322
Future Leaders’ Views on
Organizational Culture
Krisellen Maloney, Kristin Antelman, Kenning Arlitsch,
and John Butler
Krisellen Maloney is Dean of Libraries at The University of Texas at San Antonio; e-mail: krisellen.ma-
loney@utsa.edu. Kristin Antelman is Associate Director for the Digital Library at North Carolina State
University Libraries; e-mail: kristin_antelman@ncsu.edu. Kenning Arlitsch is Associate Director for IT
Services in the J. Willard Marriott Library at University of Utah; e-mail: kenning.arlitsch@utah.edu. John
Butler is Associate University Librarian for Information Technology at University of Minnesota Librar-
ies; e-mail: j-butl@umn.edu. © Krisellen Maloney, Kristin Antelman, Kenning Arlitsch, and John Butler
Research libraries will continue to be affected by rapid and transforma-
tive changes in information technology and the networked environment
for the foreseeable future. The pace and direction of these changes will
profoundly challenge libraries and their staffs to respond effectively. This
paper presents the results of a survey that was designed to discern the
perceptions and preferences of future library leaders related to organiza-
tional cultures in these times of precipitous change. The study finds that
future leaders of academic libraries perceive a significant gap between
their current and preferred organizational cultures and that current orga-
nizational cultures limit their effectiveness.
ibraries have been affected
by disruptive technologies
for the past decade or more,
but they have been insulated
from major changes by stable budgets
and an academic culture that is conser-
vative with respect to change. Just as
disruptive technologies have dramati-
cally reshaped other industries, the full
force of the changes brought about by
Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, and many
smaller innovators is now being felt in all
types of libraries. David Lewis explored
Christensen’s theories about the effects
of these disruptive technologies (“The
Innovator ’s Dilemma”) in relation to
academic libraries.1 Libraries have been
effective at embracing sustaining tech-
nologies (technologies that enable us to
do the same things for the same users)
but are more challenged by disruptive
technologies (technologies that do very
new things and for new users). Lewis
describes how libraries are facing dis-
ruptive technologies in all core aspects
of library practice—collections, biblio-
graphic control, and reference. Change
in our organizational cultures is central to
whether libraries will be able to adapt; the
challenge is “to create an organizational
culture that embraces the disruptive
change and rewards those who harness
it to serve the library’s users.”2
At the same time, a generational
change in attitudes toward technology
is witnessed in library users. The library
literature is rich with research about the
so-called Millennials, a generation whose
crl-47
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 323
relationships to technology, and whose
social structures and work patterns, are
different from any preceding generation.
Millennials are known for a preternatural
ability to adopt new information tech-
nologies, for shifting social and cultural
expectations seen in collaborative work
models, and for an appetite for open ac-
cess to information.
In early 2008, the Council on Library
and Information Resources convened a
meeting of library leaders to discuss the
topic of reconceiving research libraries for
the 21st century.3 Central to achieving this
goal is fostering organizational cultures
that support more risk-taking. “There is
a cost to not taking risk—a danger that
libraries will become stuck in a niche that
becomes smaller and smaller.”4 Many of
the recommendations called for librar-
ies, as well as universities, to be more
externally focused. Both risk-taking and
repositioning the library within the par-
ent organization are directly related to
organizational culture. Re-envisioning
the entire organization in order to remain
viable is not a natural, or comfortable, po-
sition for librarians. The transformation
will not occur without strong leadership
and must take place during a period in
which a significant percentage of the cur-
rent workforce will retire.
There is no doubt that the ability of
the library to be effective and transform
itself lies in the people who work there.
While the profession acknowledges an
imperative to realign skills in the library
workforce, making it so is a long-term
goal that will likely be implemented
only gradually. It is therefore particularly
urgent that, in the near term, libraries
nurture the talents of those who show the
most leadership potential and are already
working in libraries. Current library lead-
ership should be cognizant of the fact that
these “future leaders” have other options
in the marketplace. If they do not feel that
they can make a positive contribution in
their library, they will leave, and with
them may go much of the hope to bridge
library organizations into a viable future.
Perspectives on Organizational
Culture and Effectiveness
Organizational culture can be defined as
a set of values and beliefs that members
of an organization share, as well as im-
plicit, taken-for-granted belief structures.5
Organizational culture both guides and
constrains the behavior of members of a
group. It is a vehicle for change but also
an outcome, “both the means and ends
of organizational change efforts.”6 It also
stands at the center of leadership. Culture
defines and creates leaders; “leadership
and culture are two sides of the same
coin.”7 At the same time, real leaders
step outside the culture that shaped them
and in which they find themselves. They
have the ability to recognize changes in
the external environment that necessitate
internal change and are able to lead an
adaptation of their own organization’s
culture to meet new challenges.
A variety of frameworks exist to assess
organizational culture and effectiveness,
ranging from models that focus on a par-
ticular dimension of an organization (for
instance, human relations, open systems,
internal process, rational goal) to more
complex typologies.8 One framework of
the latter type is the Competing Values
Framework (CVF). The CVF seeks to
express the underlying values in an or-
ganization and how those values can be
applied to the process of organizational
change. Developed from research on ma-
jor indicators of effective organizations,
the CVF is a multidimensional model that
describes four distinct culture types: Clan,
Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market.9 The
four culture types have roots in, and have
been shown to be congruent with, other
frameworks, including single-variable
models (Clan = human relations; Adhoc-
racy = open systems; Hierarchy = internal
process; Market=rational goal and Jung/
Myers and Briggs (Clan = feeling; Adhoc-
racy = intuiting; Hierarchy = thinking;
Market = sensing).10
Clan (also referred to as Collaborate11)
is characterized by teamwork and em-
ployee development; in a Clan/Collaborate
324 College & Research Libraries July 2010
culture, a major task of management is to
empower employees and facilitate their
participation, commitment, and loyalty.
Adhocracy (Create) is characterized by
innovation and rapid response to change;
a major task of management in an Ad-
hocracy/Create culture is to foster entre-
preneurship, creativity, and adaptability.
Hierarchy (Control) values include stabil-
ity, clear lines of authority, standardized
rules and procedures, and accountability;
the role of management in a Hierarchy/
Control culture is to maintain consis-
tency in products and services. Market
(Compete) values are oriented toward the
external environment and emphasize com-
petitiveness and productivity; the role of
management in a Market/Compete culture
is to effectively respond to external market
mechanisms to increase the organization’s
productivity, results, and profits.12
The Competing Values Framework
groups measures of organizational effec-
tiveness along two dimensions: internal
versus external focus, and high versus
low flexibility. The four quadrants created
by these intersecting axes define the core
cultural types (see figure 1).
While the CVF can be used as a tool
to measure organizational effectiveness
and success, it can do so only in the
context of a given organization’s cultural
profile and lifecycle stage. In other words,
while industries may have a typical
profile or there may be a profile typical
of young versus mature organizations,
there is no ideal profile. The CVF allows
an organization to be described by the
degree to which it adheres to each of the
four culture types. Most organizations
have some characteristics of each of the
organizational types. Thus, one of the
challenges of employing the CVF as a tool
for organizational change is accepting the
apparent contradictions inherent in the
model. According to Quinn and Cameron,
this is, in fact, the model’s strength; the
CVF reveals “the inherent paradoxes in
effectiveness.”13 In contrast, frameworks
that do not account for paradox can hide
them, and hence their potential explana-
tory value, within averages and linear
figure 1
elements of the Competing Values framework
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 325
trends. As an example of this paradox, it
has been shown that Clan culture values
support more innovation and risk-taking,
values that are also associated with the
Adhocracy culture type.14 In a study of
colleges facing a major crisis, Cameron
found that those that survived simultane-
ously exhibited entrepreneurial, innova-
tive behaviors (Adhocracy values) and
conservative, near-term survival-focused
behaviors (Hierarchy values).15
Several organizational culture profiles
can emerge from use of the CVF frame-
work. In a congruent culture, one culture
type dominates most aspects of the orga-
nization (such as leadership, management,
strategic emphases, criteria of success). In
a strong culture, one cultural type (or quad-
rant) is dominant. In a balanced culture,
an organization shows capabilities in all
four cultures. Congruency or strength of
culture is not necessarily associated with
organizational success and, while associ-
ated with success, a balanced culture is
not required for organizational success;
what it indicates is evidence of capacity
in an organization to shift emphases when
necessary.16 In a study of 334 institutions
of higher education, Cameron found that
neither strong nor congruent cultures
were strong predictors of organizational
effectiveness,17 although he notes in
discussing the results of that study that
congruency of culture is more likely to
be associated with unit performance than
overall performance in a large, complex
organization such as a university.18
The Competing Values Framework has
seen some application in libraries. Kaarst-
Brown and her colleagues highlighted the
use of the CVF as a diagnostic tool.19 Faer-
man stressed its utility for examining “the
inherent paradoxes and contradictions
of organizational life” and emphasized
that libraries will be successful as user-
centered organizations only when they
can become aware of the need for balance
across cultural values and recognize that
conceptual opposition between cultural
types does not mean that the those cultur-
al types cannot coexist.20 Varner stressed
the utility of the CVF in the diagnostic
stage of organizational change, as it en-
abled library staff both to discover and to
make visible their organization’s under-
lying assumptions.21 That the CVF is not
premised on a problem is also a strength,
he noted, as is its underlying philosophy
that effectiveness contains contradictory
measures of success and evolves over
the lifecycle of an organization. In a re-
cent application in the academic library
context, Shepstone and Currie used the
CVF to examine the current and preferred
organizational cultures at the Univer-
sity of Saskatchewan Library as part of a
larger strategic planning process.22 They
found a significant gap between current
and preferred cultures, and differences
between longer-term and newer librar-
ians. The results of their assessment, in
combination with results from strategic
planning, served as the basis of a roadmap
for specific actions for change.
A Study of Future Library Leaders
The study described here was undertaken
to better understand individual percep-
tions of the current and preferred orga-
nizational cultures and to assess whether
there was a relationship between future
library leaders’ satisfaction with their or-
ganizational cultures and their perception
of their own effectiveness. More specifi-
cally, the study was designed to test the
following four hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: Future leaders are not
satisfied with their libraries’ current or-
ganizational culture. They want a culture
that is more externally focused and more
flexible.
Hypothesis 2: Future leaders believe
that their libraries’ current organizational
structures and processes limit their ability
to be effective.
Hypothesis 3: Future leaders feel more
effective in libraries that are more flexible
and externally focused.
Hypothesis 4: Dissatisfaction with the
organizational culture will cause future
leaders to consider leaving academic
research libraries.
326 College & Research Libraries July 2010
Methodology
The Sample
For the purpose of this study, future li-
brary leaders were defined as individuals
who are: a) making strong contributions
to their organization’s visioning and
strategic planning; b) demonstrating in-
novative practices; and c) in the earlier
stages of their careers. The purposive
sample was developed by broadly solic-
iting nominations for subjects meeting
these “future leaders” criteria from as-
sociate directors and associate univer-
sity librarians across the United States.
Additional subjects were identified
from recent participants in competitive
academic library leadership programs,
such as those offered by the ARL and the
Frye Institute. Two hundred and forty
nominations were received, representing
individuals at 93 academic libraries of all
sizes (but with the majority coming from
ARL libraries).
The Survey Instrument and Study Measures
The self-reporting survey instrument (see
Appendix 1) consisted of fifteen questions
organized into five sections: Predicting
the Future, Changing Role of the Library,
Your Library’s Culture, Your Prefer-
ences and Experience, and Your Future
in Libraries. Additional questions were
included to collect demographic infor-
mation, including position area, position
level, length of time working in libraries,
length of time in current position, age,
gender, and level of professional activity.
The first section, Predicting the Future,
contained three questions that were taken
from the Taiga 1 Provocative Statements23
(Appendix 1, Questions 1-3). These ques-
tions did not directly pertain to the study’s
hypotheses, but, rather, were designed as
an “ice breaker” to encourage respondents
to feel free to express their opinions in the
remainder of the survey. Section 2, Chang-
ing Role of the Library, requested open-
ended narrative responses, which were
not used in the analyses described here.
To test Hypothesis 1, two dimensions
of organizational culture, dominant
characteristics and management style,
were selected from the standard Com-
peting Values Framework instrument,
the Organizational Culture Assessment
I n s t r u m e n t . 2 4 F o r e a c h d i m e n s i o n ,
respondents were asked to assess the
degree to which a series of four state-
ments (one for each culture type: Clan,
Adhocracy, Hierarchy, Market) matched
their perception of their current and
preferred organizational culture and
management style (Appendix 1, Ques-
tions 8–11). The sixteen responses (four
each for current and preferred dominant
characteristics and current and preferred
management style) were used to measure
future leaders’ perception of the levels of
Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Mar-
ket culture types in their current and
preferred organizations. Respondents’
levels of satisfaction would be derived
by calculating the difference between the
current and preferred responses for each
culture type for both of the dimensions.
Responses to the question about the
impact of the organizational structures
and management style on respondents’
effectiveness (Appendix 1, Question 12)
would be analyzed as the dependent vari-
able to test Hypothesis 2. The responses
to this question would also be used as an
independent variable to test Hypothesis
3, which predicted that respondents feel
the most effective working in organiza-
tions that are more externally focused
and flexible.
Hypothesis 4 predicted a relationship
between the degree to which subjects feel
dissatisfied with their library’s processes
and structures and the likelihood that
they will continue working in libraries.
To test Hypothesis 4, subjects were asked
to provide the likelihood that they will be
working in libraries in the next 5 years
(Appendix 1, Question 14).
Administering the Survey
The survey was developed and adminis-
tered August through October of 2008. The
initial instrument was reviewed by survey
experts in the authors’ own institutions,
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 327
which resulted in minor changes. This was
followed by a pilot survey that was sent
to ten members of the sample population.
Based on input from this group, the survey
was modified. (Results from this initial
pilot are not included in the analysis.) To
validate the final instrument, the survey
was sent to ten additional members of the
sample population. Upon acceptance of
this version of the instrument, an invita-
tion to complete the survey was sent to the
remaining 220 members of the sample (see
Appendix 2). Respondents were offered
the opportunity to win a $100 Amazon gift
certificate for participation in the survey.
No identifying information was stored
with responses. A reminder was sent one
week after the initial invitation.
Results
There were 177 responses to the survey.
Twelve respondents did not progress
past the first page, resulting in 165 valid
responses, a 72 percent response rate.
Respondents’ high level of engagement
is indicated both by the response rate
and by the fact that 93 percent answered
one or more of the optional open-ended
questions.
Sample Characteristics
The majority of the respondents (70%)
were between 30 and 40 years of age. The
next largest group (17%) were respondents
between 41 and 50 years of age. A smaller
number of respondents were under 30 (9%)
and even fewer were over 50 (4%). The ma-
jority of respondents were female (63%).
Respondents came from all areas of
the library. The largest groups were from
technology/emerging services (30%),
public services (22%), and liaisons/subject
specialists (19%). Other groups were also
represented including technical services
(13%), collections/scholarly communi-
cation (6%), administration (6%), and
special collections/archives/preservation/
conservation (5%).
A large number of respondents had
some supervisory experience as a director
or branch head (2%), assistant or associate
director (3%), department head (30%), or
unit head (12%). An additional 11 percent
described themselves as coordinators,
2 percent as IT Specialists. The largest
group was the group that described
themselves as librarians (41%).
Respondents were fairly evenly dis-
tributed among groups in how long they
worked in libraries, with 29 percent work-
ing 0 to 5 years, 37 percent working 6 to
10 years, and 34 percent working over 10
years in libraries. However, the majority
of respondents had been in their current
positions for a short time. Ninety-one
percent were in their positions 0 to 5 years,
7 percent were in their positions 6 to 10
years, and only 2 percent were in their
position more than 10 years.
Respondents were asked to provide
information regarding several indicators
of professional activity and involve-
ment (Appendix 1, Question 15). These
included traditional measures of success
(like publications and promotions) as well
as newer measures (for instance, involve-
ment in grant activity and Web presence).
Respondents indicated that they were
involved in, on average, 5.7 of the 8 areas.
Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction with
Organizational Culture
Hypothesis 1 predicted that future lead-
ers are not satisfied with current organi-
zational cultures and that they prefer a
culture that is more externally focused
and flexible. Large differences between
responses for current and preferred cul-
tures would indicate dissatisfaction.
Responses to the questions related
to current and preferred organizational
culture dominant characteristics and man-
agement style dimensions were analyzed
using paired t-tests. The data show signifi-
cant differences for all four culture types
for dominant characteristics (see table 1)
and significant differences for three of the
four culture types (Clan, Adhocracy, and
Hierarchy) for management style (see table
2). These results indicate an overall lack of
satisfaction with the organizational culture
and provide support for Hypothesis 1.
328 College & Research Libraries July 2010
Figures 2 and 3 map the results of
dominant characteristics and manage-
ment style to the Competing Values
Framework quadrants. The ‘X’ provides
an axis on which the data are mapped,
with each hatch mark representing ap-
proximately 5 points (5%). Two points
are plotted in each of the quadrants: one
represents the mean value of responses
about current organizational culture,
the other represents the mean value of
responses about preferred organization
Table 1
results of Paired T-Test analysis of Current and Preferred Dominant
Characteristics of Organizational Culture
Table 2
results of Paired T-Test analysis of Current and Preferred Management
Style Dimension of Organizational Culture
figure 2
CVf representation of Current and Preferred Dominant Characteristics
Dimension of Organizational Culture
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 329
culture. The points are connected with
lines to form a diamond shape. A long
point on the diamond indicates a high
value, while a short side indicates a low
value. The figures provide a visual de-
piction of the data that can be useful in
interpreting the results.
Hypothesis 1 further predicted that
future leaders would prefer organizations
with greater external focus and flexibility.
The results support the hypothesis and
are congruent for responses related to
dominant characteristics and manage-
ment style, showing a strong preference
for a shift from Hierarchy to Adhocracy
cultures. The largest differences were
found in the shift away from Hierarchy
(internal focus, low flexibility) with re-
spondents preferring less Hierarchy in
both dominant characteristics (23 points)
and management style (27 points). The
opposing quadrant, the Adhocracy culture
type, reflects a change similar in magni-
tude and, as predicted, in the opposite
direction. Difference in responses for both
dominant characteristics (23 points) and
management style (19 points) indicate a
shift toward a more flexible, externally
focused organizational culture. This can
be seen clearly in figures 2 and 3 as the
point of the diamond shifts from the lower
left to the upper right. The shift in manage-
ment styles shows an even stronger shift
away from Hierarchy (27 points), but it is
not completely a shift to Adhocracy. The
shift away from Hierarchy is split between
two culture types, with the largest portion
moving to Adhocracy (19 points) and a
smaller portion moving toward Clan (7)
and Market (2) management styles.
Although all the differences observed
are statistically significant, the question
remains as to whether the differences
are operationally significant. Statistical
significance indicates there is a very low
probability that the difference is due to
chance and that an actual difference of
the magnitude measured does exist. It
does not indicate that that difference is
operationally significant. As a guide to as-
sessing operational significance, Cameron
and Quinn suggest that organizations
be especially sensitive to differences of
10 or more points (that is, 10%) between
figure 3
CVf representation of Current and Preferred Management Style Dimension
of Organizational Culture
330 College & Research Libraries July 2010
the current and preferred orga-
nizational cultures.25 Using this
guideline, it is safe to assume that
the large differences between the
current Hierarchy culture in favor
of the preferred Adhocracy culture
have operational significance. The
magnitudes of the differences
found for the Clan and Market
culture types are small and so may
not have operational significance.
Hypotheses 2 and 3: Effectiveness
and Organizational Culture
Individual Effectiveness
To test Hypothesis 2, that future
leaders feel that their own ef-
fectiveness is limited by their
libraries’ organizational structures and
processes, responses to the related ques-
tion (Appendix 1, Question 12) were
analyzed. The results confirm Hypothesis
2, showing that more than 85 percent of
respondents said that their organizational
structures and processes limited their im-
pact or effectiveness either “somewhat”
or “a lot” (they felt somewhat or a lot
“thwarted,” in short) (see figure 4).
To test Hypothesis 3, that future leaders
felt more effective in organizations that
are more flexible and externally focused,
analysis of the relationship between the
perception of individual effectiveness and
organizational culture was conducted.
Subjects were grouped into one of three
subsets based on their responses: not at
all thwarted, somewhat thwarted, or a lot
thwarted (that is, “thwarted” was used a
dependent variable). Differences in the
current culture types reported by subjects
were analyzed based on how hindered
they felt by their current organizational
structures. That is, the perceived level of
the Hierarchy culture was compared be-
tween groups of subjects responding that
they felt their effectiveness was limited by
organizational structures not at all, some-
what, and a lot. This analysis was repeated
for Adhocracy, Clan, and Market culture
types for the dominant characteristics of
organizational culture. All four analyses
(Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market
cultures) were then conducted for man-
agement style.
ANOVA was used to analyze dif-
ferences in responses to the questions
related to the dominant culture of the
organization based on membership in the
thwarted group. The data show signifi-
cant differences among all groups (not at
all thwarted, somewhat thwarted, and a
lot thwarted) for the Hierarchy and Ad-
hocracy culture types for both dominant
characteristics and management style.
The results are summarized in tables 3
and 4; results of the post-hoc tests describ-
ing differences between group pairs are
included in Appendix 3.
Figures 5 and 6 graphically depict
the results for the two culture types for
which the findings were statistically
significant: Hierarchy and Adhocracy.
The data show that, when responding
to the question regarding their library’s
current dominant organizational culture
and management style, subjects who said
that their individual effectiveness was
“not at all thwarted” by organizational
structures also said that their library had
low levels of Hierarchy culture and high
levels of Adhocracy culture. Conversely,
the group of subjects responding that
their individual effectiveness was “a lot
thwarted” by organizational processes
figure 4
level to Which respondents felt They
Were Thwarted by Organizational
Structures and Processes
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 331
also said that their library had high lev-
els of Hierarchy culture and low levels
of Adhocracy culture. This supports the
hypothesis that future leaders feel more
effective in organizations that are more
externally focused and more flexible and
feel less effective in organizations that are
internally focused and less flexible.
Organizational Effectiveness
To provide additional perspective on
the results, differences in responses to
the OCAI questions regarding current
and preferred organizational cultures
between the “a lot thwarted” and the “not
at all thwarted” groups were analyzed.
Responses to the current and preferred
organizational questions for these groups
were contrasted to the overall current and
preferred responses to see if different
patterns of responses emerge. Figure 7
maps the “a lot thwarted” group to the
CVF quadrants along with the responses
for the entire group for current organiza-
tional culture. Figure 8 maps the “not at
all thwarted” group to the CVF quadrants
along with the responses for
the entire group for preferred
organizational culture. In both
cases, the shapes are nearly
identical, demonstrating that
the preferred organization of
the entire group is very similar
to the responses of subjects
who say that they are not hin-
dered by organizational struc-
tures and processes. (Although
not represented in figures,
similar relationships exist for
the management style dimen-
sion. See table 4.)
Figure 9 maps the responses
for the current dominant char-
acteristics of organizational
culture for the “a lot thwarted”
Table 3
Differences in Dominant Characteristics Dimension grouped by level to which
respondents feel Hindered by Organizational Structures and Processes
Table 4
Differences in Management Style Dimension grouped by the level to which
respondents feel Hindered by Organizational Structures and Processes
figure 5
responses to the OCai Question related to
Dominant Characteristics grouped by the
level to which respondents feel Hindered by
Organizational Structures and Processes
332 College & Research Libraries July 2010
Hypothesis 4: Individual Future Plans in
Libraries
To test Hypothesis 4, which predicts that
dissatisfaction with the organizational
culture will cause future leaders to con-
sider leaving academic research libraries,
responses to the question about the likeli-
group to the CVF quadrants
along with the responses for
the entire group to the OCAI
question related to preferred or-
ganization. Unlike similarities
between responses for current
and preferred organizational
cultures for the group that
reported they were “not at all
thwarted,” there are marked
differences between respon-
dents who feel they are “a lot
thwarted” by organizational
cultures and the overall pre-
ferred culture.
These data show that the
organizational culture that is
preferred generally is very simi-
lar to the current organizational
cultures of those who feel they are not at
all hindered by organizational structures,
suggesting that the organizational cul-
ture profile preferred by all respondents
would be an environment in which all
individuals would perceive themselves
as more effective.
figure 6
responses to the OCai Question related
to Management Style grouped by the level
to which respondents feel Hindered by
Organizational Structures and Processes
figure 7
Current Dominant Characteristics of Organizational Culture for the entire
Sample with the “a lot Thwarted” group
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 333
hood that subjects would be working in
libraries in five years were analyzed (Ap-
pendix 1, Question 14). As with the test of
Hypothesis 3, subjects were grouped into
subsets based on the level at which they
felt that they were thwarted by organiza-
tional structures (not at all, somewhat, a
lot), and analysis was conducted to test
figure 8
Preferred Dominant Characteristics of Organizational Culture for the entire
Sample with the Current “Not at all Thwarted” group
figure 9
Preferred Dominant Characteristics of Organizational Culture for the entire
Sample with the Current responses for the “a lot Thwarted” group
334 College & Research Libraries July 2010
for differences between the groups in the
likelihood that subjects would be working
in libraries in five years.
Table 5 summarizes the responses.
Because the matrix is square and both
measures are ordinal data, Kendall’s
tau-b analysis was used to determine
if a statistically significant relationship
existed between the responses to the
questions. The data indicate a relationship
(Kendall’s tau-b = –2.170, P<=0.001) with
the subjects reporting the most negative
impact of organizational processes and
structures most likely to say that it was
unlikely or very unlikely that they would
be working in a library in five years.
Subjects reporting little negative impact
of organizational process and structures
were more likely to respond that it was
likely or very likely that they would be
working in a library in five years.
There was no relationship detected be-
tween a person feeling thwarted and their
interest in moving to a leadership position
within the next five years. In addition,
no relationship was found between the
likelihood that a person would be work-
ing in a library in the next five years and
their interest in moving into a leadership
position in the next five years. The data
indicate that some people have interest
in leadership and, if not satisfied in the
library setting, they may move elsewhere.
Summary of Findings
This study analyzed future library lead-
ers’ perceptions of the organizational
cultures in which they currently work and
compared them to the cultures that they
would prefer. A self-reporting survey was
used to collect data from 165 respondents
(a 72% response rate) who met the criteria
of “future leader.” The study employed
the Competing Values Framework—a
model designed to assess organizational
culture and effectiveness—with the goal
of better understanding how future aca-
demic library leaders perceive organiza-
tional culture.
While the study did not focus on or
reveal the culture profile of individual
institutions, it did shed light on an aggre-
gate academic library profile (see Current
in figures 2 and 3). Viewed in the context
of other industry profiles, the academic
library profile has elements of all culture
types (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and
Market) but is dominated by the Hierar-
chy culture type. The gap between current
and preferred cultures, as well as the de-
gree to which future leaders feel thwarted
by current cultures in their capacity to
be effective, indicate that a more optimal
library profile would show significantly
less presence of the Hierarchy culture
type and significantly greater presence of
the Adhocracy culture type (see Preferred
in figures 2 and 3). The preferred culture,
as perceived by this population, is more
flexible and externally oriented than the
current culture. The study also found that
future leaders feel limited in their effec-
tiveness and impact by their libraries’ cur-
rent organizational cultures, and that the
Table 5
The relationship between “Thwarted” and the likelihood of Working in a
library in five Years
To what extent do you feel your
library’s organizational struc-
tures and processes limit your
effectiveness? (“Thwarted”)
Academic research libraries are effectively
meeting the needs of their users…
Total
Disagree or
strongly disagree
Neutral Agree or
strongly agree
Not at all 3 4 14 21
Sometimes 22 28 40 90
A lot 27 13 14 54
Total 52 45 68 165
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 335
more internally focused and less flexible
their libraries are, the more thwarted they
feel. Finally, the study found that future
leaders who are most frustrated are the
most likely to consider leaving libraries.
Discussion
Libraries face significant pressure to
change due to paradigm shifts in the
information environment, rapidly chang-
ing needs and expectations of users, and
evolving requirements for the workforce
that must respond to these challenges.
Some libraries are responding effectively
and even boldly. Many are also coming to
realize that the state of change itself will
not cease or even slow. Rather, change
may be expected to be a continuous state,
and those libraries treating it as such are
likely to be better prepared to respond
to emerging opportunities (or threats) in
the academy as well as from the exter-
nal environment and marketplace. For
academic libraries, fostering a culture of
“continuous change” will require increas-
ing agility, embracing innovation and
experimentation, and approaching the
unknown and the evolving with greater
ease and sense of opportunity.
Effective senior leadership is essential
to any organizational culture change.
The people whom these current leaders
depend upon to help their organizations
to become successful—the cohort of future
leaders who were the focus of this study—
will be key to the longer-term success of
change across organizations and the pro-
fession. That is, if they stay in libraries. The
findings of this study reveal a significant
gap between future leaders’ perceptions
of current organizational culture and the
culture in which they feel they would be
more effective. They are frustrated and
feel that they are not achieving their po-
tential due to what they perceive as limits
imposed by their organizations’ culture.
With these findings, however, sev-
eral valid questions can be raised. For
example, what is the relationship between
subjective perceptions of individual ef-
fectiveness and overall organizational
effectiveness? Should it be assumed that
organizations are underperforming when
it is discovered that prospective leaders
feel they are not achieving their potential?
These are complex questions that have
been explored at length in the manage-
ment literature with no widely accepted
answers. What can be said based on the
results of this study is that individuals
with high potential, who are viewed as
future leaders by their colleagues, feel that
they are not able to contribute as much as
they might due to organizational culture
factors. This represents a “loss” to the
organization, perhaps in productivity, or
possibility, or both, whether or not it can
be linked to a diminishment of overall
organizational effectiveness.
Another more specific question of
the findings might be: what might less
Hierarchy culture type and more Adhoc-
racy culture type mean operationally, in
an individual library? The instrument
employed in this study, the Competing
Values Framework, could also be used
to explore this question. The CVF is
designed to be used as both a diagnostic
tool and as a guide to an organizational
culture change process. An organization
using a CVF process would start with the
diagnostic phase, described in this study,
and then move to using the framework to
identify desired changes in respect to each
culture type and come to agreement on
what those changes meant in the context
of that organization.26 For example, an
increase in the Adhocracy culture might
mean greater openness to staff sugges-
tions, more thoughtful risk taking; it
would not imply everyone for him/her-
self, chaotic processes, or pursuing fads.27
While this paper does not include an
analysis of the responses to the survey’s
open-ended questions, some light is shed
on the question of operational significance
by narrative responses to the questions
about what libraries, as they look forward,
might do more and less of (Appendix 1,
Questions 5-7). Respondents who desired
a shift of 30 or more points (that is, per-
cent) from a Hierarchy culture toward an
336 College & Research Libraries July 2010
Adhocracy culture pointed to what such a
shift might mean in practice. One respon-
dent noted, “People working in academic
libraries need structured opportunities
(and encouragement) to try things out
(the “beta” or pilot project idea), and ad-
ministrative support for doing so. [...] The
culture of the library needs to be such that
people don’t automatically roll their eyes
at experiments or constant change, but in-
stead welcome new possibilities and want
to try them out.” Another respondent said,
“It is time for more management shake-
ups, the development of more flexible
work situations, and more risk-taking.
There needs to be more experimentation
and room to explore different operational
models more readily.”
Numerous responses from those who
sought a large shift from Hierarchy
toward Adhocracy singled out the nega-
tive impact of consensus-based processes
common in libraries. One respondent
noted, “I wonder what it is about the
culture of librarianship that makes it
more important to get along and play nice
than it is to be effective.” Another wrote,
“Libraries need to get away from having
to create a[n] 80-page report that takes
1.5 years to come up on whether a ‘Get it
delivered’ button should be implemented
in the catalog.” A consensus culture is
most associated with the Clan culture
type and no desire to shift away from
Clan values was found in the Compet-
ing Values Framework questions in this
study; in fact, in the management style
dimension, an increase in Clan values
was desired (see figure 3). The question
of the impact of Clan values, positive or
negative, on current and potential effec-
tiveness and capacity for change bears
further investigation.
Even though the majority of respon-
dents to this survey indicated that they
intend to remain working in libraries,
it might be unwise to feel too heartened
by this finding. Several respondents spe-
cifically pointed to organizational culture
issues as driving them to consider leav-
ing: “I’m just not sure I want to stay in a
library, or at least not one where there is
little innovation or support for it” and “I
am looking forward to younger people
taking over. I thought that where I work
now would be more progressive, but it is
so traditional. And traditional no longer
works in libraries.” A number of people,
in response to the question about what
they think about when they consider
their future in libraries, noted that they
know they have attractive options out-
side libraries, even if they hope to stay in
libraries. Instructional technology-related
positions, in particular, were cited by
more than one respondent as an option.
But it is also well known that several other
fields (such as informatics, management
information systems, data- and geospa-
tial-oriented specialties) will vie for the
same talent that libraries will increasingly
need to move effectively into the future.
It may be tempting to dismiss the
frustrations of future library leaders as
generational differences or the unsea-
soned perspectives of potential leaders
who have not yet carried the mantle of
leadership. However, the data make a
strong case for the fact that, if libraries are
to remain important components of the
academy, the current and next generation
of library leaders face an imperative to
change at a faster pace and more radically
than did their predecessors. This study
signals the undergirding importance of
organizational culture development as a
strategy to achieving greater library effec-
tiveness and preparedness for the future.
Conclusion
Academic libraries, and research librar-
ies in particular, have nurtured funda-
mentally conservative organizational
cultures, mirroring their historical role
in the academy. To some extent, libraries
are constrained in their capacity to change
by being part of this larger (conservative)
university environment. As Michalko has
noted, “The library as a separately identi-
fiable organization is going to reproduce
the same patterns of transformation that
the larger institution is going through.”28
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 337
This presents a paradox for libraries: they
must aggressively change to remain viable
entities with their constituents while at the
same time continuing to be recognized
and accepted within their universities.
At the same time, research libraries are
microcosms of the university, with both
business-focused and academic-focused
functions. Also like universities, librar-
ies are characterized by multiple, often
quite distinct, subcultures. It is therefore
likely that a given library’s profile would
contain a mix of two or more dominant
cultural types. This challenges leadership
to manage and, where desirable, culti-
vate distinct and potentially competing
cultures within the library organization.
Adding to this challenge is the need to
align the overall library organizational
culture with the culture of the parent insti-
tution to ensure stability, fit, and support.
Is an increased emphasis on nurturing
the Adhocracy culture type the answer
to these challenges emerging from the
library’s role within the larger organiza-
tion? It can be argued that this culture
type is better suited to the nature of the
external pressures libraries currently face,
namely rapid shifts in both the informa-
tion environment and user expectations
brought about by changes in information
technology. In an Adhocracy culture, the
roles of innovator and broker are key.29
Leaders who are innovators think cre-
atively about opportunities and are not
limited by current structures. They are
effective in energizing people around a
new vision of organizational opportuni-
ties. The leader as broker serves as a liai-
son between the organization and those
outside the organization. As Faerman
notes, nurturing a positive image of the
organization can help leaders garner ad-
ditional resources,30 a principal objective
for library leadership when one views the
library in the broader campus context.
Increasingly, organizational effec-
tiveness may be tied to sustaining a
continuous tempo of change, according
to organizational researchers Weick and
Quinn.31 However, a common response
to the need for significant change is to
create (at significant effort) a monu-
mental episode of change, that when
completed is frozen, a new status quo.
Significant change in a Hierarchy-dom-
inant culture may tend to be approached
this way. In fact, urgent calls for trans-
formative change may reinforce and
harden the tendencies toward Hierarchy
approaches, as the need to make change
happen is perceived to be possible only
through centralized authority and con-
trol. This, however, does not advance
an organization’s ability and capacity to
change as needed.
Alternatively, Weick and Quinn suggest
developing a culture that has the capac-
ity to support continuous change. “The
distinctive quality of continuous change
is the idea that small continuous adjust-
ments, created simultaneously across
units, can cumulate and create substantial
change.”32 Organizations where this as-
pect of culture is strong are emergent and
self-organizing, and change is constant,
improvisational, evolving, and cumula-
tive. The ability of libraries to foster strong
Adhocracy-type cultures that can read-
ily adapt to changes in the environment,
while continuing to maintain the control
necessary to manage the organization’s
more routine processes, may be key to
continued success. This points to moving
from a culture that is dominated by the
Hierarchy culture type to one that has
more elements of Adhocracy.
While libraries have grappled with
environmental changes before, never
before have the changes been so dramatic
and so sweeping as they are now. Current
library leaders are faced with challenges
never seen by their predecessors. Genera-
tional and technological changes portend
a bleak future for libraries that do not
dramatically realign their organizational
cultures to address the changes. A key
component of this will be creating an en-
vironment and culture in which staff that
are demonstrating the kind of leadership
necessary to continuously re-envision the
library can thrive.
338 College & Research Libraries July 2010
Notes
1. David Lewis, “The Innovator’s Dilemma: Disruptive Change and Academic Libraries,”
Library Administration & Management 18 (2004): 2.
2. Ibid.
3. Council on Library and Information Resources. 2008. No brief candle: reconceiving research
libraries for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub142/pub142.pdf
4. Ibid.
5. Joanne Martin, Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publica-
tions, 2002); Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004).
6. A.K.O. Yeung, J.W. Brockbank, and D.O. Ulrich, “Organizational Culture and Human
Resource Practices: An Empirical Assessment” in Research in Organizational Change and Develop-
ment, eds. R.W. Woodman and W.A. Pasmore (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press Inc., 1991).
7. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1.
8. Ibid., 191–98.
9. Robert E. Quinn and John Rohrbaugh, “A Competing Values Approach to Organizational
Effectiveness,” Public Productivity Review (June 1981); Robert E. Quinn and John Rohrbaugh, “A
Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational
Analysis,” Management Science 29 (1983): 3.
10. Kim S. Cameron and Sarah J. Freeman, “Cultural Congruence, Strength, and Type: Rela-
tionships to Effectiveness,” Research in Organizational Change and Development (Greenwich, Conn.:
JAI Press, 1991); Kim S. Cameron and Robert E. Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).
11. Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn, Jeff DeGraff, and Anjan V. Thakor, Competing Values Leader-
ship: Creating Value in Organizations (Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, 2006). In later work on the
Competing Values Framework, Cameron and Quinn added an orienting verb to describe each dominant
culture type. They found that the verbs helped cue managers to the kinds of dominant activities that
relate to value creation in each quadrant (or culture type). The verbs are included in figure 1.
12. Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, 37–45.
13. Robert E. Quinn and Kim S. Cameron, eds., Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of
Change in Organization and Management (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Pub. Co., 1988).
14. P.M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York:
Doubleday, 1990).
15. Kim S. Cameron, “Effectiveness as Paradox,” Management Science 32 (1986).
16. Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, 57.
17. Cameron and Freeman, “Cultural Congruence, Strength, and Type.”
18. Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.
19. Michelle L. Kaarst-Brown, Scott Nicholson, Gisela M. von Dran, and Jeffrey M. Stanton,
“Organizational Cultures of Libraries as a Strategic Resource,” Library Trends 53 (2004): 1.
20. Sue R. Faerman, “Organizational Change and Leadership Styles,” Journal of Library Ad-
ministration, 19 (1993): 3–4.
21. Carroll H. Varner, “An Examination of an Academic Library Culture Using a Competing
Values Framework” (PhD dissertation, Illinois State University, 1996).
22. Carol Shepstone and Lyn Currie, “Transforming the Academic Library: Creating an Or-
ganizational Culture that Fosters Staff Success,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (2008): 4.
23. Taiga Forum Provocative Statements, March 10, 2006. Available online at www.taigaforum.
org/documents/ProvocativeStatements.pdf. [Accessed 22 June 2010].
24. Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. The Organizational
Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) consists of a survey instrument that assesses six key dimen-
sions of organizational culture: dominant characteristics, leadership, management, organization
glue, strategic emphases, and criteria of success. Since the OCAI questions correspond to the four
quadrants of the CVF, the results can be graphed on the Competing Values Framework grid.
25. Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, 71–72.
26. Ibid.
27. Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, and Thakor, Competing Values Leadership.
28. James Michalko, “Higher Education, the Production Function, and the Library” in Libraries
as User-Centered Organizations: Imperatives for Organizational Change, ed. Meredith A. Butler (New
York: Haworth Press, 1993).
29. Faerman, “Organizational Change,” 66–67.
30. Ibid., 67–68.
31. Karl E. Weick and Robert E. Quinn, “Organizational Change and Development,” Annual
Review of Psychology 50 (1999): 1.
32. Ibid., 375.
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 339
Appendix 1. Text of Survey
Introduction
Welcome to our survey!
This survey is designed to better understand the attitudes of our future leaders. You
have been identified as a future leader and, as such, your opinions are important for
understanding the future of academic libraries.
Your responses will be confidential. Publications resulting from the research will
present aggregate data. We will be presenting the results of this survey at the Fall
ARL meeting. We know your time is valuable; this survey will take only about 10–15
minutes of your time. It contains a variety of question types, but there are instructions
on each page. The Institutional Review Board of North Carolina State University has
approved this informed consent statement. If you feel you have not been treated ac-
cording to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research
have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact [...], Regulatory
Compliance Administrator, Box 7514, or [...], IRB Coordinator, Box 7514, North Carolina
State University. Your participation is voluntary and you can stop the survey at any
time by closing your browser.
By clicking on the “Next” button below, you agree that you have read and under-
stood the above consent form and agree to participate in this study. At the end of the
survey, you will have the opportunity to submit an e-mail address to be entered in a
drawing for a $100 Amazon Gift Certificate. Your e-mail will not be associated with
your responses in any way.
Your participation is voluntary, and you can stop the survey at any time by closing
your browser.
If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact any one of us:
• Kristin Antelman
• Kenning Arlitsch
• John Butler
• Kris Maloney
Section 1. Predicting the Future…
The Taiga Forum was a meeting first convened in 2005 to bring AULs together to talk
about the future of libraries, recognizing that there was a need to “develop cross-function-
al vision that makes internal organizational structures more flexible, agile, and effective.”
Although the questions were developed three years ago, we are interested in your
thoughts on a few of them, whether you think each is likely or not likely to come to
pass within five years.
1. In five years… all information discovery will begin at Google, including discovery
of library resources. The continuing disaggregation of content from its original
container will cause a revolution in resource discovery.
q Likely q Unlikely Comment (optional):
2. In five years… a large number of libraries will no longer have local OPACs. Instead,
we will have entered a new era of data consolidation (either shared catalogs or cata-
logs that are integrated into discovery tools), both of our catalogs and our collections.
The ERM and the ILS will be one and the same and discovery will be outsourced.
q Likely q Unlikely Comment (optional):
3. In five years… libraries will provide shared curation services for important portions
of the cultural, scholarly, historic, and institutional record. This will move from an
340 College & Research Libraries July 2010
ad hoc, suboptimal project to a collaborative strategy, to a shared approach.
q Likely q Unlikely Comment (optional):
Section 2. The Changing Role of the Library…
We are interested in your thoughts on how well academic research libraries are re-
sponding to the changing environment.
4. Academic research libraries are effectively meeting the needs of their users...
q strongly agree q agree q neutral q disagree q strongly disagree
If you would like to tell us more—the following are some optional questions that
will help us interpret your response.
5. What should academic research libraries be focusing on less, or differently?
6. What are academic research libraries not doing, or not doing enough?
7. What are some things that academic research libraries are doing well?
Section 3. Your Library’s Culture…
We are interested in learning how you perceive your library’s current organizational
culture as well as your ideas of a preferred organizational culture for your library.
Because it is very unlikely that any organization can be categorized into a single box,
the following question allows you to describe the degree to which your organization
matches each of the idealized descriptions.
In each of the questions below there are four descriptions of academic libraries.
None of the descriptions is any better than the others; they are just different.
Please distribute 100 points among the four descriptions A, B, C, and D, giving
higher scores to the descriptions that best answer the question.
8. The CURRENT organizational culture (distribute 100 points):
A. q My current library is a very personal place. It is like an extended family.
People seem to share a lot of themselves.
B. q My current library is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People
are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
C. q My current library is a very formalized and structured place. Policies
and procedures generally govern what people do.
D. q My current library is very competitive in orientation. A major con-
cern is with getting the job done. People are very production oriented.
9. Your PREFERRED organizational culture (distribute 100 points):
A. q My preferred library is a very personal place. It is like an extended fam-
ily. People seem to share a lot of themselves.
B. q My preferred library is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People
are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
C. q My preferred library is a very formalized and structured place. Policies
and procedures generally govern what people do.
D. q My preferred library is very competitive in orientation. A major concern
is with getting the job done. People are very production oriented.
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 341
Section 4. Your Preferences and Experience…
We are interested in hearing about your preferred leadership style, your values, and
your experience in your work environment.
The format of this question is the same as the previous question, but this question
is about management style. Because it is very unlikely that the management style of
any organization can be categorized into a single box, the following question allows
you to describe the degree to which the management style of your library matches
each of the idealized descriptions.
In each of the questions below there are four descriptions of management styles
in academic libraries. None of the descriptions is any better than the others; they are
just different.
Please distribute 100 points among the four descriptions A, B, C, and D, giving
higher scores to the descriptions that best answer the question.
10. The CURRENT management style (distribute 100 points):
A. q The current management style in my library is characterized by team-
work, consensus, and participation.
B. q The current management style in my library is characterized by indi-
vidual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.
C. q The current management style in my library is characterized by hard-
driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.
D. q The current management style in my library is characterized by security
of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability of relationships.
11. My PREFERRED management style (distribute 100 points):
A. The current management style in my library is characterized by teamwork,
consensus, and participation.
B. The current management style in my library is characterized by individual
risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.
C. The current management style in my library is characterized by hard-driving
competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.
D. The current management style in my library is characterized by security of
employment, conformity, predictability, and stability of relationships.
12. To what extent do you feel that your library’s organizational structures and
processes limit your impact or effectives?
q not at all q somewhat q a lot
Section 5. Your future in libraries…
We would like to get some information about our future leaders’ career plans.
13. How likely is it that you will be working in a library in 5 years?
q very likely q likely q uncertain q unlikely q very unlikely
14. How likely is it that you will be interested in moving into a higher level lead-
ership position in the next 5 years?
q very likely q likely q uncertain q unlikely q very unlikely
If you would like to tell us more—the following question will help us interpret
your response.
15. What are some of the things you think about as you look toward your own
future in libraries?
342 College & Research Libraries July 2010
Information about you…
To better analyze the results, we would like to get some information about you. We are
asking for just enough information to analyze the results. We will only report collective
results; this information will not be reported by individual. We will not report results
in a way that will allow a person’s identity to be known.
What is the area of your current position?
q Collections
q Liaison/Subject Specialist (collec-
tions, services, instruction)
q Public Services
q Special Collections/Archives
q Technical Services
q Technology
q Other (please specify)
What is your position level?
q Department Head
q Coordinator
q Unit Head
q Librarian
q Other (please specify)
How long have you worked in libraries?
q 0–5 years
q 6–10 years
q more than 10 years
How long have you been in your current
position?
q 0–5 years
q 6–10 years
q more than 10 years
In which age range are you?
q Under 30
q 30–35
q 36–40
q 41–45
q 46–50
q 51–55
q Older than 55
What is your gender?
q Male
q Female
Please answer the following:
• Have you played a significant role in a long-term planning effort such as a
strategic planning process or planning for a new direction for your library (that
represented a significant shift in investment or priorities)?
• Have you played a significant role in conceiving of or implementing a new
library service?
• Have you been given additional responsibility in your current position?
• Have you played a significant role in a grant-funded project?
• Have you ever been promoted?
• Have you been nominated for a leadership institute or program?
• Have you given a presentation, presented a poster, or had an article accepted
within the last year?
• Do you regularly maintain a Web page, blog, or other form of Web-based
communication?
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 343
Appendix 2. Text of E-mail Invitation
Dear Future Library Leader,
You have been identified by one of your peers as a future leader in the profession. The
four of us are currently participating in a leadership program, the Association of Re-
search Libraries Research Library Leadership Fellows Program, and our participation in
that program has led us to want to learn more about what future leaders are thinking.
In this survey, we ask for your thoughts about how well your own library, as well as
libraries in general, are positioned for change, how you think we can better respond
to the needs of our institutions and library users, and how you see your own future
in the profession. We will present the results of this study at the ARL fall membership
meeting in Washington, D.C. All responses are anonymous.
We realize that you are busy, so we have designed the survey to take no more than 10–15
minutes of your time. To help thank you for your participation, we are offering the op-
portunity to submit your e-mail for a drawing to receive a $100 Amazon gift certificate.
The survey can be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/[...]
Thank you in advance for your participation,
Kristin Antelman, North Carolina State University
Kenning Arlitsch, University of Utah
John Butler, University of Minnesota
Kris Maloney, Georgetown University
344 College & Research Libraries July 2010
Appendix 3. Results of Post-hoc Tests
Describing Differences Between Group Pairs
Mu ltiple Co mparisons
Current Dominant Characteristic s: Adhocracy
(I) Thwarted (J) Thwarted
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference
(I–J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
not at all somewhat 15.42* 3.213 .000 7.32 23.52
a lot 26.63* 3.190 .000 18.57 34.69
somewhat not at all –15.42
*
3.213 .000 –23.52 – 7.32
a lot 11.21* 2.048 .000 6.26 16.17
a lot not at all –26.63
*
3.190 .000 –34.69 –18.57
somewhat –11.21* 2.048 .000 –16.17 – 6.26
Based on observed means.
T he error term is Mean Square (Error) = 164.289.
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Mu ltiple Co mparisons
Current Dominant Characteristic s: Hierarchy
(I) Thwarted (J) Thwarted
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference
(I– J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
not at all somewhat –20.32* 3.290 .000 – 28.38 – 12.26
a lot – 31.96* 4.045 .000 – 41.85 – 22.07
somewhat not at all 20.32
*
3.290 .000 12.26 28.38
a lot –11.64* 4.061 .015 – 21.49 – 1.78
a lot not at all 31.96
*
4.045 .000 22.07 41.85
somewhat 11.64* 4.061 .015 1.78 21.49
Based on observed means.
T he error term is Mean Square (Error) = 479.361.
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Future Leaders’ Views on Organizational Culture 345
Multiple Comparisons
Current Management Style: Adhocracy
(I) Thwarted (J) Thwarted
Mean Difference
(I–J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
not at all somewhat 10.74* 2.361 .000 5.16 16.32
a lot 19.13* 2.505 .000 13.21 25.06
somewhat not at all –10.74* 2.361 .000 –16.32 – 5.16
a lot 8.39* 1.677 .000 4.43 12.36
a lot not at all –19.13* 2.505 .000 –25.06 –13.21
somewhat – 8.39* 1.677 .000 –12.36 – 4.43
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 94.903.
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Multiple Comparisons
Current Management Style: Hierarchy
(I) Thwarted (J) Thwarted
Mean Difference
(I–J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
not at all somewhat –17.48* 5.240 .003 – 29.88 – 5.09
a lot – 36.50* 5.560 .000 – 49.65 – 23.35
somewhat not at all 17.48* 5.240 .003 5.09 29.88
a lot –19.02* 3.722 .000 – 27.82 –10.22
a lot not at all 36.50* 5.560 .000 23.35 49.65
somewhat 19.02* 3.722 .000 10.22 27.82
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 467.434.
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
For information and pricing options e-mail: brillonline@brill.nl or
brillonline@brillusa.com for customers in the Americas.
Major Online Reference Works from Brill
Now the majority of Brill’s comprehensive collection of Major Reference Works
is also available online
Features and Bene ts
- fully Unicode compliant
- quick, full text and advanced search option
- export, saving and printing options
- COUNTER-compliant
- cross Databases/collections search
Brill Online - Access
- IP access
- Shibboleth / Athens authentication
- Proxy access
A 30-day free trial is available for institutions only.
Encyclopedia
of Jews in the Islamic World
Online
Encyclopaedia of
the Qur ān
Online
ENCYCLOPEDI A OF
WOMEN
& ISL AMIC
CULTUR ES
ONLINE
SEG
SUPPLEMENTUM
EPIGRAPHICUM
GRAECUM
ONLINE
New Pauly
Online
Encyclopedia of Arabic
Language and Linguistics
Online
J A C O B Y
O N L I N E
Primary Sources Online
T E M P O
T h e
E a r l y M o d e r n
P a m p h l e t s
O n l i n e
Through its imprint IDC, Brill makes primary source material available
online. Many of our primary source collections are unique, as they are
often the only source of rare documents outside of the source library
itself. For a complete overview visit primarysourcesonline.nl