College and Research Libraries i ARTHUR M. McANALLY and ROBERT B. DOWNS The Changing Role of Directors of University Libraries The role of the university library director has changed markedly in the last decade. The position of library director has become a diffi- cult role to serve. Directors have been subjected to pressures from different quarters. Five sources are identified by the authors, including pressures from the president's office, library staff, faculty, and stu- dents. These difficulties coupled with a declining ability to meet user needs, the lack of cohesive library planning, and an institutional in- ability to accontmodate change have all contributed to the declining status of the library director. Recommendations as to ways to amelio- rate the problem are offered. Among the suggestions included are better planning, improved budgeting techniques, and the introduction of new organizational patterns. Editor's Note-Shortly after the completion of the manuscript, Arthur McAnally died unexpectedly. His death was both a pro- fessional and personal loss. Arthur was par- ticularly generous to young librarians who aspired to become library administrators. I was one of those who was fortunate in re- ceiving his friendship and counsel. His last manuscript represents, in my opinion, an important contribution to our professional literature. It is a privilege to be able to pub- lish it. TRADITIONALLY THE DIRECTORSHIP of a major university library has been a life- time post. Once a librarian achieved such a position of honor and leadership in the profession, he usually stayed un- til he reached retirement age. In the 1960s, however, an increasing number of incidents occurred which indicated that Robert Downs is dean of library adminis- tration, emeritus, university librarian, U ni- versity of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign. Arthur McAnally was director of libraries, University of Oklahoma, Norman. all was not well in the library directors' world, resulting in a vague feeling of uneasiness. Then in one year, 1971-72, the seriousness of the situation became dramatically ·evident: seven of the di- rectors of the Big Ten university librar- ies (plus the University of Chicago) left their posts, only one a normal retire- ment for age. These are major univer- sities on the national scene whose direc- torships had been stable in the past. To discover how widespread this con- dition might be, an investigation has been undertaken among the seventy- eight largest university libraries-mem- bers of the Association of Research Li- braries. Exactly one-half of the directors were found to have changed within the past three years, four of them twice. This is an extraordinarily high rate of change. If such a rate were to continue, the average span of service for directors would be five to six years. Next, to find out if the development was related to size of the library, those university li- braries holding more than 2,000,000 vol- umes were compared with the twenty I 103 104 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 smallest libraries in the association. Size apparently has some bearing, but does not appear to be a major factor: while 60 percent of the larger libraries had changed directors, 45 percent of the smaller ones did, too. The authors are well aware that the directors of libraries in many small universities-as well as those in intermediate and large institu- tions-are in severe difficulty or under intense pressure. Oddly, the chief li- brarians of colleges and junior colleges do not .appear to be affected. The prob- lem seems to be limited to university li- brarians only. Several explanations of the phenom- enon have been offered. Edward G. Hol- ley observed the trend during visits to a number of urban university libraries in 1971: "At the end of the sixties it has not been uncommon for chief librar- ians, who by any objective standards served their institutions well, to retire early from their directorships, some with sorrow, some with relief, and a few with bitterness. Very few have retired with the glory .and honor that used to accom- pany extraordinary accomplishments in building resources and expanding ser- vices."1 Holley attributed the condition partly to changing attitudes of the li- brary staffs. On the other hand, Raynard C. Swank questioned whether many di- rectors really had retired in great favor in the past. He also suggested that the present high rate of change might be due partly to a large number of direc- tors who were appointed some thirty years ago all nearing retirement age about the same time. 2 Others believe that the problem reflects a highly crit- ical attitude towards the university li- brary itself rather than just criticism of the directors. Still others conclude that an era is ending and old ways are having to give way to new: those who will not or cannot adapt are finished. The sug- gestion also was made that a few of the changes might be attributable to weak- nesses among the directors. Though each of these explanations may have some va- lidity, the full story is far more compli- cated. Directors who have recently quit their jobs should be authoritative spokesmen on the subject. The authors correspond- ed or discussed the subject, therefore, with twenty-two directors or former di- rectors whom they knew well personal- ly.3 Each was asked for his opinions about the causes of the extraordinary turnover in directorships and to suggest possible remedies. Every one replied, and many gave keen analyses of the causes as well as suggesting steps that should be taken. BACKGROUND F ACI'ORS The numerous changes in director- ships indicate that some fundamental dissatisfactions have arisen within uni- versity libraries or their environment in recent years. The underlying causes may be deep-seated and varied. Thus the di- rector might be under fire, as he unques- tionably is, because he is the most visible representative of an agency that is un- der attack, the university library itself. Therefore, recent trends in society and the university were examined, as well as movements in university administration, the world of scholarship and research, and the publishing .and information world, as well as the university library itself. Growth of enrollment. The extraor- dinary growth in enrollments in higher education during the decade of the sixties forced the university itself to make many changes to attempt to cope with the flood of students. Total enroll- ments grew from almost four million to approximately eight million. The number of graduate students tripled, from 314,000 to more than 900,000. The tremendo{;s increase produced changes in the university far beyond merely mak- ing it larger. It became a far more com- plicated institution. 4 University expansion began long be- { fore the sixties, of course. Probable ef- fects upon the university library were noted in 1958 by Donald Coney, and the title of his article is prophetic: "Where Did You Go? To the Library. What Did You Get? Nothing."5 Except for the cre- ation of undergraduate libraries in some of the larger universities beginning at Harvard in 1948, few changes were made to cope with the rising flood. Most universities remained oriented basically to the single-copy research concept. Changes in the presidency. Growth in size of the institution placed great pres- sure upon the president, and other fac- tors added to his problems: rising expec- tations, growing militancy of students .and faculty, disillusionment and a new- ly critical attitude towards higher edu- cation on the part of the general public that developed as a result of student ac- tivism, political pressure from hostile legislators or governors, growing powers exerted by state boards of control, and, to cap it all, financial support that began to decline or at least levelled out. Har- ried from all sides, forced to act often on bases of emergency or expediency, and with little time left for academic affairs, the position of the president has become almost untenable. It is not surprising that the average tenure of university presidents in the United States is now a short five years. Chancellor Murphy of UCLA stated that the office of president or chancellor has become impossible, and suggested a maximum term of ten years. He ob- served that "The chief executive of an institution makes his greatest creative impacts in the first five to eight years. He rna y need a few more years to follow through in the implementation of these creative impacts. Beyond that, however, the housekeeping function inevitably becomes larger, and much of the vital- ity, drive, and creativity declines."6 Pres- ident Lyman of Stanford noted that di- rectors of libraries appeared to be in the same situation as presidents. Herman H. Changing Role of Directors I 105 Fussier .added that the tenure of all sen- ior university administrators-not only presidents but also vice-presidents and deans-had declined considerably in re- ·cent years. He asked, why should librar- ians expect to be different?7 Booz, Allen & Hamilton predicted that term ap- pointments for presidents might become common, and that even peer election could come in the late seventies.8 Proliferation in university manage- ment. To cope with the greatly intensi- fied pressures on the president, and in the belief that universities were under- managed, nearly every university in the country has added substantially to its central management staff. The most striking increase has been in the num- ber of vice-presidents. The proliferation of vice-presidents was noted .and commented on by several directors: Lewis C. Branscomb, Thomas R. Buckman, Richard N. Logsdon, Rob- ert Miller, and Edward B. Stanford. All observed that this movement has had the effect of interposing a layer of ad- ministrative officers between the chief librarian and- the president. The director no longer has direct access to the presi- dent; thus the role of the library in the university and the power of the library to present its case has been reduced. Logsdon commented that unfortunately the presidents rarely have utilized exist- ing administrators, such as directors of libraries, who have a broad overview of the university, to help with the growing burden ·of general administrative af- fairs.9 Changes in the world of learning and research. Several factors beyond the ob- vious one of expansion of existing grad- u~te programs and establishment of new programs have affected the uni- versity and its library. A major instance is the continued fragmentation of tradi- tional academic disciplines. New spe- cializations continue to break off from older fields; each, of course, smaller than the original. One authority has 106 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 referred to the trend as "the Balkaniza- tion" of learning. 10 Another movement of the sixties which is having a major impact on libraries is the emergence of interdisciplinary programs, including area studies. New social concerns and the demands for relevance also foster the growth of interdisciplinary institutes and other irregular patterns outside of established fields. Even engineering is moving towards a juncture with the sci- ences. To help cope with the flood of students, teaching methods have turned increasingly to larger classes, increased use of teaching assistants for regular classes, and, to a lesser degree, the newer media, such as closed-circuit TV. These changes in the world of learn- ing may presage a fundamental reorien- tation, according to Peter F. Drucker. "The emergence of knowledge as central to our society and the foundation of economy and social action drastically changes the position, the meaning, and the structure of knowledge .... Knowl- edge areas are in a state of flux. The ex- isting faculties, departments, and disci- plines will not be appropriate for long. Few are ancient to begin with, of course . . . . The most probable assumption is that every single one of the old demar- cati~:ms, disciplines and faculties is going to become obsolete and a barrier to learning as well as to understanding. The fact that we are shifting rapidly from a Cartesian view of the universe, in which the accent has been on parts and elements, to a configuration view, with the emphasis on wholes and pat- terns, challenges every single dividing line between areas of study and knowl- edge."11 All the foregoing movements have im- plications for the libraries. As was re- marked by Warren J. Haas, the rise of small new specializations tends to drive up the price of books and journals be- cause the clienteles are small. Interdisci- plinary studies tend to weaken the 0ld system of departmental libraries. Spread-out departmental libraries do not serve the new needs well, and no univer- sity can afford to create the many new branch libraries presently being demand- ed. The multitudes of teaching assist- ants are not adept at utilizing the library in their teaching. Furthermore, the large numbers of students in single courses de- mand more copies of any title than the library is able to provide. Few libraries are equipped or staffed or budgeted to add the newer media to their services, and most are not oriented in that direc- tion. Thee ffects of all these patterns of scholarship upon library resources have been ably summarized by Douglas W. Bryant. 12 The information explosion. The con- stantly accelerating production of knowledge has been so widely publicized that it hardly calls for comment. When the knowledge produced by the world up to 1900 is doubled by 1950, and doubles again by 1965, as has been estimated, the term "explosion" seems applicable. As early as 1945, Vannevar Bush wrote that "Professionally our rpethods of trans- mitting and reviewing the results of re- search are generations old and by now totally inadequate for their purpose. ••• " 13 No significant changes have oc- curred since Bush's ·statement. By 1970, a national Committee on Research in the Life Sciences concluded that "Investiga- tors in the life sciences have not been able to cope with the waves of informa- tion since 15 years ago."14 The rate of growth in science and technology seems fairly constant at 10 percent a year, which means a doubling every eight years. University libraries quite obviously were going to be overwhelmed by this flood sooner or later; the vel0city of change produces a faster expansion of knowledge than can be appraised, codi- fied, or organized. Fremont Rider first called attention to the problem in 1944, pointing out that research libraries were doubling in size every sixteen years/ 5 .,, The annual studies at Purdue since 1965 indicate that the rates of growth dis- covered by Rider have continued un- abated through 1971.16 So long as financial support of the university and .its library grew steadily year after year, unive~sity libraries could hope at least to keep their heads above water. They clearly were in a very pre- carious position at best, however, and anyone could foresee that when hard times came, as they inevitably would, sooner or later, there would be serious difficulties. Those times have now ar- rived. Hard times and inflation. The current financial probleO:..s of universities hardly need documentation. Earl F. Cheit in a study for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and the Ford Founda- tion calls it "the new depression."17 Budgets have actually been cut, or the rate of increase slowed drastically. Planning and , budgeting. A static budget when coupl~d with inflation spells real trouble for universities. All have begun to reassess goals and func- tions, and to try to improve their plan- ning and budgeti~g processes. State 1 boards of control appear strongly inter- ested in ·program planning and budget- ing systems, even though these devices have doubtful validity for colleges and universities. Clearly, long and short range planning and analytical budgeting are going to be a way of life in univer- sities henceforth. · One of the budgets l_il had to end eventually. The director sees clearly the financial needs produced by the ever-growing flood of publications, increased enrollment, expanding grad- uate programs, rising expectations and demands, and inflation, but may not be able to convince the budget officer of the acuteness of librm;y needs. Besides, the financial vice-president may have no new money, is reluctant to make cuts else- where for the library, which he may re- gard as. a "bottomless pit," or may have less money than previously. Financial de- mands pressed hard are likely to see the director relieved of his post. A note- worthy example of this fact occurred in one of the great Ivy League schools- when the director wrote bluntly and bit- terly about financial support, on the first page of his annual report (his only or last recourse?), he was immediately re- lieved and transferred to the School of Religion. The financial problems of the university library are not likely to de- crease for the indefinite future. Staff pressures. It may seem strange that the director should be under attack from his own staff, or fail to receive badly n~eded support in relations with the administration and faculty, but it is so in many ca~es. Robert Miller wrote: "In recent years there has been pressure exerted upon the library administrator by the library staff, the overt features in- cluding a strengthened organization, un- ionization, requests for participation in administrative decision-making, faculty status, etc. T6 me and to other benevo- lent and beloved administrators, this is an attack on the father image which I have long fancied. I know one man who felt this so keenly tl)at he resigned." Nowadays the library staff, both the academic or professional and the non- professionaJ, are far better educated than in the past. Most librarians hold at least .a master's degree, and many higher degrees. They also are more socially con- scious, action-oriented, and impatient- in common with the rest of our society. Changing Role of Directors I 111 They want and expect a share in policy decisions affecting themselves and the li- brary.31 The rise of library specialists in university libraries also is producing severe strains on the library's .administra- tive structure, and represents a force for change in administrative practices, ac- cording to Eldred Smith. 32 A particular problem that has not yet surfaced fully is that the director has two staffs, one academic or professional and one clerical or nonacademic. The latter is the larger of the two. Different administrative styles are needed for each. There is some danger that the two groups might end up in opposition to each other, especially if the nonacadem- ic group unionizes and the academic group does not. The old methods of organization may no longer be acceptable, but good .alter- natives .are difficult to find. Booz, Allen & Hamilton identify the problem in their Columbia study. 33 In any event, .. new administrative styles are , being called for, and those directors who will not or cannot adapt to the newer ways may be lost. Faculty sources. The latent conflict of interests between librarians and the fac- ulty were commented upon recently by Robert H. Blackburn and Richard H. Logsdon. Blackburn stated that librar- ians have the books, professors have the students. 34 Logsdon pointed out that the typical faculty member wants complete coverage in his subject and centralized service; the professor sees the size of the library budget and regards the library as an empire with all kinds of staff help when the professor cannot even have a secretary. As on~ director wrote, these and other frustrations lead to "a gradual building up of small things into big, lose a friend here and there every year, and there's bound to be a critic in almost every department."35 A simple but cy~­ ical explanation of the growing problem in faculty relations may be financial- when there is not even money enough 112 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 for any raises for the faculty, faculty support for other university functions inevitably declines. The growing mili- tancy in society generally also may be a factor in bringing existing problems to the fore. Student pressure. Students do not yet have the power in the university for which they are agitating, but their power is growing. They, too, are action orient- ed, and are demanding improvements in library service. "Under pressure from students and faculty there has been a forced change in academic library pri- orities,'' Robert A. Miller finds. "Service is more important, or holds more imme- diacy than collection building. More ser- vice is wanted and in more depth ... reference to limitations of funds, space, personnel is not accepted as a sound re- ply, but only as an alibi for non-per- formance."36 When there is no new money, improved service must come at the cost of collections. A special prob- lem is that most university libraries have over-emphasized services to research, so that except in those institutions where there is an undergraduate library, the collections tend to be single-copy collec- tions. Professors, when they select books, prefer to cover as much of the new lit- erature in their fields as possible, and are reluctant to spend money on extra copies, even of important titles. Ap- proval plans also produce only single copies. To cap the problem, changing emphases of human rights over property rights lead to losses-not nearly as great as faculty and students think, but cer- tainly causing a very serious problem in public relations. Declining ability of library to meet needs. Apparently the university library is becoming increasingly less able to meet the legitimate needs of its university community. The causes have already been outlined in background factors: the information explosion, inflation, more students, and continued £ragmen-· tation of the traditional disciplines, \ coupled with hard times. A recent study at Harvard concluded that with 8,000,- 000 volumes the library was less able to cope with the demands of scholars than it was when it had only 4,000,000 vol- umes. Ralph Ellsworth, in his 1971-72 annual report at Colorado, came to the same conclusion. David Kaser states plaintively: "The lugubrious fact is that our ability to supply the books and jour- nals needed by Cornell teaching and re- search programs is rapidly diminishing, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Computerization of informa- tion, cooperation, and microminiaturi- zation have not provided solutions. . . . The somber conclusion fast being ar- rived at by the library staff is that the only solutions likely to be effective are ( 1) more money, or ( 2) a substantially reduced .academic program for the li~ brary to serve, neither of which appears imminent. The library needs, and would welcome, advice in this matter."37 An- other director observed that "when the library is unable to perform at the level of satisfaction to the faculty, the head of the library is held personally respon~ sible and it is assumed that he is inca- pable of being Director." Lack of goals and planning. Like the university itself, the library has rarely done a good job of planning, either long-range or short-range. One director remarked: "Many university librarians have rigid, pre-conceived notions about the proper objectives of their libraries. The traditional library objectives sum- marized cynically in such phrases as 'more of the same' and 'bottomless pit' are probably unrealistic, and yet little is offered in their place."38 Now that higher education and all its parts are under critical review, the lack of real~ istic, practicable, and accepted goals, and of long-range planning, is a major hand- icap. There are some noteworthy excep- tions, such as UCtA, Columbia, and Il- linois. Several writers have discussed this problem. 39 I ( - I ,_.I <- Inability to accommodate to education- al changes quickly. The university li- brary, like the university itself, is a bu- reaucracy which is difficult to change, even though the need may be recognized by nearly everyone concerned. In addi- tion, the university library may have large collections, sometimes built up over centuries, research collections which can- not be changed quickly; the library is housed in a great building or buildings which would cost millions to replace; and its staff of specialists has been de- veloped over a period of years. The two groups most impatient for new philoso- phies and new types of services are the students and the president's office. In- ability to make changes rapidly, even though he tried, cost at least one direc- tor his job. Decline in status of the director. This subject has been dealt with previously, but is so important to the welfare of the library, as well as to the director person- ally, that it should be noted again in a consideration of internal problems. The director no longer is in the upper level of university management and cannot participate in institutional policy deci- sions, including planning and budgeting. Partly the decline is due to lack of basic support. The director seldom has an op- portunity to defend the library, or if he does, no one wishes to listen to him. And on him now falls the chief burden of asking for institutional book funds as well as staff money. Many directors commented on this aspect and asserted that it made real achievements impos- sible and reduced the attractiveness of the position. Declining financial support. When fi- nancial support for the universities slows down, stands still, or decreases, the library must suffer too. A static or declin- ing budget causes especially acute prob- lems in the library, because of the con- tinuing proliferation of publications and increases in the prices of print well above the national average. A number Changing Role of Directors I 113 of directors, in discussing this problem, referred to "housekeeping" or "care- taker-level" funding. Booz, Allen & Hamilton warns that the president is in- clined to look at the library budget as a place to economize. There is wide- spread evidence that the percentage of the total educational and general budget allotted to the university library has de- clined in recent years, including some of our most distinguished universities. The national situation cannot be determined readily; however, Statistics of Southern College and University Libraries, which reports percentages spent on the library, reveals that decreases slightly outnumber increases over the past five years, but de- creases outnumber increases two to one over a ten-year period. Renewed questioning of centralization. Every director is probably aware of the declining efficiency of the general library and the old departmental library system in meeting new needs and rising expec- tations. Interdisciplinary studies and fragmenting disciplines are not served well by the system, and libraries have no funds to expand. Peter Drucker expects the entire university curriculum to be re- organized;40 if so, this problem may well increase. Every director also is aware of the rise of many office collections, un- official institute libraries funded from grants, and departmental reading rooms supplied personally by the faculty. All these developments indicate growing dis- satisfaction with centralized controls. ''Institutionalizing library resources in- evitably denies individual faculty mem- bers the degree of control they would prefer .... Add to this the even stronger desire on the part of professional schools to be autonomous within the uni- versity and you have another set of fric- tions."41 No effective sharing of resources, com- puterization, microminiaturization. Fail- ure to make substantial progress on these national problems is blamed on the li- brary and its director, and some believe 114 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 it an important factor in the decline of prestige of the director. Old-style management. As noted above, the traditional hierarchical and authori- tative style of management is increasing- ly unacceptable. As one director ob- served, it "no longer has any purchase in the market place." Many directors are unwilling or unable to adapt. In addi- tion, the director's office now operates in a condition of constant change, intense pressures, and great complexity. These factors are of crucial importance to the director personally, demanding the high- est administrative abilities as well as durability, flexibility, and determina- tion. SOLUTIONS AND CHANGES It is far easier to identify the multi- tude of problems facing the university library and its director than it is to find solutions to these troubles. Nevertheless, there are answers to some problems and partial solutions to others. Perhaps the most important fact for the director to recognize is that the old ways are being questioned and that changes are evolv- ing; he should be receptive to continu- ing change, both for his library and for himself personally, and try to see that the best possible choices are made among various alternatives. The university li- brary obviously will survive, for it is a fundamental part of the university, but its nature will continue to be trans- formed. What happens to the individual director may not be important, heartless though this may seem. Either he adapts to new ways, or another person will be brought in who has the qualities needed in the new era. But what happens to the leadership of the library embodied in the position of director of libraries is exceedingly important. Solutions to national problems. Tore- store the confidence of the university in the library and its director, there has to be "general acceptance and implementa- tion of some significant national pro- grams that really come to grips with fundamental problems of providing in- formation and knowledge for people working in the universities. . . . They probably won't get it fully until he and his colleagues attack the national prob- lems in such a way that the local univer- sity library becomes a manageable op- eration."42 · Unfortunately, the problems are so vast that there seems to be little that the individual director can do. Instead, the solutions must come at the national lev- el. No deus ex mach ina is likely to ap- pear any time soon from the computer- information world, microminiaturiza- tion or other technologies; it is therefore the responsibility of librarians to de- velop answers, even though they may be only partial and prove temporary. How- ever, the librarian can make his views known and speak out vigorously about the urgent need to national agencies which are in a stronger position to attack the problems. These include the Associa- tion of Research Libraries, agencies of the federal government, and the Amer- ican Library Association. Efforts of the Association of Research Libraries to promote a national acquisitions program and to develop plans for more effective sharing of resources for research are constructive, but the organization is de- pendent upon the federal government and foundations for research funds, and is not funded to operate any con- tinuing program. Nonetheless, its leader- ship is vitally important in the overall situation. Only the federal government can provide the sizeable funds needed for a proper national plan. There are four comprehensive federal agencies in the field-the National Commission on Libraries, the Library of Congress, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare-none of which is funded properly for the task, nor has national responsibility for information been ,... •• 4 •. fully accepted by the government. The American Library Association can be helpful but has many diverse interests and at present has inte1nal management problems. Current developments of promise are the recently completed ARL interlibrary loan cost study, the same organization's current study of the feasibility of a computerized national referral center, and ongoing studies of national-regional periodicals resources centers or lending libraries by the National Commission on Libraries, ARL, and the Center for Re- search Libraries. Both the Association of Research Libraries and the Center for Research Libraries have broadened their membership considerably in recent years, thereby increasing their strength. ARL has adopted automatic member- ship criteria based on 50 percent of the ARL averages on certain factors. Some librarians see networks as an answer, but existing examples are uncoordinated and vary widely in scope and in value. It should be noted again that political pres- sures are strong for more and more effec- tive cooperation, especially from state boards of higher education and from HEW. Better planning. Failure to plan for the future has been one of the major weaknesses of university libraries in gen- eral, a condition which many authorities agree must be corrected in the seventies. "Planning is. the orderly means used by an organization to establish effective con- trol over its own future . . . to be effec- tive any plan . . . must be logical, com- prehensive, flexible, action-oriented, and formal. Furthermore, it must extend in- to the future and involve human re- sources."43 In an era of change in the university and of static financial sup- port, the allocation of resources becomes especially important. The components of comprehensive library planning in- clude ( 1) university requirements and expectations for library services; ( 2) the library's own objectives and plan~ in sup- Changing Role of Directors I 115 port of academic programs and general learning needs; and ( 3) library resources (financial, personnel, collections, facil- ities, and equipment) needed to imple- ment agreed-upon plans. There are four ways to accommodate change. ( 1) Ap- point a new chief librarian. ( 2) Call in an outside consultant. So far as the di- rector is concerned, results are the same as ( 1) four times out of five, especially if the university calls for the consultant. ( 3) Establish a committee within the li- brary organizational structure as a re- search and planning group.44 ( 4) Ap- point a staff officer in the director's office for planning and research, to do some of the work and to assist the staff com- mittee. Kaser points out that in the uni- versity ccacademic decision making ... is not accomplished through the organi- zational tree that we have come to asso- ciate with large organizations. Such a structure does exist in universities, but it exists for nonacademic decisions; aca- demic decisions ... are rather initiated and made by faculty members as indi- viduals and with practically no central- ized control over them."45 Implications for the library are obvious. Improved budgeting. During this peri- od of hard times for the university, the university library must improve its budg- eting and control practices greatly if it is to receive its fair share of limited re- sources. The old add-on type budget is gone, at least for a while and perhaps forever. Librarians need to prove their value to the classroom faculty as well as to the university administration-librar- ies are indispensable, but how indis- pensable? Libraries now have to demon- strate their importance to the education- al program of the institution. There also must be more accountability-directors must provide better justifications for budget increases. Some steps that the di~ rector should take include adding a busi- ness-trained b":ldget manager to the li- brary staff for budget preparation; en- listing the support of instructional de- 116 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 partments in preparing budgets; seeking faculty and administrative recognition of the fact that any new academic pro- gram requires money and that special financial aid should be given to the li- brary for it; making productivity and cost benefit analyses regularly; participa- tion in computerized networks and in- formation-sharing systems; and having the director sit on the highest university policy board. 46 A discovery of consid- erable significance was made by Kenneth S. Allen, who found among thirteen sampled institutions that "the percent- age of educational and general expense funds allocated to the library appears to be favorably influenced by having faculty status."47 Further study is need- ed to see if this is true nationally. State boards of higher education clearly are going to affect budgeting practices of state-supported university li- braries, as previously observed, for their financial control is growing rapidly. The methods they adopt will govern library methods. Six types of budgets currently are in use: the traditional budget by ob- jects of expenditure, program budget, performance budget, Planning, Pro- gramming and Budgetary Systems, for- mula budgeting, and combinations.48 New organizational patterns. If pres- ent trends in the academic programs of the university continue-breakoff of new subjects from old disciplines, growth of interdisciplinary studies and area studies, rise of programs oriented towards current social problems, more independent study programs, and more adult education work, or if indeed there will be entirely different curricula by 1980 as suggested by some-then the uni- versity library may have to make consid- erable change in its organizational struc- ture to accommodate to university needs. Some modifications are needed already, for internal as well as external reasons; our present patterns are over seventy-five years old. At present, no one knows with any cer- tainty exactly what changes in organiza- tion may be needed. The most interest- ing suggestions to date, the Booz, Allen & Hamilton proposals (limited to staff and service only) for Columbia Univer- sity libraries, appear unwieldy and cum- bersome. The experiment should be watched with interest. , ~l;le company re- flects a business-indu/trial management firm's approach. In any event, the direc- tor needs to be aware that organizational changes may be needed, and to remain open-minded and flexible on the subject. Services vs. collection-building. The director must recognize that the empha- sis in university libraries is shifting from collection-building to services, un- der growing pressures from students and faculty, and that the library must con- form. Library staffs also seem to be be- coming more service conscious and pro- gram oriented. When financial support is static, there is no place to obtain the money for improved services other than book and journal funds. Therefore, the percentage of the library budget allotted to acquisitions will decline, unfortunate as this is for the world of scholarship in general and the university in particu- lar. In its most affiuent days, no library was able to acquire more than a portion of the world's published output. Every director has been made increas- ingly aware of the growing dissatisfac- tions with library service. Formerly fac- ulty members and students were reluc- tant to voice criticism and make sugges- tions; nowadays, neither seems to hesi- tate to make attacks. Failing to receive satisfaction, they may go to the presi- dent or to the campus newspaper. Cour- teous hearings and boxes for complaints and suggestions are useful. Another evi- dence that every director 'must be aware of is the rapid growth in recent years of alternatives to standard library service- bffice collections, unofficial institute li- braries, faculty-supplied departmental reading rooms, and the like. Dougherty suggests that a new attitude and new types of service may be needed for the latter group.49 Undergraduate libraries (or learning resources centers as some state boards prefer to call them) seem successful and desirable, and are popular with students. They are possible, however, only in large university libraries. They help im- prove service, but there seems to be little or no correlation between the presence of such a unit and the tenure of the di- rector. Collecting policies. Several changes in collecting policies may be desirable. The first and most obvious change is that, with stable or declining funds, the li- brary needs to be more selective in choos- ing from the world's output. Unless the library receives a book and journal budget that increases steadily at least 12 percent a year, the recent rate of infla- tion in the price of print, library intake will decline. There is a trend towards se- lection by library specialists. Blanket or- der and approval plans are becoming widespread. Both movements seem to be satisfactory and acceptable to the fac- ulty. When book funds decline, many libraries tend to protect their periodical subscriptions first. Institutional pride and rules of agen- cies for counting library statistics em- phasize the codex book and the journal. Microprint is well used by libraries but is not acceptable for the basic count. Li- braries need to widen their collecting net to include information in other forms, including the so-called newer media and information on computer tapes or discs. Douglas Bryant has point- ed out the growing variety of forms that must be collected.50 Rare books. Some presidents, legisla- tors, and state boards have long looked askance at the use of budgetary funds for the purchase of rare books per se. Now the attitude appears to be spread- ing to the faculty and to students. A lit- tle checking with faculty members in almost any department except history, Changing Role of Directors I 117 English, and classics or other humanities is likely to prove startling. Neither sci- entists nor social scientists are likely to appreciate the need. Perhaps the attitude is a product of severe financial prob- lems, or McLuhanism, or strong empha- sis on the current problems of our so- ciety. The director may be well advised to use only gift funds for such pur- poses, and to publicize this policy among the faculty. ccFriends of the Library" or- ganizations can be quite helpful in pro- viding funds for ccfrosting on the cake.'' More copies of important books or current titles in heavy demand ought to be purchased. Most university libraries, with the exception of those with under- graduate units, are basically single-copy libraries. The most severe criticism of every university library in the country probably is the inability of students or faculty to secure a copy of a high-de- mand title when needed. Changes in ac- quisitions policies clearly are required. Institutionalization of resources. Some loosening of centralized control over re- sources and services may be in order. This will seem downright heresy to some, and an encouragement of ineffi- ciency and wastefulness by others. But the fact is that this is already occurring. Professional associations in medicine and law in concerted campaigns have gained a great deal of independence for their schools, including their libraries. Other professional associations are be- ginning to work on similar programs. The rise of many unofficial office collec- tions, institute libraries, and department- al reading rooms has already been noted. The library itself cannot estab- lish the needed new branches to serve in- terdisciplinary and similar new pro- grams, due to the financial pinch. Ac- tually, at least two great university li- braries have always been federations of libraries-Harvard and Cornell. The fi- nancial and supportive aspects of allow- ing some degree of freedom were sug- gested by Donald Coney in the 1950s. 118 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 When asked why he allowed so many in- dependent branch libraries at Berkeley, he replied, "We get more mon~y that way.'' Cooperation and a new k$.nd of personalized service to meet new! needs are suggested by Dougherty.51 {Holley suggests that coordinated decentraliza- tion as at Harvard should be look~d at, as well as the view that after a certain size has been reached, some form of de- centralization may be both necessary and desirable.52 Directors undoubtedly need all the help they can find nowadays, and by co- operation they can maintain some degree of coordination which might otherwise be lost. As the rate of acquisitions de- clines, libraries may have excess staff in their acquisitions and cataloging de- partments which could be utilized. Pol- icies on these matters need to be re- viewed, and either re-affirmed or modi- fied. Status of the director. Most directors commented on the decline in status of the office of director, reflected in the in- terposition of layers of vice-presidents between the president and the director. Some decline in general approval of the library itself also seems to be evident. This is unfortunate for the director, but very serious indeed for the univer- sity library itself. The library's repre- sentative usually no longer participates in institutional policy decision making processes, and cannot present the li- brary's case at the top level. Buckman believes that the four re- quirements to restoring confidence and credibility in the director, and by impli- cation the library, are: ( 1) some effective attack on major national problems; ( 2) establishing an effective working rela- tionship with the administrative oiflcers of the university; ( 3) providing a framework in which the director can op- erate effectively within the university's power structure and ( 4) setting reason- able and widely understood goals for the library.53 Branscomb suggests that this may be a problem to be worked out in- dividually on each campus, rather than by a considered attack from research li- braries as a group. 54 Booz, Allen & Hamilton propose that the director be made a vice-president. 55 The vice-presi- dent needs to adopt a university-wide viewpoint when this is done. The idea is attractive, and has been implemented at Columbia, Texas, and Utah, the two latter perhaps for different reasons. An important factor, for directors consider- ing such a move, may be that the office should be a vice-president for informa- tion services for the entire campus, as- suming responsibilities for the newer media, even closed-circuit TV and cer- tain aspects of computerized informa- tion services. Separate budgeting for the latter units seems fundamental. The status of the director is some- times a negotiable matter which should be dealt with as one of the conditions of appointment. The rank of dean may be negotiable; the status of vice-presi- dent possibly not. The welfare of the library itself as well as the opportunity for achievement by the director of course are involved. Tenn appointments. One of the solu- tions proposed by several directors is ap- pointment for a fixed term, perhaps for ten years, perhaps for five years, with one renewal possible. 56 If Chancellor Murphy is correct, and if the post of di- rector is comparable to that of a presi- dent, then his observation that an indi- viduar s major creative contributions are made within the first three to five years, with ten years the maximum time need- ed to complete programs, the idea should be considered carefully by the profes- sion. Both the library and the individual are certain to suffer when the director re- mains in the position past his period of optimum contribution. Several universities presently have term appointments for deans and other such administrators-with extensions possible-Cornell, Texas, and Illinois. The de facto tenure period for directors of ARL libraries over the past three .. years has averaged between five and six years. Vosper does note, however, that very short terms inhibit planning and focused concentration, such as the three year elective term in Japanese academic libraries. If term appointments are adopted, some orderly plans or structure to facil- itate wise change in administration must be formulated. So far there is none, · though at West Virginia a president ac- quires retirement privileges after five years, and at Kentucky deans who return to teaching retain their salaries at the ex- pense of the general administration. A majority of directors who have quit their posts have gone into teaching, but there are limitations to this concept- many universities have no library school, and the ability of schools to absorb a succession of directors may be limited. Others have become curators of special collections, taken early retirement, or moved to another university. If peer ap- pointment should come for presidents, as has been suggested, it might also ap- ply to directors. In such circumstances, moving to a lesser position in the library would become more practicable. In any event, the profession needs to give some thought to the problem of how to make such changes feasible rather than trau- matic. Increase the percentage of nonprofes- sional staff. Some twenty-five years ago university libraries in the United States generally had a 1: 1 ratio between profes- sional librarians and supporting staff. Then following a series of articles by Archie McNeal and others in the middle 1950s, pointing out that perhaps two- thirds of the work in an academic li- brary could be done successfully and more economically by nonprofessional people, libraries generally moved to a staff composition of two nonprofession- als to one professional. With few excep- tions, this distribution is common among university libraries today. Among Canadian university librar- ies the ratios are different: from three- Changing Role of Directors I 119 to-one up to five-to-one. The movement began in the catalog department at the University of British Columbia; when catalogers complained about the amount of routine and clerical work they were doing, the library increased the size of the supporting staff to what they deemed proper. Canadian university libraries have close working relations, and the movement spread rapidly. The new ra- tios are reported to be acceptable and satisfactory. This subject requires further exam- ination on the part of directors and their staffs. The education of the entire population has improved greatly in the last fifteen to twenty years, from which it follows that nonprofessional person- nel ought to be able to carry more and higher level duties. A careful survey of student opinion about the central li- brary at the University of Oklahoma re- vealed that the four areas of greatest dissatisfaction fell within the province of the nonprofessional staff. Obviously the library needs more assistants. 57 El- dred Smith also had speculated that the university library may not need many more academic or professional staff, ~ut better qualified and more specialized in- dividuals. 58 Harold F. Wells suggests that the ratio of clerical to professional ought to be five-to-one; adding that all staff are better educated, one year is a short period of graduate education, the Army is very dependent on sergeants, and libraries ought to upgrade clericals and assign more duties to them.69 A ten- tative inquiry about a research grant to establish the proper ratio was unsuccess- ful. In relation to nonacademic staff mem- bers, there are three special problems for the director: they may fit a some- what different administrative pattern, no one knows what are the proper relation- ships between the academic and the non- academic staff, and clerical assistants ap- pear to be more likely to join a union.60 Booz, Allen & Hamilton proposals in the Columbia study attempt to come to 120 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 grips with the problem, one of the first / efforts to date. Other approaches need to be explored. In one major university library, the two groups have already come into conflict. The problems will grow in proportion to increases in size of the assistant group. CHANGING PATTERNS OF MANAGEMENT New management styles rapidly are re- placing the old traditional techniques in the university library world. The trend has been observed and commented on by several librarians who have made surveys of university library manage- ment around the country during the last two years: Edward G. Holley, Maurice P. Marchant, Eldred Smith, and Jane G. Flener.s1 Involving increased staff partic- ipation in the management of the li- brary to one degree or another, they are called participatory management, col- legial management, or democratic ad- ministration. The theory and principles have been drawn from two different sources, business and industry, and aca- demia itself. The new styles are being adopted rapidly because the arguments in their favor are persuasive. They draw in to the solution of problems a diverse group of good minds with varied view- points, thereby improving the quality as well as the effectiveness of decision mak- ing. They are the answer to growing staff pressures, particularly from the academ- ic or professional staff, for participation in planning and policy decisions, as well as administrative affairs affecting them- selves. They tend to improve the morale and dedication of the staff. They mar- shall the entire staff in defense of the library against attacks from outside, thus relieving and supporting the direc- tor, a defense in depth, as it were. The director has to surrender some of his old authority, and becomes more of a leader. His influence may not be diminished, but it must be exerted in different ways .. There are three principal styles, two based on business and industry, the other on university academic practices. The three might be called the business man- agement plan, the unionization method, and collegial management or academic plan. A director may not be free to choose among them. If his university has not, and probably will not, grant aca- demic status to librarians, such as the Ivy League universities, he must choose one of the first two. If the professional staff already has faculty status, then he would be wise to accept that style. A show of hands recently in the Associa- tion of Research Libraries indicated that three-fourths of the directors al- ready had academic status or were inter- ested in seeking it for their staffs. If a staff is unionized already, a new director has no choice. All of the new styles are so new, comparatively speaking, that there are still wide variations in practice in all three groups. Each may be success- ful. The director who enters upon any one of the paths grudgingly and because he is forced to, and drags his heels all the way, however, is likely to find him- self in trouble after a short time. Business management plan. Examples of libraries experimenting with the pro- fessional but not academic approach (i.e., their staffs do not have faculty status nor are they unionized) are Cor- nell, Columbia, UCLA, and recently Harvard. The method may give more op- tions to the director, and allow him to make more decisions concerning the de- gree of staff participation. There are no firm outside models; therefore, the di- rector and his staff have to make many basic and difficult decisions. A director who goes into this system determined to cede only what he has to treads a very difficult and possibly dangerous path. There is likely to be a latent restlessness in the staff which will burst forth if there is even slight provocation. Given hard work, good judgment, and coopera- tion from both sides the method s~ould be successful. '· _ It is interesting to note that Booz, AI~\ I len & Hamilton, Inc., in their original report of 1970 on Problems in Universi- ty Library Management, make no men- tion of staff participation matters. Sub- sequent papers by Seashore and Bolton of the firm's staff, however, stressed the desirability of extensively involving the staff in management, and their recom- mendations in the Columbia study also emphasize this feature. A representative of the firm declined to commit himself about faculty status for librarians. Unionization. Management by collec- tive bargaining probably produces the most drastic changes in management of all the three methods. In some respects it is the newest and least-known of all. Chicago, California (Berkeley) to a cer- tain extent, and the City University of New York are examples. A guide exists on the subject of unionization of li- brary staff. 62 De Gennaro believes that unionism and participatory management are incompatible; which will emerge as the trend of the future is still uncer- tain.63 One university library union, it should be noted, includes both profes- sional and nonprofessional staff mem- bers. . Factors that might tend to lead to un- ionization are large size and unsatisfac- tory business management types of par- ticipative management. The larger the staff, the more difficult it is to develop participatory management plans that will effectively involve all of the staff. Academic, faculty, or collegial manage- ment seems less likely to lead to union- ization of the professional staff, but if the classroom faculty is unionized, the library faculty undoubtedly ·will be in- cluded. Academic management. The model for the third or academic style lies in the university itself-administration of a college. The director should be com- parable to the dean of a college or per- haps a vice-president, and the profes- sional staff to a college faculty. Like the first method, however, it has both advan- Changing Role of Directors I 121 tages and disadvantages. First, despite many libraries working in this direction for a number of years-Illinois, Minne- sota, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Miami, and Kentucky, - for example-there are still about as many variations as there are in the first meth- od. Excellent statements of principles under this system are those produced by Miami, Houston, Oregon, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. Numerous problems ex- ist; the transition is neither simple nor easy. The director has less choice about the degree of participation in manage- ment which is to exist; he has more than many think, but the example of facul- ty-dean is close at hand, and there there- spective roles are well-established and clear. To find out what the role of a di- rector may be in such a plan, he has only to examine the role of the dean. A guide to the effects of academic status upon organization and management is that by McAnally.64 It should be noted that a dean of a nondepartmentalized college tends to have considerably more power and influence than a dean of a college with many departments. The role of a dean of libraries in a large university li- brary which has to be subdivided into both academic and administrative de- partments is quite different. Middle management tends to be much stronger in this case. Both types of colleges flourish in American universities. An- other disadvantage of the system is that numerous time-consuming committees are required. The excesses to which com- mittee operation could be carried were illustrated at the Library of Congress by a pioneer in participative management, Luther Evans. 65 Committees of class- room faculty members produce certain problems and this is an area the director needs to watch. The advantages of academic manage- ment or operation as a college are sub- stantial. It provides recognition of the library as an academic unit. The meth- ods of management fit the standard uni- 122 I College & Research Libraries • March 1973 versity pattern, hence are accepted read- ily by administration, classroom faculty, and the library staff. It draws in to plan- ning, solution of problems, and manage- ment generally a wide variety of back- grounds and knowledge, so that decision- making tends to be better and the deci- sions accepted more readily. It promotes continuing education and professional growth, and increased professionaliza- tion. Morale is higher. One study indi- cates that it tends to improve financial support of the library. 66 Another indi- cates that the classroom faculty tends to be better satisfied with the library when the library operates as a faculty-academ- ic unit. 67 Productivity. Productivity under par- ticipatory management has been ques- tioned by Lynch. 68 Her comments would seem to apply to business-style participa- tory management, academic manage- ment, and the unionization method alike. Marchant, however, points out that "While group decision-making alone appears to be neither adequate nor necessary to assure high productivity, it has been found to be generally charac- teristic of high-production organiza- tions."69 In a highly professionalized staff, his observation would seem particu- larly applicable. Any director who is con- vinced that the traditional hierarchical and authoritarian approach should be retained because it is best for the uni- versity would be well-advised to start looking for a new job, or a series of them, in view of current management trends. Uncertain place of the supporting staff. Currently in university libraries in the United States, as previously ob- served, the supporting staff outnumbers the professional or academic staff two to one. The proportion is likely to rise during the next five years to the three to one up to five to one common in Canadi- an university libraries. The place of the nonprofessional staff in the management system, however, is still generally uncer- tain. Only in unionism is its role clear. Obviously, there must be solutions found for the proper involvement of the supporting staff in the government and management of the university li- brary. Its members are better educated and better qualified than they were twenty years ago, and they will perform two-thirds to four-fifths of all work done in libraries. V ar~ous plans should be tried to find the best. Currently most nonacademic staff members operate un- der rules set by the university personnel office. QuALITIES OF A MonEL DIREcrOR The qualities required of a director of libraries are the same as they have al- ways been. Certain aspects, however, re- ceive more emphasis nowadays than they did in the past. First, the director must be more flexible and adaptable; the old certainties are being questioned or are gone, and the un_iversity library will con- tinue to undergo changes. He must be willing to accept change as a way of life, and be open-minded about alternatives. Any man (or woman) unwilling to oper- ate in such a milieu, or unable to accept uncertainty as a way of life should not un- dertake the management of a university library for the years immediately ahead. Second, he must possess a stable and equable temperament, and the ability to keep his emotional balance under the constant tensions that come at him from all directions. The tensions are unlikely to decrease. The apothegm of a former president seems appropriate: "If you can,t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!,, Third, he must have endur- ance. Luther Evans, who once described the qualities of a good library adminis- trator, chose the term ''endurance" in- stead of the term "vigor," which busi- ness .and industry favored. 70 His choice seemed odd in the 1940s, but more apt now. Finally, the director must be excep- tionally persuasive. Ability to present li- ., .• I [ brary interests and needs effectively to the administration, classroom faculty, students, and state boards is essential. He must have facts derived from continu- ous planning and from continuing cost studies, including cost-benefit, but he al- so needs to have a personality that com- mands attention and respect. The new type of leadership within the library re- quires that he be a leader and not mere- Changing Role of Directors I 123 ly an authority. Sometimes it seems that a worker of miracles is wanted-a search committee for a new director of one of the major university libraries specified a mature and experienced man having at least ten years of professional career yet to go who would be able to persuade the university to increase financial sup- port of the university library in an era of declining institutional income! REFERENCES 1. Edward G. Holley, "Organization and Ad- ministration of Urban University Libraries," CRL 33:175-89 (May 1972). 2. Raynard C. Swank, Discussion with Arthur McAnally, Chicago, January 1972. 3. Lewis C. Branscomb, Thomas R. Buckman, Robert Carmack, Herman H. Fussier, John A. Heussman, Edward G. Holley, Robert K. Johnson, Louis Kaplan, David Otis Kel- ley, Roy L. Kidman, Warren B. Kuhn, Frank A. Lundy, John P. McDonald, Stan- ley McElderry, Robert A. Miller, Ralph H. Parker, Benjamin B. Richards, Eldred R. Smith, Edward B. Stanford, Lewis F. Steig, Raynard C. Swank, and Robert Vosper. 4. For a brief survey of some of these changes, not only in size but in other areas, and their probable effects on the university library, see President Richard Lyman ( Stanford), "New Trends in Higher Educa- tion: The Impact on the University Li- brary," Association of Research Libraries, Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth meeting, May 14-15, 1971. (Washington: A.R.L., 1971) p. 3-7. Also Booz, Allen & Hamil- ton, Inc. "Trends in Higher Education and Their Implications for University Libraries and University Library Management," p. 11-20 of their Problems in University Li- brary Management (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1970). 5. Donald Coney, "Where Did You Go? To The Library. What Did You Get? Nothing," CRL 19:179-84 (May 1958). 6. Franklin D. Murphy, "Some Reflections on Structure," in John Coffrey, ed. The Future Academic Community: Continuity and Change. (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969), p. 88--94. 7. Herman H. Fussier, Letter to Arthur Mc- Anally, March 8, 1972, p. 2. 8. Earl C. Bolton, "Response of University Li- brary Management to Changing Modes of University Governance and Control," CRL 33:308 (July 1972). 9. Richard N. Logsdon, Letter to Arthur Mc- Anally, August 10, 1972. 10. Jean Mayer, "The College and University: A Program for Academic Renewal," Har- vard Bulletin (Nov. 16, 1970), p. 21-27. 11. Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity, Guidelines to Our Changing Society (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 389-90. 12. Douglas W. Bryant, "Problem of Research Libraries: Development of Resources," A.C.L.S. Newsletter v. 22, no. 1 (Jan. 1971) p. 3-8. 13. Vannevar Bush, "As We May Think," Atlantic Monthly v. 176, no. 1 (July 1945), p. 101-08. 14. National Research Council. Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. The Life Sci- ences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs, the World of Biological Research, Requirements for the Future. (Washington: The National Academy of Sciences, 1970), p. 406. 15. Fremont Rider, The Scholar and the Fu- ture of the Research Library, a Problem and Its Solution (New York: Hadham Press, 1944) . 16. 0. C. Dunn, et al. The Past and Likely Fu- ture of 58 Research Libraries, 1951-1980: A Statistical Study of Growth and Change (Lafayette, Ind.: University Libraries and Audio-visual Center, 1965- ) . 17. Earl F. Cheit, The New Depression in Higher Education, A Study of Financial Conditions at 41 Colleges and Universities; A General Report for the Carnegie Com- mission on Higher Education and the Ford Foundation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971 ). 18. Cornell University Libraries. Report of the Director of University Libraries, 1970/71 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Libraries, 1971), p. 7. 19. Representative leaders include Chris Arg- yris, Understanding Organizational Behav- ior (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1960) "' i I I : I ! 124/ College & Research Libraries • March 1973 and his Interpersonal Competence and Or- ganizational Effectiveness (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1962); Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: Mc- Graw-Hill, 1961); Peter F. Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); Robert A. Sutermeister, Peo- ple and Productivity; 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969); Alfred J. Marrow, et al., Management by Participation; Creating a Climate for Personal and Organizational Development (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); and Harlon Cleveland, The Future Executive (New York: Harper & Row, 1972). A good summary of the early move- ment is Timothy Hallimen, New Directions in Organization Theory ( Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corp., Sept. 1968. P-3936). 20. Larry E. Greiner, "Evolution and Revolu- tion as Organizations Grow," Harvard Busi- ness Review v. 50, no. 4 (July-Aug. 1972), p. 37-46. 21. See for example Earl C. Bolton, Respon.se of University Management, p. 308. 22. Henry L. Mason, College and University Government, A Handbook of Principle and Practice (New Orleans: Tulane University, 1972). 23. See for example Myron Lieberman, "Pro- fessors, Unite!" Harper's Magazine v. 243, no. 1457 (Oct. 1971), p. 61-70; and Ter- ence N. Tice, ed. Faculty Power: Collec- tive Bargaining on Campus (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute of Continuing Legal Edu- cation, 1972). 24. "Unionization of Faculty Expected to Pick up Speed Because of Tight Money and Ph.D.s," College Management 6:38 (Sept. 1971 ). 25. "Analysis of an Act to Consolidate the Insti- tutions of Higher Education in North Caro- lina, Session Laws of 1971, Proceedings, Chapter 1244, Ratified 30 October 1971." 26. Arthur M. McAnally, "Budgets by Formu- la," Library Quarterly 33:159-171 (April 1963). 27. Kenneth S. Allen, Current and Emerging Budgeting Techniques in Academic Librar- ies, Including a Critique of the Model Budget Analysis Program of the State of Washington (Seattle: April, 1972). 28. Washington (State), Office of Interinstitu- tional Business Studies, A Model Budget Analysis System for Program 05 Libraries (Olympia, Wash.: 1970). 29. Thomas R. Buckman, Letter to Arthur Mc- Anally, June 8, 1972, p. 2. 30. Second U.S.-Japan Conference of Univer- sity Library Directors, Oct. 17-20, 1972. Robert Vosper, "The Role of the Univer- sity Library Director: Principal Issues of the Seventies," p. 7. The social scientist is Richard L. Meier. See "Information Input Overload: Features of Growth in the Com- munications-Oriented Institutions" LIBRI 13:11, 1963. 31. See L. Carroll De Weese, "Status Concerns of Library Professionalism," CRL 33:31-38 (Jan. 1972). Also Edward G. Holley, "Or- ganization and Management." Also Maurice P. Marchant, "Participative Management as Related to Personnel Development," Li- brary Trends 20:48-59 (July 1971). Di- rectors who have commented on this point, besides Robert Miller, included Edward B. Stanford, Lewis C. Branscomb, David Ka- ser, and Richard H. Logsdon. 32. Eldred R. Smith, The Specialist in the Aca- demic Research Library, a Report to the Council on Library Resources. [Berkeley, Calif.] May 1971. 33. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Organization and Staffing of the Libraries of Columbia University: A Summary of a Case Study. (Washington, D.C.: Association of Re- search Libraries, 1972). ( The full study will be published in two volumes. ) 34. Robert T. Blackburn, "College Libraries: Paradoxical Failures; Some Reasons and a Possible Remedy," CRL 29:171-77 (May 1968). 35. Richard H. Logsdon, "Librarian and the Scholar: Eternal Enemies," Library Journal 95:2871-74 (Sept. 15, 1970). 36. Robert A. Miller, Letter to Arthur McAnal- ly dated March 17, 1972. Also, see Hen- drik Edelman, .. Motherhood, the Growth of Library Collections, Freedom of Access and Other Issues," Cornell University Libraries Bulletin, no. 176 (April 1972), p. 5~6. See also Eldred R. Smith, "The Specialist in the Academic Research," p. 34. 37. Cornell University Libraries. Annual Report of the Director, 1970!71 (Ithaca, N.Y.: The Libraries, 1971 ), p. 7. 38. Thomas R. Buckman, Letter to Arthur Mc- Anally, dated June 8, 1972. 39. See Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Problems in University Library Management. Also David Kaser, "Planning in University Li- braries; Context and Processes," Southeast- ern Librarian 21:207-13 (Winter 1971 ). For a pioneering effort in long range plan- ning, see Marion Milczewski, "Cloak and Dagger in University Library Administra- tion," CRL 13:117-21 (April1952). 40. Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Discontinui- ty, Guidelines ro Our Changing Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1969). 41. Richard H. Logsdon, Letter to Arthur Mc- Anally, August 8, 1972. 42. Thomas R. Buckman, Letter. \ . ·~ 43. Earl C. Bolton, Response of University Management, p. 309. See also Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Problems in University Library Management, p. 5-6 et passim. 44. Robert P. Haro, " Change in Academic Li- braries," CRL 33:97-103 (March 1972). 45. David Kaser, "Planning in University Li- braries," p. 288. 46. These and other excellent suggestions are made by Kenneth S. Allen, Current and Emerging Budgeting, p. 37-46. See also Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Problems in University Library Management. 47. Kenneth S. Allen, Current and Emerging Budgeting, p. 40. 48. Ibid., p. 18. 49. Richard M. Dougherty, "The Unserved- Academic Library Style," American Li- braries 2:1055-58 (Nov. 1971). 50. Douglas Bryant, "Problems of University Libraries: Development of Resources," ACLS Newsletter, v. 22, no. 1 (Jan. 1971 ), p. 3-8. 51. Richard M. Dougherty, "The Unserved." 52. Edward G. Holley, "Organization and Ad- ministration," p. 186-87. 53. Thomas R. Buckman, Letter. 54. Lewis C. Branscomb, Letter to Arthur Mc- Anally, April 3, 1972. 55. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Organization and Staffing of the Columbia University Li- brary: A Summary of the Case Study. Also their Problems in University Library Management, cited previously. 56. Herman H. Fussier and Robert Vosper, op. cit., Larry Powell made a similar obser- vation to Vosper. 57. University of Oklahoma Library Ad Hoc Committee on Library Service. Final Re- port of a User Survey of the Bizzell Me- morial Library with Special Reference to Problems. (Norman, Okla.: July 1972). Changing Role of Directors I 125 58. Eldred Smith, "Academic Status for Col- lege and University Librarians-Problems and Prospects," CRL 31:7-13 {Jan. 1970), p. 11. 59. Harold F. Wells, Telephone conversation with Arthur McAnally, July 8, 1972. 60. Edward G. Holley, "Organization and Ad- ministration," p. 182. 61. All have been cited already except Jane G. Flener: "Staff Participation in Management in Large University Libraries," Indiana Uni- versity Library News Letter, v. 8, no. 1 (Oct. 1972) p. 1-3. 62. Melvin S. Goldstein, Collective Bargaining in the Field of Librarianship (Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1968). 63. Richard De Gennaro, "Participative Man- agement or Unionization," CRL 33:173-74 (May 1972). 64. Arthur M. McAnally, "Status of the Uni- versity Librarian in the Academic Commu- nity," in Research Librarianship, Essays in Honor of Robert B. Downs, ed. by Jerrold Orne (New York: Bowker, 1971 ), p. 19- 50. Administrative operation is p. 31-46. 65. Luther H. Evans, "The Administration of a Federal Government Agency," L.C. In- formation Bulletin, Sept. 20-26, 1949, Ap- pendix, p. 1-9, See also his annual reports of the period. 66. Kenneth S. Allen, Current and Emerging Budgeting. Thirteen institutions. 67. Maurice P . Marchant, Participative Man- agement, p. 54. Also Lewis C. Branscomb, letter to Arthur McAnally, April 3, 1972. 68. Beverly Lynch, "Participatory Management in Relation to Library Productivity," CRL 33:382-90 (Sept. 1972). 69. Maurice P. Marchant, Participative Man- agement, p. 48. 70. Luther H. Evans, "The Administration of a Federal."