College and Research Libraries LOUIS KAPLAN On Decision Sharing in Libraries: How Much Do We Know? In recent years empirical studies have begun to appear on the decision sharing practices of executives in health and welfare agencies and managers in industrial firms. Two tentative conclusions can be drawn: ( 1) The typical high-level manager tvho has been studied does not em- ploy a single decision making style but permits the circumstances to dictate whether a decision shall be one-sided, conSultative, or dele- gative; (2) a considerable amount of decision sharing is permitted with subordinates. Similar and more extensively conceived research is need- ed on decision sharing in libraries; to this end a number of re- search problems are tndicated. Additionally, several hypotheses are offered to provide the beginnings of a conceptual foundation for future research. IN HIS BOOK ON THE LIFE OF THE AMER- ICAN SLAVE Genovese writes that the "Mammies" in the "Big House" acted the part of a "surrogate mistress," bark- ing out orders, settling disputes among the servants in the mansion, and serving as "con_fidante to the children, the mis- tress and even the master." Among her other duties she taught the "courtesies to the white children as well as to those black children destined to work in the 'Big House!' "1 Power sharing, which Genovese is de- scribing, takes various forms: delegation of authority is one; making decisions jq_intly between superior and subordi- nate is another; still a third kind takes place when a subordinate, permitted to give advic~, exerts a decisive influence on a decision. In this essay answers to two important questions will be sought: How frequently is each of the decision- sharing styles employed, and what de- ·termines the choice of style? In recent years empirical studies have begun to appear on the deCision-sharing Louis Kaplan is professor in the Library School, University of Wisconsin-Madison. practices of executives as well as on their attitudes toward sharing. Two ma- jor conclusions can be drawn from this. literature. First, an executive does not employ a single style; depending on the circumstances, some of the decisions · may be one-sided, while others may be delegated. Still others might be made jointly. As one scholar has written, "It makes more ·sense to talk about partici- pative and autocratic situations than it does to talk about participative and au- tocratic managers."2 The second conclusion (more tenta- tive than the first) is that despite pop- ular belief in the unbreakable chain of command in hierarchically structured or- ganizations, superiors permit a consid- erable . amount of influence to their sub- ordinates. These conclusions will sur- prise those who still think of adminis- trators in monolithic terms, yet much re- search has been published that is de- structive of the monolithic image. Some executives, for example, are "people" oriented, while others are "task" orient- ed.3 Higher-level managers, we are in- formed, have a stronger desire for /25 26 I C allege & Research Libraries • ] anuary 1977 "power and authority in their position than do lower-level managers."4 Among managers in differentiated positions all showed a strong desire to lead and to di- rect, but these desires were strongest .among those in charge of sales and weakest among the presidents of the manufacturing companies studied. 5 Even more noteworthy is the report that "inner-directed" persons (those whose conduct is not dominated by the desires of others ) have been promoted to high positions in organizations. 6 A Note on Terminology In order to avoid the monotonous use of the term "decision sharing," two al- ternatives are employed, namely, "influ- ence sharing" .and "power sharing." Though not synonymous, the inter- changeable use of these three terms within the meaning of this essay should not cause confusion. The terms, "execu- tive," "administrator," and "manager," have taken on separate meanings, but the differences have little significance for this essay; for this reason these three terms, along with the word "lead- er," will be used as the context dictates. STUDIES ON THE EXTENT OF POWER SHARING Two n1ajor studies have been pub- lished describing the power sharing practices of high-level American man- agers. One, by Heller, deals with 260 "senior" managers in fifteen large "suc- cessful" manufacturing firms. 7 Though holding top-level positions, the subjects in this study were not presidents of their firms. The decisions of the sub- jects (as reported by themselves) relat- ed to their own work and to the work of their immediate managerial sub- ordinates. The other publication, by Vroom and Y etton, tells of the decisions recalled by 268 managers "from a num- ber of different firms." 8 As might be ex- pected, the .authors of these studies each employed a distinctive continuum of decision styles; nevertheless, a meaning- ful comparison of the two is possible. Heller's continuum includes five styles, two of which encompass one- sided decisions made without prior con- sultation. These two are dearly outside the scope of influence sharing. His third style is also one-sided, but this kind of decision is not made until after consul- tation. The fourth is dyadic, that is, both managers have approximately equal influence. Delegation is the fifth style in this continuum. In the continuum constructed by Vroom and Y etton there are also five styles. The fifth, different from any found in Heller, is described below. In two of these styles, one-sided decisions are made without prior consultation. In the remaining two the decision is not made until after consultation: In one of these the subordinates are consulted individually; in the other they are con- sulted in .a group. Heller indicates that of the decisions made by the "senior" managers, 73 per- cent were one-sided, but of these 37 per- ·cent were preceded by consultation. The remaining 27 percent were either dyadic or delegated. In the interpretation of these statistics much depends on wheth- er prior consultation is regarded as a kind of power sharing. In part, the .an- swer rests on how often the subordinate managers "~teered" the ultimate deci- sion. On this point ( as shown later), Heller can offer only an educated guess. 9 In one respect, the executives studied by Vroom were much like those reported on by Heller: About three-fourths of their decisions were one-sided. However, of these, about 51 percent were made only after consultation (compared to 37 percent in the Heller study). The re- maining 28 percent fell within Vroom's fifth style of decision making. In this style the superior sits with the subor- dinates, but does not try (at least open- ly) to steer the decision. In this setting the leader may define the problem or even indicate alternative solutions. When this happens, the decision cannot be said to have been delegated. More properly, when the superior participates to that extent, the decision is better de- scribed as dyadic. Actually, Vroom's fifth style is much like Heller's fourth and fifth in combination, and interest- ingly these were used with equal fre- quency.10 In his oft-cited book on management, Likert decried all one-sided decisions, including those that were delegated. 11 Because he favored the dyadic, Likert would have approved of Vroom's fifth style only if the superior openly and fully shared in the making of decisions. WHEN AND WHY Do SuPERIORs PERMIT DECISION SHARING? On the question as to when and why leaders permit influence sharing, Hel- ler's work opens new vistas. His findings are best understood when classified as organizational or personal.12 With re- gard to the organizational factors, Hel- ler presented the following: 1. If the decision is perceived to be of great importance to the organi- zation, the superior is likely to use a one-sided style. 2. If the decision is perceived to be important to the subordinate, the senior will likely use one of the three less autocratic styles. 3. If the decision is believed to be of greater significance to the senior than to the subordinate, a one- sided decision is likely to be made. 4. The greater the senior's "span" of control, the more likely will a time- saving style be employed, that is, autocratic or delegative. Heller's findings are in part confirmed by Blau, who investigated fifty-three employment agencies in the United States. 13 The greater the risk, said B1au, the more reluctant would management be to delegate decision making. What is more, there is a tendency to decentral- Decision Sharing in Libraries I 21 ize authority when the "large size of an organization expands the volume of managerial decisions beyond the capac- ity of the top executive and his depu- ty."14 Blau saw risk and size as the source of conflicting forces, size promot- ing decentralization of authority while risk worked in the opposite direction. 15 According to Vroom, the most signifi- cant determinant of power sharing is the information needed to make a de- cision. If the senior believes np addi- tional information is needed, a one- sided style is likely to be employed. If, however, the senior believes that the subordinate has information necessary to the decision, a participative style is· likely to be permitted.16 As to personal factors that shape the making of decisions, Heller reported: 1. When the senior perceives the skills of the subordinate to be inade- quate, an authoritative style is likely to be used. 2. The greater the experience of the senior, the more likely will a pow- ersharing style be employed. 3. The older the senior, the more like- ly will a decision sharing style be employed.17 ADDITIONAL STUDIES BEARING ON POWER SHARING In a study of the "authoritarian" per- sonality in organizations, Vroom noted that in a parcel-delivery company su- pervisors who were submissive had the least interest in sharing power. 18 · In their attitude towards participa- tion American managers were found to be little different from those in Eng- land, but the Americans revealed less confidence in the skills of their subor- dinates.19 As already indicated, the per- ception of skills in subordinates, accord- ing to Heller, is an important factor in power sharing. Students of organizational behavior have noted that the expectations of sub- ordinates sometimes result in a larger 28 I College & Research Libraries • January 1977 degree of influence. 20 Professional em- ployees present a good example. Profes- sors, according to Blau, exert much in- fluence on educational policy in some universities. 21 Those in the "semi-pro- fessions" (such as nurses and librari- ans ) , according to Hall, could expect to wield less influence than those in the more highly regarded professions. Fur- thermore, according to Hall, profession- als in autonomous organizations (as op- posed to those in organizations whose chief reports to .a higher authority) per- ceive a greater amount of autonomy. 22 Rage and Aiken, who studied sixteen health and welfare agencies, wrote that power sharing is more likely found in those organizations with a larger num- ber of occupational specialties and where the employees have received more extensive professional training.23 Blan- kenship and Miles investigated power sharing and autonomy among 190 man- agers in eight organizations (mainly in the electronics industry). On the ques- tion of their opportunities to influence decisions, 67 percent of those in the up- per levels of management replied in the affirmative, compared to 51 percent of those in the middle range, and to 29 per- cent of those in the lower levels. Eighty percent of the upper-level managers compared to 40 percent of the middle and lower managers reported freedom to make "ultimate" decisions. 24 In still another study, Mechanic .af- firmed that subordinates can win power by possession of expert knowledge or through propinquity to those in -com- mand.25 An example of this is the ad- ministrative assistant to a chief librari- an. RESEARCH NEEDS Two styles in the continuum used by Heller require further explication. These are "prior consultation" .and "del- egation." As Sherman has noted, it is im- portant to identify the specific kind of delegation in question: Is it authority granted without accountability?26 Heller has more recently come to see the need to identify delegation more precisely; he would distinguish between delegation that calls for immediate or delayed ac- countability.27 On occasion, superiors delegate to subordinates the task of gathering information: Is this to be construed as a form of prior consulta- tion? As for "prior consultation," is it possible clearly to differentiate between this style and decisions made jointly? Heller writes that senior and sub- ordinate managers had different percep- tions of the styles of decisions being employed even though they were both reporting on the same decisions. Some- times, for example, if the senior report- ed a one-sided decision preceded by con- sultation, the subordinate might report that decision to have been made joint- ly, or even delegated. Heller hypothe- sized that subordinates yearn for more influence than is permitted, which would account for the differences in perception. 28 But an additional expla- nation is possible, namely, that there was no clear understanding of the dif- ferent styles. In a study of managerial .attitudes in a number of countries, Haire showed that American and English managers were favorably disposed toward partici- pation; Haire then went on to claim, without evidence, that there was a gap between the stated attitudes of the Americans and their actual behavior, which, a~cording to Haire, was general- ly .authoritative. Haire explained the gap by pointing to the American demo- cratic creed that effectively shut off pub- lic expression of undemocratic opin- ions.29 But despite Haire, Heller found that the Americans and the English used his various decision styles with approxi- mately the same frequency. 30 To this evidence Haire could reply that neither, on the record, is particularly democratic, considering that of the decisions made, little more than 25 percent were indis- putably nonautocratic. One of the weaknesses of the investi- gations by Heller and Vroom is that the managers were relied upon to recall the decision styles actually used. What is needed is studies in which decisions are recorded as they are made; unfor- tunately, gaining permission to do so is no simple matter. Heller's study, it is true, does lend partial credence to the accuracy of the reporting by the senior managers. Although he found other dis- crepancies between the reporting of the seniors .and the subordinates, the two were in agreement with respect to the two autocratic styles (which were least likely to be misconstrued). 31 Studies are needed on the subject of sharing decisions with groups as con- trasted with individuals. Vroom distin- guished between sharing a problem with subordinates separately or in a group, and he found that conferring with .a group was preferred. 32 Within the pro- cess of consulting with a group is it pos- sible to recognize a decision made joint- ly? If the superior clearly reveals a pref- erence, can the outcome be regarded as dyadic? Based on a laboratory-type ex- periment, when the leader reveals a solution, the opinions of those in the group "coalesce."33 Heller studied only high-level execu- tives. How different are those lower in the hierarchy? Do supervisors in li- braries at lower levels experience little autonomy and few opportunities to give advice? And if so, what is the explana- tion? Is it true that top-level adminis- trators are too busy coordinating and planning to monopolize the making of decisions? Is it possible that supervisors at the lower levels, less occupied, have more time for decisions?' In a study of library departments, Lynch attempted (without success) to find a meaningful relationship between degree of "routinization" and the amount of discretion given to workers. 34 Lynch attempted to measure discretion through worker responses. Perhaps a Decision Sharing in Libraries I 29 study such .as Heller conducted, that is, based on supervisory decisions, might yield more positive results. Heller has shown that managers in in- dustry responsible for personnel work are less willing to share power than are those in production. 35 From this point of view a study of catalog departments might be especially revealing: Here is found a high degree of routinization .and workers engaged in production. Tannenbaum claims with respect to industrial workers in the U.S. that though they lack control of broad pol- icy issues, "they do have informal in- fluence through superiors concerning aspects of their daily work life."36 Can the same be said of librarians? If not, is it unionization that accounts for the difference? In a continuum conceived prior to Heller's, there were included those de- cisions that executives make tentatively, subject to discussion. 37 On a related point, Heller wrote that on the basis of an educated guess, ~'it is likely that up to half the decisions following consul- tation reflect the subordinate's influ- ence."38 On this point empirical evi- dence would be welcome, as would knowledge of how frequently decisions made tentatively are revised following consultation. Span of control has a special signifi- cance to librarians, given the large num- ber of branch libraries that have been · established. Where there is a large num- ber of these do the branch librarians en- joy a ·considerable amount of auton- . omy? Is the situation different when the number is not large? In profit-making firms, decisions in- volving risk must be frequently made. Does "risk" in the library setting play an important role in the choice of de- cision styles? Currently, librarians are trying to pro- mote participation. Is it possible to iden- tify those models of participation (UCLA? Columbia? Cornell? Miami?) 30 I College & Research Libraries • January 1977 that are productive of the largest amount of decision sharing? CoNCLUSION Two points of view are possible (given the present indeterminate state of knowledge) with respect to libraries as a type of organization: either li- braries are greatly different, or else they have much in common with other or- ganizations . My view is that libraries have fewer differences than similarities: among the significant similarities are a complex and hierarchical structure, a variety of professional specialties, and a mixture of professionals, subprofessionals, and nonprofessionals. Obviously, if these similarities are indeed significant, then libraries have much in common not only with hospitals and social work agencies, but with many industrial firms as well. The question of differences and sim- ilarities has significance only because some persons argue that decision making in libraries bears no relationship or re- semblance to most other organizations, and especially not to industrial firms. This is a matter that can be settled only through research, ht,It it is not merely to settle this debate that research is needed. Much of the library literature on par- ticipation, for example, could be expli- cated through a study of decision mak- ing styles among librarians. Still another example is the problem of autonomy for professionals (such as librarians ) who work in heteronomous organiza- tions. Is a lesser degree of autonomy in- evitable for librarians? Is it possible, for example, that a democratic type of university administration will tend to produce the same kind of administra- tion in that university's library? And still another: given the importance of supervisors at the lower levels of man- agement, do we not need to know their decision styles? Finally, to answer the question found in the title of this essay: how much do we know about decision sharing in li- braries? Empirically, we know very lit- tle, but before empirical research is pursued a theory of decision making in libraries is needed. To the ultimate de- velopment of such a theory the proposi- tions that follow may constitute a contri- bution. As is required of the component parts of a theory, each can be tested: 1. For several reasons (such as lesser risk), high-level library adminis- trators will be found to use auto- cratic decision styles proportionate- ly less frequently than do their counterparts in industry. 2. Investigators will find that propor- tionately fewer autocratic decisions are made in the less "routinized" library departments and in those units where the nonprofessionals .are not overwhelmingly greater in number than the professionals. 3. In libraries where regulations are largely codified, departmental chiefs will be found to delegate a large proportion of those deci- sions that relate to the implemen- tation of policies previously estab- lished. This proposition is based on Blau' s study of the positive re- lationship of written regulations to nonautocratic styles.39 4. The greater the number of branch libraries and the greater the dis- tances involved, the more fre- quently will the heads of branch libraries find decision making del- egated to them. 5. Investigators will verify that there is no necessary clash between deci- sion sharing .and hierarchical struc- ture. Tannenbaum, on the basis of empirical evidence, states that par- ticipation has a "mitigating effect" on authority in hierarchies and that in "effective participative" or- ganizations superiors and subordi- nates are both influential even though there is a high total amount of control.40 Decision Sharing in Libraries I 31 REFERENCES 1. Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972), p.355- 56. 2. Victor H. Vroom, "A New Look at Man- agerial Decision Making," Organizational Dynamics 1:77 (1973 ) . 3. Cyril Safer, Men in Mid-Career (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p.36. See also R. Blake and Jane Mouton, The Managerial Grid ( Houston: Gulf, 1964). 4. Victor H. Vroom, Motivation ·in Manage- ment (New York: American Foundation for Management Research, 1965), p.28. 5. Vroom, Motivation in Management, p.23- 24. 6. Edward E. Lawler and Lyman W. Porter, "Antecedent Attitudes of Effective Man- agerial Performance," Organizational Be- havior and Human Performance 2:141 (1967). 7. Frank A. Heller, Managerial Decision-Mak- ing (London: Tavistock, 1971). 8. Victor H. Vroom and Philip W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision-Making (Pitts- burgh: Univ. · of Pittsburgh Pr., 1973), p.74-78. 9. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.xvi, 106. 10. Vroom and Yetton, Leadership and Deci- sion-Making, p.13, 139. 11. Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Manage- ment (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961 ), p.229. 12. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.xvi- xx, 83-84, 105-8. 13. Peter M. Blau, "Decentralization in Bu- reaucracies," in Mayer N. Zald, ed., Power in Organizations (Nashville: Vanderbilt Univ. Pr., 1970), p.l50- 76. 14. Ibid., p. 168-69. 15. Ibid., p. 171. 16. Vroom and Yetton, Leadership and Dec-i- sion-Making, p.83-84. 17. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.xix. 18. Victor H. · Vroom, "Some Personality De- terminants of the Effects of Participation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59:322-27 (1959). 19. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.56. 20. Bruce R. Crowe, "The Effects of Subordi- nates' Behaviour on Managerial Style," Hu- man Relations 25:215-37 (1972). 21. Peter M. Blau, The Organization of Aca- demic Work (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 1 R4-88. 22. Richard H. Hall, "Some Organizational Considerations in the Professional-Organi- zational Relationship," Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly 12:461-78 ( 1967). 23. Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, "Relation- ship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties," Administrative Science Quar- terly 12:72-92 ( 1967). 24. L. Vaughn Blankenship and Raymond E. Miles, "Organizational Structure and Man- agerial Decision Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly 13:106-20 (1968). 25. David Mechanic, "Sources of Power of Lower Participants in Complex Organiza- tions," Administrative Science Quarterly 7: 249--64 (1962). 26. Harvey Sherman, It All Depends ( Univer- sity, Alabama: Univ. of Alabama Pr., 1966 ) ' p.82-87. 27. Frank A. Heller, "Leadership, Decision- Making, and Contingency Theory," Indus- trial Relations 12:189 ( 1973). 28. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.xvii, 73. 29. Mason Haire, and others, Management Thinking: An International Study (New York: John Wiley, 1966), p.22, 172. 30. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.84. For the comparison with the English man- agers, see Heller, "Leadership, Decision Making and Contingency Theory," p.196. 31. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.73, 106. 32. Vroom and Yetton, Leadership and Deci- sion-Making, p.139. 33. Bernard M. Bass, "Some Effects on a Group of Whether and When the Head Re- veals His Opinion,'' Occupational Behavior and Human Performance 2:375-81 (1967). 34. Beverly P. Lynch, "A Framework for a Comparative Analysis of Library Work," College & Research Libraries 35:432-43 (1974). 35. Heller, "Leadership, Decision Making and Contingency Theory," p.197. 36. Arnold S. Tannenbaum, and others, Hier- archy in Organizations (San Francisco: Jos- sey-Bass, 197 4), p.61. 37. Robert Tannenbaum, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," Harvard Business Re- view 36:95-101 (March/April, 1958). 38. Heller, Managerial Decision-Making, p.xvi. 39. Peter M. Blau, The Structure of Organiza- tions (New York: Basic Books, 1971), p.ll5-19. 40. Tannenbaum, Hierarchy in Organizations, p.195, 205.