel and for more effective day to day management of the branches. This effectively means that the only personnel to be housed within the Service Center should be the members of the director’s Administrative Council and staff members of the seven departments.

B: Restructuring of Internal Communication Channels

The relevance of smooth flow of information in an organizational setting cannot be overstated. Towards this end, ensuring that there is open and ongoing communication between the top management and member of staff in the lower levels of the organizational chart is critical as it not only helps clarify professional objectives, but also ensures that conflicts and various pending issues are addressed swiftly before they get out of hand. KSLS has what I would refer to as a communication crisis. Whether it is communicating new changes or updating employees of new policy directions, KSLS has mostly gotten it wrong on this front. Concerns raised by employees do not often get through to the decision making level, and when they do, no progress updates are offered. It is important to note that unlike is often the case for flat organizational structures, hierarchical organizational structures often times hinder communication. This is clear in the case of KSLS – effectively meaning that it ought to promote healthy internal communication by embracing various approaches.

Firstly, a system of offering regular updates on the stage various concerns and issues raised have reached ought to be put in place. It should be noted that at present, branch managers feel that most of the issues they table at the Public Services Meetings do not get the attention they deserve. They point out that in the past, they have brought to the attention of the Assistant Director various issues for urgent resolution, whereby the said issues are forwarded to the DAC. From here comes the long wait, and in some instances, nothing is heard about the forwarded concerns again. As a matter of fact, one of the branch managers refers to the whole setup as a ‘black hole.’ In his own words, you would have no idea whether “the issue you placed on the table at the Head’s Meetings would be resolved eventually by DAC or slip through the cracks.” This is an indicator of the need for progress updates. Progress updates could be issued via the already existing structures, i.e. for issues brought to the attention of DAC, progress updates could be passed down to the branch level through the area administrators. This is essentially top-to-down communication.

It should also be noted that down-to-top communication is also as important. This is more so the case given that there is also need to ensure that employees are given a voice. Towards this end, there is need for the top management to collect feedback from those at the lower levels of the organizational chart. In basic terms, feedback would come in handy in the assessment on how various policies or decisions are perceived by those meant to implement them. This is critical as it enables the top managers to institute corrective measures where need be. If a feedback mechanism had been in place during the ‘video loan period debacle’, measures to remedy the situation would have been set in motion even sooner. Over time, the levels of dissatisfaction have risen because of what the branch personnel terms as ‘thoughtless neglect.’ They feel that the service center acts alone and it is them who are left with messy situations on their hands. The formulation and implementation of a system of feedback from the branch personnel level all the way to the top decision organ will ensure that the dissatisfaction is arrested sooner than later. Such a system could be put in place through a dedicated email channel, or an anonymous suggestion mailing system. KSLS will benefit on various fronts from efficient internal communication. In addition to further enhancing the morale of employees, effective communication will help eliminate misunderstandings and contribute towards the enhancement of various procedures and processes.

C: Change Management

Change management has got to do with not only the preparation for change, but also the implementation, and support for change. It should be noted that failure to manage the change process well could result in resistance to change. Resistance to change could be manifested in a variety of ways. These include, but they are not limited to, outright sabotage of the change efforts, lukewarm support for change, absenteeism, high employee turnover, etc. At KSLS, there is dire need for adjustments to be made with regard to how policy and technical changes are implemented. Most branch level managers are of the opinion that no consultations are made prior to the implementation of various changes, with most of them being caught unawares by technical changes. I would recommend the implementation of a five step change management process so as to ensure seamless implementation of change. The change management process has been highlighted below.

Firstly, there is need to define the change desired in clear and concise terms. The clear and concise articulation of a policy change helps in the assessment of its viability, need, and urgency. It is also at this point that the resources to be allocated are defined in terms of cost, personnel needs, etc. The questions which could be asked on this front include i) What ought to be changed? ii) Why is the change necessary? and, iii) What ought to be done to ensure that the desired change succeeds in the implementation stage?

Secondly, there is need to seek the input of all those who will in one way or another be impacted upon or affected by incoming change, or those tasked with the actual implementation of the said change. For input to be meaningful, the intended change and the reason for the same ought to be clearly defined to those charged with implementation. In the case of KSLS, there have been instances of new policies as well as programs being initiated by the administration with zero input from those who will be implementing the said changes, i.e. branch employees. A perfect example of lack of input would be the ‘video loan policy’ implementation with no input at all from the branch level where its implementation would take effect. As a matter of fact, branch personnel in this case got to know of the impending change when they received official communication from DAC on the same a few days to the rollout. It is little wonder that the video loan period policy became an implementation nightmare and adjustments had to be made at some point. The debacle could have been avoided had the change in the video loan policy been clearly defined early enough and the input of branch personnel sought before fine tuning the policy. In yet another instance where the input of those to be impacted by change was not sought before implementing the said change, DAC, acting on the recommendations of a consultant gave the green light to a new shift to a central purchasing of books policy. The system was, however, poorly received by branch personnel who viewed this as an affront on one of their most enjoyable activities, i.e. the selection and ordering of books. The dissatisfaction with the new policy, which could lead to resistance to change, could have been addressed easily had DAC sensitized branch personnel of the need for change and taken into consideration their views. In this case, the findings of the consultant could have been communicated to those impacted by the change before the actual implementation so as to enhance a ‘partnership’ kind of engagement between the senior managers and branch personnel on this issue.

Third, in most cases, change calls for the learning of new skills and development of new capabilities. The need for training cannot, therefore, be overstated in the management of change. In the case of KSLS, some of the changes to programs as well as policies originating from the administration became an implementation nightmare because those who were charged with their implementation had not been familiarized with the same. A good example of this is the upgrading of the Public Access (PAC) Terminals. In this case, the terminals were upgraded overnight and the branch personnel only got to know of the said upgrades in the morning when they reported for duty. As one of the reference librarians who was caught up in the ensuing events pointed out, it was embarrassing to give patrons erroneous information and be unable to offer them a valid explanation of what exactly was happening. Complaints regarding failure to train staff in advance have been raised before. This routinely happens whenever new software is introduced. There have also been instances where the period of training is not properly aligned with the implementation phase, i.e. in instances where training takes place a long time before the actual implementation. When no refresher engagements are offered, it is possible for those who attended training to forget some key concepts. Training could in this case be informal or structured. Further, the said training could be offered via a wide variety of mediums including, but not limited to, online modules, sit-in training workshops, hardcopy handouts, etc. The most important questions to be taken into considerations in this case include i) What are the required skills that will be required for successful implementation? ii) Which will be the most appropriate delivery method for the identified training efforts?

Next is the actual implementation and tracking phase. Here, the technical or policy change is rolled out. At this point, both the top management and the team charged with implementation ought to work closely – especially given the need to ensure that personnel fully adjust to the change and additional resources are allocated when needed. In instances where the need for adjustments is identified, corrective measures as well as reinforcements ought to be instituted.

D: The Need for Teamwork

It is clear that teamwork is lacking in this case. The entire library system does not work as a unit in the delivery of services to patrons. Without teamwork, it is often difficult to get tasks accomplished in an organizational setting. It is important to note that each of those who work for KSLS has a special skill set that would be most useful if deployed in a team setting and complemented by the skill sets of other employees. The Service Center-based senior management team does not work as a team. As a matter of fact, interdepartmental competition seems to guide and inform most of their responses and undertakings. One only needs to visit the Monday morning DAC meetings to have a feel of how disjointed the managerial team is. The modus operandi in this case is largely informal and new items are often added as the meeting progresses. It is also not uncommon for attendees to shoot down or fail to support each other’s agendas if they feel that the said agendas threaten the implementation of their own preferred courses of action. This is despite the fact that this is a team that should, ideally, be reading from the same script.