College and Research Libraries MARJORIE M. TOMPKINS Classification Evaluation of Professional Librarian Positions in the University of Michigan Library In response to a recognized need, the classification levels of profession- al positions in the University of Michigan library were recently re- viewed by an appointed staff committee. The procedure is described for analyzing each position through conferences between an interview- er and the position's incumbent and supervisor; for devising an evaluation chart with numerical values for the measurable require- ments and responsibilities in the position; for applying the evaluation chart to individual position descriptions; and for determining the classification grade of the position. IN THE PAST quarter century, libraries have increasingly adopted from business and other professions the principle of position classification as a means to as- sure equitable salary and status for posi- tions which may vary in duties but which have the same level of qualifica- tions and responsibilities. The patronage system no longer suffices in an era of great competition for qualified person- nel, who must work together in large, closely organized groups. NEED FOR REVIEW · In the recent past, changes have oc- curred in the library profession which accentuate the need for even more re- fined distinction in classifications for professional librarians. New specialties for libraries and li- brarians have developed from scientific discoveries and technological innova- tions, from social and cultural shifts, and from changed emphases in world affairs. Libraries reflect these changes not only Miss Tompkins is Assistant to the Director for Personnel and Budget in the Univer- sity of Michigan Libraries. in enlarged collections but also in the creation of whole new sub-collections, thus creating in turn personnel prob- lems which are inherent in large staffs, but more specifically in large staffs with unusual constituent specializations. The University of Michigan library became heir to these personnel problems as it met changing needs by adding general professional staff and profession- al specialists. It soon became evident that the classification scheme for pro- fessional positions in use for the past decade was no longer adequate for cur- rent or anticipated requirements. It con- sisted of a brief statement of the degree of independence in performance, a list of typical positions, and the minimum qualifications for each of five profes- sional levels. Accordingly, in June 1963, a Classification Evaluation Committee was appointed and delegated by the di- rector of the university library to re- view all professional positions in the university library to determine the ap- propriateness of their classification, and to prepare an evaluation instrument for future staff expansion. I 175 176 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1966 PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE Appointment of Committee. The com- mittee was composed of five staff mem- bers: the head of science and engineer- ing branch libraries, the head of non- science branch libraries, the head of the undergraduate library, the head of a technical services department, and the personnel officer. As a first step, the committee sought counsel from a professor and an admin- istrator of the school of business admin- istration concerning principles and pro- cedure of position classification. Helpful Literature. As general back- ground preparation the committee read accounts of various systems for evaluat- ing position classifications. The most helpful articles and books for this pur- pose were, in order of usefulness: Otis, Jay L., and Leukart, Richard H. Job Evaluation: a Basis for Sound Wage Administration. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. ' Library Association. Membership Com- mittee. Professional and Non-Professional Duties in Librarie,s; a Descriptive List Com- piled by a Sub-Committee of the Member- ship Committee. London: Library Associa- tion, 1963. Hay, Edward N., and Purves, Dale, "'The ~ro£.~e Method of High-Level Job Evalua- tion, Personnel~ XXVIII (September 1951) 162-70. ' Hay, Edward N., "'Setting Salary Stan- dards for Executive Jobs," Personnel~ XXXIV (January-February 1958), 63-72. Hay, Edward N., "Any Job Can Be Mea- sured by Its 'Know, Think, Do' Elements," Personnel Journal, XXXVI (April 1958) 403-406. , Jaques, Elliott. Measurement of Respon- sibility: a Study of Work, Payment, and Individual Capacity. London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd., 1956. Hill, J. M. M., "The Time-Span of Dis- cretion in Job Analysis," Human Relations, IX (August 1956), 295-323. Selection of Evaluation System. Of four major evaluation systems carefully considered (point rating and factor com- parison as representative of quantitative systems; and job ranking and grade de- scription as representative of non-quanti- tative systems ) , the committee judged the point rating and factor comparison systems as the most applicable to its needs. In a point rating system, com- pensable characteristics or factors com- mon to all positions to be evaluated are determined; each factor is divided into a series of degrees, to each of which is assigned a progressive point value. Each position is analyzed against this scale, and it receives a numerical rating ac- cording to the total of point values; this numerical rating can in turn be trans- lated into a classification level. . In the factor comparison system, posi- tions are evaluated by comparing them with one or several positions which have been designated a$ acceptably classified. The comparison is made on the basis of a few basic factors common to all posi- ti?ns, such as mental requirements, and kmd and level of responsibility. Mter extended study, the point rating system was considered preferable to the factor comparison system, principally because of the former system's precision of ap- plicability. FoRMULATION OF EvALUATION CHART Det.ermination of Factors. The com- mittee's first goal in constructing a point rating system specifically for use in the university library was the determination of the factors governing the classifica- tion of the library's professional posi- tions, and their definitions. The factors fell into two groups: those deriving from formal or informal education, or from acquired experience in an area relevant to the requirements of the position; and those involving types and levels of re- sponsibilities in the position. The spe- cific factors chosen were important but lii?ited to a manageable number, ap- plicable and measurable in some degree to all positions, definable in practical terms, and not overlapping in meaning (thus giving double value). Each factor was defined clearly so that interpreta- Classification Evaluation of Professional Library Positions I 177 tions would be as uniform and consistent as possible. The final factors and defini- tions which evolved were the following: Job knowledge-education and experi- ence. (Academic background required to perform at the professional librarian level, exclusive of on-the-job training; knowledge, skill, or technique resulting from experi- ence in a given area or areas of professional library work) . A. Responsibility-problem-solving and decision-making. (Requirements for re- sourcefulness, imagination, analytical abili- ty, and mental agility in solving problems and making decisions. The complexity, num- ber, and scope of the problems and deci- sions are considered, · but not the inde- pendence of performance allowed in pro b- lem-solving and decision-making.) B. Responsibility-independence of per- formance. (Extent of independence and de- gree of freedom of action. ) C. Responsibility-work of others. (Num- ber and level of personnel supervised [pro- fessional, nonprofessional, part-time]; and kind [direct and indirect] and extent of supervision given.) D. Responsibility-relationships with oth- ers. (Extent and relative difficulty and im-: portance of contacts with other staff mem- bers and the public [students, faculty, -vis- itors, nonlibrary staff of the university, rep- resentatives of other institutions, busi- nesses] , in connection with the effect these contacts may have on library or university relations; includes common forms of com- munication: personal, telephone, correspon- dence; excludes all aspects of supervision.) An additional factor, "Responsibility for Collections or Materials," was seri- ously considered for inclusion, but was ultimately omitted because bibliographic responsibility for collections or materials was inherent in the factor, "Responsi- bility for Problem-Solving and Decision- Making," and because no position in the library was held completely responsible for physical collections or materials. Determination and Definition of De- grees. The second goal in constructing a specific point rating system was the de- termination of the number of degrees for each factor, and their definitions. Precise criteria were observed in determining the number, which was limited to the minimum adequate for clear distinctions between duties and responsibilities of all positions to be examined, and in de- termining the structuring of the defini- tions so that one or more positions would fall within each degree. Also, in de- fining each degree, as many measurable qualities and terms were included as possible, for example, "two years of experience," "work product always checked," and "direction of the work of ten or more persons." The final determi- nation of five degrees for each of the five factors was strictly coincidental and had no relationship to the five classifica- tion levels previously recognized in the university library, or to the number of classification levels which ultimately evolved. Determination of Degree Point Values. To assign point values to the individual degrees of the factors, the five factors were grouped in a descending arrange- ment relating each to the others (they were subsequently rearranged in the evaluation chart), and a percentage val- ue was assigned to the first degree of each factor, the total equaling 100 per cent. The point value for the remaining degrees was calculated by a geometric progression, using a ratio of one to ten. Geometric progression was chosen in preference to arithmetic progression in order that the value of each degree would increase a specified percentage above the preceding one, rather than by an equal amount in each instance. The content of successive degrees of each factor was constructed in a regular gra- dation to the preceding degree, so that a regular progression of values would result. Thus was evolved the final form of the evaluation chart ( Fig. 1 ) . Through- out the period of its formulation, a per- sistent effort was made to incorporate equity among individual positions, groups of positions, and types of work, and to assure commensurate value for JOB FACTORS FIRST DEGRtl: SI:COND DEGRtl: 1l!IRD DI:GRtl: FOUR1ll DI:GRtl: FIF1ll DI:GRtl: I. JOB KNOi4LI:DGI: Graduation from an acc~dited Graduation from an accredited Graduation from an accredited Graduation from an accredited Graduation from an accredited library school with an· AHLS library school with an AHLS library school with an AHLS library school with an AIILS library school with an AHLS Education and Experience, degree (or ABLS plus experi- degree, plus requisite lan- degree, plus requisite lan- degree, plus an undergraduate degree, plus a master's de- ence), plus requisite lan- guages, and two years of req- guages, and three years of degree or major in the req- gree in the requisite subject ( Acadnic background re- guagea, and lass than two uisita experience or th~e requisite 11xperience or four uisite subject field, plus field, plus requisite lan- qui~d to perform at the years of general experience; years of general experience; years of general experience; requi01ite languages, and four guages, and five years of professional librarian OR requisite specialized edu- OR graduation from an acc~d- OR graduation from an accred· years of requiai te experience· requisite experience; OR level, exclusive of on- cation, and one year or less i ted library s.chool with an i ted library school with an OR graer and level of personnel supervised (professional, non- professional, part-time]; and kind (direct and in- direct] and extent of supervision given .) D, Relationships wi ttl Others, (l:xtent and relative difficulty and impor- tance of contacts with other staff merrbers and the public (students, faculty, visitors, non- Library staff of the lkli versi ty, representa- tives of other institu- tions • businesses] • in connection with the af- fect these contacts may hav11 on Library or Uni- versity relations; in- cludes common forms of corrmWlication: · person- al, tele phone, corres- pondence; excludes all aspects bf supervision,) Independence to perform with- in detailed instructions or close supervision, with work product, if any, always checked; no freedom to set work goals, Rasponsibili ty for the qual- ity and accuracy of one 1 s own work 1 with only occasional and minor supervisory respon- sibility for the work of othel'fl, Occasional contacts with staff members of other de- partments or divisional li- braries on matters involving standardized procedures; OR contacts of a purely routine nature with students and fac- ulty in a public service position. Independence to perform with- in established procedures, with work product frequently checked; some freedom to set work goals, Direct responsibility for initial training and succead- inr. general supervision of the work of professional, non-professional, or part- time personnel who are ex- pected to perform assigned tasks within established gen- eral practices, Frequent contacts with staff members of other departments or divisional libraries. on matters involving standard- ized procedures; OR contacts with all categories of the Library 1 s public on matters involving standardized pro- cedures, Independence to perform with· in established procedures, with work product occasion- ally checked; occasional freedom to set work goala and methods of accomplishment within departmental or divi- sional library policy. Independence to perform in a broad assignment below the level of a head of a depart- ment or a Divisional Library Group, with work product rarely checked; frequent freedom to set work goals within departmental or di vi- sional library policy, and wide htitude in freedom to choose nthods of accomplish- ment, Direct or indirect responsi- Direct or indirect responsi- bility for general direction bility for general direction of the work of less than 10 of the work of 10 or more persons (full-time equi va- persons (full-time equi va- lents) forming a departmental l11nts) forming a departmental unit, OR of the work of the unit, OR of th• work of the staff in a divisional li- staff in a divisional li- brary of less than 50,000 brary of 50,000 or mora volumes, volwnes. Ragular contacts with staff members of other departments or divisional libraries on matters which are occasion- ally complex; OR contacts, with all categories of the Library's public in circum- stances involving the possi- ble loss of good will through misunderatanding or mishan- dling (however, an immediate or higher supervisor has di- rect responsibility for main- taining harii'IOnious relation- ships,) Ragular contacts with staff members of other departments or divisional libraries on matters requiring coordina- tion of a succession of con- tacts; AND contacts with all categories of the Library's public in circumstances in- volving the possible loss of good will through misunder- standing or mishandling (how- ever, an immediate or higher supervisor has direct respon- sil>ili ty for maintaining har- monious relationships.) Lader general supervision of the Directors 1 complete in- dependence to perform, to set work goals 1 and to choose methods of accomplishment within Library policy, Full responsibility, under the general supervision of the Directors, for general administrative direction of the work of a department or Divisional Library Group, Rar,ular contacts with staff members of other departmentll or divisional libraries on matters requiring coordina- tion of a succession of con- tacts; AiiD contacts with all categories of the Library's public, with direct responsi- bility for creating and main- taining good public relations for the Library, FIG. I-CHART FOR CLASSIFICATION EvALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL PosiTIONS, UNIVERSITY OF MicHIGAN LIBRARY 180 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1966 POSITION DESCRIPTION .POSITION TITLE ----------,-- Name of Librarian -------- Immediate Supervisor ------- Department --------- Section----------- Unit Dates Analyzed __ , __ , __ Fig. 2--Position description form. skills learned cumulatively in a field where formal education was not avail- able. (Degree point values, which are confidential, have been omitted from the illustration.) DESCRIPTIONS oF PosiTIONs Simultaneously, while the committee was constructing the evaluation chart, descriptions of the positions to be ex- amined were being prepared by a group of interviewers, composed of a nonstaff professional librarian, and graduate stu- dents in library science or business ad- ministration. Procedure of Interviewers. Following a procedure and schedule of assignment prepared by the committee, an inter- viewer conferred with the incumbent in each position to be examined. From in- formation gained in the initial confer- ence, the interviewer drafted a position description on a printed form (Fig. 2). The incumbent and his immediate super- visor separately reviewed the draft in successive conferences with the inter- viewer, who was expected to resolve differences of opmwn or expression for the final form of the description. Each description attempted to analyze a position, and to present its duties and responsibilities as they were expected to be performed, not necessarily as they were being performed by a possibly over- or underqualified incumbent. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CHART As descriptions of groups of positions were prepared, they were reviewed by the committee for the purpose of as- signing a classification grade by applica- tion of the evaluation chart. In applying the chart, the committee analyzed the position for each of the five factors, and for a degree within each factor, ignoring insofar as possible the identity of the incumbent to prevent personal prefer- ence or discrimination, and attempting to weight the position equitably in rela- tion to every other position reviewed. Examination of the evaluation chart will show that each degree was designed to accommodate duties or qualifications which are disparate in kind, · but which Classification Evaluation of Professional Library Positions I 181 SCORINGS OF POSITIONS BY FACTORS AND DEGREES Education Problem- Inde- Work Relation- and Solving pendence of ships with Experience and of Others Others Position Decision- Performance Making QJ "' QJ "' QJ "' QJ .:1 QJ .:1 , <1) QJ ..... QJ ..... QJ ..... QJ QJ ...... .... '"' r:: '"' r:: '"' r:: '"' r:: ~ r:: <11 r:: Cl() ~ Cl() ~ Cl() ~ Cl() •.-1 Cl() ·.-1 ..... ~ QJ 0 QJ 0 ~ 0 QJ 0 QJ 2· o ·o Q 1'4 Q 1'4 1'4 Q 1'4 Q E-<1'4 J Fig. 3-Ancillary record to insure uniformity in applying evaluation chart. are judged to have an equal level of responsibility in the case of duties, or value in the case of qualifications. For example, in the third degree of the first factor (Job knowledge-education and experience), there is a diiect equation for the three combinations of qualifica- tions below. Some typical positions for which these qualifications might be re- quired are indicated. 1. Graduation from an accredited library school with a Master's degree, languages requisite for the position, and three years of professional experience specifically rele- vant to the position or four years of gen- eral professional experience. Typical posi- tions-heads of larger a1;1d more specialized units, sections, or branches. 2. Graduation from an accredited library school with a Master's degree, a working knowledge of at least three languages requisite for the position, and a cumulative ability attainable in three years of pro- gressively advanced professional experience relevant to the position. Typical positions-- nonsupervisory positions in both technical and public services, in which the incum- bent is expected to perform on a relatively high and independent level. - 3. Education in a subject field and lan- guages specifically required in the position, and three years of experience relevant to the position. Typical positions-those in- cluding unusual specializations, for exam- ple, an uncommon language or family of languages. The committee maintained and con- stantly referred to a series of ancillary records to assure uniformity in applying the evaluation chart. The details of the analysis of each position were recorded, first, by scorings of the selected degree within individual factors (Fig. 3); sec- ond, by groupings of positions by de- grees within individual factors ( Fig. 4); and third, by groupings of positions by GROUPINGS OF POSITIONS BY FACTORS AND DEGREES Education and Experience First Degree I Second Degree Third Degree ·Fourth Degree l Fifth Degree Fig. 4-Similar forms were prepared for the other four factors. 182 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1966 GROUPINGS OF POSITIONS BY TOTAL POINTS Fig. 5-Ancillary record to insure uniformity in applying evaluation chart. total point values (Fig. 5); columns were headed by multiples of ten, and sufficient forms were prepared to accommodate the entire range of points for all the classification grades) . DETERMINATION OF CLASSIFICATION GRADE To determine the classification grade of a position, the point values were totaled for the five selected degrees. This total was translated into a classifi- cation grade by comparing it to a range of points which had been developed for all the grades as follows: CLASSIFICATION GRADE PoiNT RANGE Librarian I . a - b Librarian II . b + 1 - c Librarian III A c + 1 - d B d + 1 - e Librarian IV A e + 1 - f B £ + 1-g Librarian V . g + 1 - h Note: Letters indicate confidential figures. As the review of positions proceeded, a system of the five classification grades above evolved as the most efficient and equitable structure for university library requirements. A need was recognized for an intermediary step in the third and fourth grades because of the greater number of positions and the wider scope of responsibilities which clustered at these levels, and accordingly plus-grade "'B" was introduced at these points. This was possible because a greater salary diHerential is maintained between high- er grades. The plus-grades were intend- ed for internal library administration only, although they may be used on or- ganization charts and similar library ma- terials. Upon completion of the review of positions in each department, the re- spective department head received from the committee a copy of the evaluation chart (with point values omitted) and a list showing the recommended classi- fication grade for each position in his department. If requested by the depart- ment head, the committee met with him to discuss or clarify any differences of view. Twenty-one months after its inception, the committee held its forty-eighth and final meeting, and submitted its findings and recommendations to the director. One hundred and five positions had been described (at an average of thirty interviewer's hours per position), and had been reviewed and evaluated by the committee, resulting in a recom- mendation for the upgrading of fifty-six positions by one or more levels, and the downgrading of seven positions. All staff members had previously been assured that no incumbent would be downgrad- ed as a result of the review, but that Classification Evaluation of Professional Library Positions I 183 JOB SPECIFICATION POSITION TI_TLE_ ----------- Depat\tment ----------- Section -------------- Name of tibrarian --------- Unit -------------- Immediate Supervisor _________ _ Total Points--------------- ........ ....... __________ ~-------...... .9.:-~:ification ...... ----..;--· ·-------------::::::-_-_-_-_-_-_-_·-_-_-_-_-_::::: -----·---, ------- ...... ----~~--: ... ------- -~-~-~-- -~' -------...... ._ _...-- JOB KNOWLEDGE --- POINTS Education-:- Academic Deg;rees: Languages: Other Specialized Education: Experience: Years: 0 1 2 3 General and/or specialized: - 5 or more _ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENT POINTS Problem-Solving and Decision-Making: ·-------- ------· ~~----- --- NATURE AND EXTENT OF INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE POINTS NATURE AND DEGREE OF SUPERVISION POINTS --- NATURE AND EXTENT OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS POINTS ---- ADDITIONAL REMARKS Fig. 6-Recommended job specification form. 184 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1966 downgrading of the position would be- come effective only when it was vacant. Consummation of the review occurred at the beginning of the current fiscal year, when a special salary appropriation en- abled the upgrading of fifty-one of the positions recommended for a higher level of classification. The remaining five positions were not upgraded on that date because of structural or personnel changes which had occurred during the review period of more than a year and ahaH. The committee submitted an adden- dum with its report, suggesting a pro- cedure and schedule for a continual re- view of position classifications in the university library, and recommending the preparation of a job specification for each position (Fig. 6). The review achieved more than its immediate goals of attempting to relate equitably each position to all other posi- tions in the university library, and to provide an evaluation instrument and system with flexibility to encompass not only a greater number of positions but also a greater variety of specialties. It served also to bring to recognition the commensurate value of public and tech- nical positions, of independent and su- pervisory positions, and of the many specialties possible within the library profession, including those learned in- formally and cumulatively as well as those derived from formal education. Finally, it provided within the library profession, as it exists in other profes- sions, a recognition of the value of in- tellectually independent performance. • • Notes on Footnotes The coy footnote says, in effect, "I could tell you a lot more if you were really interested." The hidden ball footnote says, in effect, "If I snow you with enough references you won't bother to ask what I'm trying to say." The play-your-aces footnote: "Now I have to mention this somewhere, but I don't know where to get it in." Don't go to bed with a piece of information that you haven't got out somewhere. The false modesty footnote: "I don't want to parade my learning, but I've read a lot of books." The Madison Avenue footnote: "Please read my other books" or "See my essay on ... " The 1-krww-more-than-you-do footnote: Use a lot of foreign languages in these. It's terribly learned-and besides, there's a good chance the reader won't be able to translate them anyway. The looking-down-your-nose footnote: "I don't like to get into this, but I can't let it pass." The bet-you-forgot footnote: "vide supra-! have mentioned this before, although you may not recall it." The snob or little-brother-of-the-great footnote: "As Mr. Y (Miss X), the cele- brated writer (actress) once remarked to the author ... " The 'Tm-no-fool" footnote: "Yes, I've read Professor Z's book too." The strategic retreat footnote: "In earlier days I held the view that--, but I have now come about." You don't have to say how. The let's-forget-about-it footnote: "I still adhere to my earlier view, but I don't want to discuss it." The I'll-take-credit-for-this (even though it may not be entirely original) footnote: "With apologies to professor A--." (You don't really have to know what A said, or whether he said it or not. ) And finally, the flattery footnote: "The reader will naturally recall ... " (If he does, he's pleased; if he doesn't, he's pleased that you thought he might. )-Philip H. Rinelander, Stanford University, in the Edpress Newsletter as quoted in the Phi Delta Kappan, June 1963. ••