College and Research Libraries Selection of the University Librarian Ruth J. Person and George Charles Newman Based on research funded by the Council on Library Resources, the authors provide useful observations, conclusions, and common themes for a successful university librarian search. The authors conducted extensive interviews involving key participants in the search for a li- brary director at five large universities. Common characteristics of successful searches included relative openness with respect to the process, a clear understanding of the process with respect to affirmative action guidelines, a commitment to the library by academic officers, and interest from the three major constituent groups-librarians, faculty,· and administrators. The critical role of outsiders in searches, as well as the necessity for an "assertive" search, are explored. D n writing about academic ca- reers, Kathryn Moore notes that administrative vacancies in higher education are often filled by a "prolonged, expensive, often frantic search,'' and that higher education does not tend to groom its future leaders, particularly within individual institutions, the way business organizations do. 1 This lack of grooming forces many institutions to look outside themselves for likely can- didates for administrative posts, which of- ten requires extensive searches. If the number of advertisements in the Chronicle of Higher Education is any indication, liter- ally hundreds of these searches are con- ducted each year to fill positions of admin- istrative responsibility in higher education. Because these searches often involve a dozen or more individuals on any one campus at any one time, the amount of campus time devoted each year to the selection process is considerable. The time involvement in the search pro- cess is compounded by the opportunity for errors. Often, advertisements in aca- demic journals carry the information ''search reopened,'' suggesting that some difficulty has arisen with the original search process. Yet in the late 1990s, a probable ''steady state'' era for higher ed- ucation, colleges and universities have far less tolerance for mistakes in the employ- ment of administrators than ever before, while requiring greater competence from those dealing with the increasing com- plexities of administration. 2 The importance of the selection process in higher education administration has been increasingly emphasized in the past several years, as a result of the growing awareness of the need for more rigorous selection of academic administrators. Higher education literature of the past five years reflects a marked increase in reports, research, and discussions relating to the search process. A series of dialogues and articles in the AAHE Bulletin during 1984 articulated the constraints and problems related to the search process in higher ed- Ruth f. Person is the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Missouri, 8100 Natu- ral Bridge Road, St. Louis, MO 63121-4499. George Charles Newman is the Director at Butler Library of the State University College of New York in Buffalo. Research contributing to this paper was funded by a Faculty/Li- brarian Cooperative Research Project Grant from the Council on Library Resources. ©1988 Office of Management Services. Reprinted with permission . This article was published in February 1988 as OMS Occasional paper #13 by the Office of Management Services, Association of Research Libraries. The origi- nal OMS publication, Selection of the University Librarian, remains available for purchase at a cost of $15, with prepayment required. The original publication was produced as part of the OMS Collaborative Research . Writing Program . 346 ucation. The American Association for Higher Education has developed a hand- book for members of college and univer- sity search committees which enhances institutional abilities to conduct fruitful searches. 3 Further, the American Associa- tion of State Colleges and Universities has conducted a series of workshops on ''Un- derstanding the Administrative Search" for administrators at all levels of higher education. Within the context of the administrative selection process, the search for a univer- sity librarian takes on a particular signifi- cance in higher education. The appoint- ment of a new director of libraries is recognized on most campuses as a deci- sion affecting all academic disciplines. Be- cause the university librarian directs a costly operation that is vital to both in- struction and research whose constituen- cies are also competitors in the division of the budgetary pie, the appointment of an individual whose operational area of re- sponsibility affects all areas of the aca- demic enterprise may thus be more com- plex than that of many deans or directors of academic or other support units. Some of the possible problems related to administrative searches have recently been identified in the literature. These in- clude lack of appropriate means for identi- fying candidates, unavailability of mecha- nisms for accurate evaluation, and the like. Such problems seem to be exacer- bated by the complexity of the library di- rector search. For example, unlike search committees for deans and department chairs, in which faculty members from the affected school, college, or department play key roles, seldom does the search for a director of libraries seem to be left to a committee composed of library staff mem- bers exclusively. Instead, the committee may represent a variety of campus constit- uencies. Besides a presumed interest in the wel- fare of the library, what do members of such a search committee have most in common? "Lack of experience" in select- ing an administrator, particularly for a specialized post, may be one answer to this question. While personnel officers may play vital roles in selecting individ- Selection of the University Librarian 347 uals for lesser posts, and faculty and staff play a role in the selection of their peers, administrative officers in the academic en- vironment are often chosen by relative amateurs to the search process. Rarely does an individual have the opportunity to serve on more than one or two search committees for a library director or other administrator; keeping in mind the typical tenure of a university president, rarely does he or she have occasion to appoint more than one or two library directors. Not only might the majority of the mem- bership of the search committee lack spe- cific experience, but they may also have little personal knowledge of the organiza- tional complexity of large research li- braries. Nor do they have personal ac- quaintance with a variety of academic library directors of national reputation to whom they can refer for expert advice and nominations. While faculty members cho- sen to serve on such a committee are usu- ally users of the university library, their view of its operation may be a biased one, related to their own particular research in- terests (compare, for example, the possi- ble view of the chemist toward library ser- vice with that of the historian). Student members of a university search committee may quickly discover the severe limitation . of their own knowledge and experience, and, in the end, if their interest can be sus- tained, may contribute little to the process except their own personal reactions to candidates brought for interviews. If the search committee includes one or more li- brarians, these individuals may be called upon to educate the committee as a whole and also to obtain and share professional judgment regarding applicants - or, in the opposite extreme, they may be com- pletely ignored or overruled by their com- mittee colleagues. Thus, the problems related to the selec- tion of a new university library director are many and varied. Assuming that experi- ence has value, even when vicariously ac- quired, where may a university president or a member of a newly-formed search committee turn to learn of the recent expe- rience of other search committees in peer institutions? The answer to this question, at present, is "almost nowhere." What is 348 College & Research Libraries lacking is information on how the search process functions from the institutional viewpoint, whether this process is re- sponding to the changing needs of re- search libraries and whether the process is successful in providing the kind of leader- ship needed for academic libraries in the future. LEARNINGS FROM THE LITERATURE While the literature of higher education' has become increasingly detailed in its re- porting of the problems associated with academic searches, library literature con- tains relatively few current, comprehen- sive references to this activity, although the selection of a library director is a major administrative decision in universities. The article entitled "University Library Search and Screen Committees" by John F. Harvey and Mary Parr is primarily con- cerned with filling staff positions. 4 A study by Paul Metz on ''Administrative Succession in the Academic Library'' ex- amines issues such as the external versus internal candidate and the impact of fe- male candidates for library directorships. 5 The use of committees in the search pro- cess is also discussed by William Fisher. 6 A more recent study by Albert F. Maag provides a new critical perspective on the selection of a library director, albeit from the candidate's point of view. 7 Maag sur- veyed newly-appointed directors of li- braries in four-year colleges and universi- ties and concluded that the selection process is less than a satisfying and con- structive one for most candidates. Al- though one would think that careful plan- ning and thoughtful consideration of the position and an in-depth investigation of final candidates would take place, Maag' s study suggests otherwise. This author concludes his research with a series of rec- ommendations, including longer on- campus visits, interviewers who are more informed about academic librarianship, and inclusion of more library staff in the selection process. Related professional literature focuses upon the role of the library director in the institution or on the characteristics of past and present directors. Such literature, al- July 1990 though only indirectly related to the selec- tion process, can help to clarify requisite characteristics for future library directors. It can also help to identify the context into which potential applicants for director po- sitions are placed when they pursue such jobs. Arthur M. McAnally and Robert M. Downs' study of the "changing role" of the university library director emphasizes that, because of a variety of changes in higher education and in university li- braries, persons holding directorships have chosen shorter appointments. Their research infers that the position of univer- sity librarian has become ambiguous and untenable for some; it would also suggest the need for ·feater definition in the selec- tion process. In Susan A. Lee's research on the role of the academic library director, the author concludes that the academic library direc- tor sees him- or herself in the middle on many issues and that the position of li- brary director has changed in recent years because of the emergence of new respon- sibilities and institutional expectancies. Thus the library director must carefully maintain a position between the external and internal demands of the post. 9 These conclusions are verified by Metz, who suggests that the typical director in both small and large libraries concentrates a majority of the working day on internal li- brary matters rather than external issues which could have a greater long-range ef- fect on the function and position of the li- brary within the academic community. 10 The role of the university librarian and the relationship of the director with the uni- versity as well as with external agencies <;ould have a great impact in the future in terms of solving the problems related to resources, staffing, and financial con- straints now facing the internal mainte- nance of the library system. Sandra A. Neville examined the envi- ronment of libraries that are members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and characterized these institutions as going through a "mid-life transition." According to Neville, this period of tur- moil and ambiguity requires new types of administrative leadership and manage- ment styles to monitor a smooth transi- tion. This new leadership requires innova- tion in a period of institutional and financial retrenchment. 11 The importance of managing this innovation to create eco- nomic and social change in academic li- braries in the future will be a significant variable, according to Miriam A. Drake. She concludes that in order to successfully confront the future, libraries will require committed and enthusiastic leaders capa- ble of dealing with complex problems on several fronts, within as well as outside the library, and implementing innovation where it is deemed appropriate .12 The most extensive current information about the academic library environment comes from John N. DePew and Anne Marie Allison's comparison of 1976 and 1981 data relating to the role of the aca- demic library director and the changing power structure in academic libraries. De- Pew and Allison's data indicate a greater span of control among university library directors in 1981 over 1976, and a widen- ing in the gap between university librari- ans and the central focus of academic au- thority (i.e., the president and/or chief academic officer). Further, they report that of all the types of academic libraries, university library directors have the great- est turnover (an increase of 57.9 percent between 1976 and 1981). [OMS Editor's Note: Although the per- centage of increase cited implies signifi- cant turnover, in fact, turnover is quite low-e.g., with a universe of 100 dir.ec- tors, a change from 5 to 8 turnovers in a year is not significant. See the SPEC Kit on Search Procedures for University Library Administrators.] Another area which has been covered in the library literature deals with the charac- teristics of library directors. Research com- piled by W. L. Cohn on ARL directors be- tween 1933 and 1973 offers retrospective insight into the type of university librarian that has historically been selected. Ac- cording to Cohn, more recent ARL library directors generally entered the profession at a relatively young age but were spend- ing more time in the profession before ob- taining a directorship . 14 Between 1933 and 1973 the typical university librarian at ARL Selection of the University Librarian 349 libraries tended to be an individual with extensive prior experience, male, in the mid-to-upper 40s, and recruited from a similar institution. The university librari- ans who left these posts gravitated to teaching positions. The Cohn article is an attempt to analyze characteristics of ARL-type librarians rather than to discuss or analyze the impli- cations of this historical data on the role of the university librarian. Research by Jerry L. Parsons that compared the characteris- tics of ARL directors in 1958 with those in 1973 to some degree verified McAnally and Downs' conclusions regarding shorter appointments due to new finan- cial, political, and academic issues that have cha.aged the role of the university li- brariar .. 15 Furthermore, the Parsons study in die dted that demographic characteris- ticP tor ARL directors for 1958 and 1973 did P..>t vary to any significant degree com- pared to Cohn's sample. This information suggests that, despite new demands on the role of the university librarian, a differ- ent type of librarian did not emerge in this time period. The genteel, scholarly, even dillen- tantish directors of the past are yield- ing to career-minded managers, ad- ministrators, and technicians. DePew and Allison's data suggest that between 1976 and 1981, such individuals as described by Cohn and Parsons were finding the library directorship increas- ingly complex, risky and difficult. 16 Fur- ther, Ronald Dale Karr's comparison of ARL directors between 1966 and 1981 sug- gests that they had a far greater grounding in library science education in 1981 than in 1966, and that "the genteel, scholarly, even dilettantish directors of the past are yielding to career-minded managers, ad- ministrators, and technicians.''17 QUESTIONS FOR EXAMINATION Little has been reported regarding the way in which the typical search committee 350 College & Research Libraries for a university library director is estab- lished. Who actually chooses the membership-the president, the vice- president for academic affairs, the board of trustees? What factors are generally taken into account in choosing individuals to serve on the search committee? Is an at- tempt made to achieve broad faculty rep- resentation? How frequently does an already-existing library committee serve as the search committee, and what is that committee's role if it does not conduct the search? To what degree do members of the library staff tend to serve on the search committee and how are those individuals chosen? Do library members of the search com- mittee serve a particular function that dif- fers from other members? Does the pos- session of faculty status by the library staff affect their representation and role? What is the effect of a faculty and/or library un- ion on the role of the search committee? What is the nature of the charge given to the search committee, including restric- tions with regard to candidates' qualifica- tions (possession of a degree in library sci- ence, the doctorate, professional experience, etc.)? There also appears to be some confusion in the distinction between 11 searching'' and "screening." The terms are some- times used interchangeably and some- times together. Does the search commit- tee select the final candidate or are its members expected to review only possible candidates and make recommendations? Is the typical search committee expected to submit a list of qualified candidates in ranked or unranked order, and what is the minimum number? Is the president or provost the person who makes the final decision, or is the decision reached jointly between the administration, the univer- sity library, and search committee? What role does the outgoing director play in the process? To what degree are consultants or other outsiders used? Have fair em- ployment and affirmative action programs in the past several years had a specific ef- fect on the search process? In the final analysis, how satisfied are the :members of search committees with their accomplishment? Would they con- July 1990 duct their search differently now that they have been through the process once? What advice would they give to another search committee based on their experi- ence? How satisfied were they with the candidates that they reviewed and inter- viewed? Where enough time has elapsed to evaluate the individual finally ap- pointed, how nearly does he/she appear to be living up to expectations? STUDYING THE SEARCH PROCESS In order to address these questions, a study was developed to examine the selec- tion process for university library direc- tors. Because the selection process in- volves very sensitive issues and personalities and because no appropriate survey instrument exists, research was conducted through a seri.es of site inter- views with the participants in the search and selection process at a self-selected group of five medium to large universi- ties. Through this extensive interview process involving the key participants in the selection method - university admin- istrators, faculty, library staff, and stu- dents- the study attempted to determine the impact and the focus of the search and selection process in research universities. A letter of introduction and request for participation was sent to research univer- sities that had selected a new university li- brarian during the previous two years as well as during the time the study was be- ing conducted. The extensive nature of the interviews limited the study to a small number of universities that would serve as a representative sample of the larger uni- verse of academic research university li- braries which have relatively similar re- quirements for a university librarian. Five universities agreed to become inter- view sites, representing one private, one state-related, one member of a statewide university system, and two state universi- ties (one rural and one urban) that are in- dependent of any statewide system. The five sites were distributed geographically throughout the country (West Coast, West, Midwest, South, and Northeast). All were medium to large universities in terms of enrollment, with a diversity of ac- ademic programs ranging from the bacca- laureate degree to the doctorate, and a wide range of research concentrations. The researchers used a model con- structed from the literature to develop the study questions and to provide guidance for interviews. As represented in the liter- ature, typically, the search process begins with the appointment of a search commit- tee. The individuals chosen tend to repre- sent varied campus interests. Faculty members from a variety of disciplines, usually of scholarly distinction and known for their personal interest in the li- brary, predominate; one or two students and a representative or two from the li- brary staff usually round out the commit- tee. A brief charge, including an admoni- tion to keep affirmative action in mind, is customarily relayed to the search commit- tee by the president, with instructions to produce a slate of qualified candidates by a given date. A budget, with provisions for campus interviews, may be provided. Job requirements are outlined, advertise- ments are placed, and the review of appli- cants who respond is then undertaken. Candidates are invited to campus for in- terviews, and a decision is made regard- ing a final choice. Based on this model, the researchers constructed and tested a questionnaire (letter, questionnaire, and bibliography are available from OMS). One researcher visited each campus for approximately two-days to interview individuals in- volved in the search process. Depending on the constraints of time, availability, and cooperation, the following individ- uals were interviewed at each site: (1) uni- versity president/chancellor, (2) pro- vost/vice-president of academic affairs, (3) chairperson of the search committee, (4) members of the search committee, (5) chairperson of the library committee, and (6) affirmative action officer. In addition, the researchers examined written materials related to the search pro- vided by university officials and search committee chairs. This generally included copies of advertisements and position de- scriptions, mission statements for the uni- versity, descriptions of the library and its work, affirmative action records, lists of Selection of the University Librarian 351 the candidates and their present locations, names of individuals who participated in the search process, and data about the ranking and categorization of candidates. The willing participants all became rep- resentatives of ultimately successful and satisfactory search processes. In fact, the individuals interviewed for this research study were open about not only the pro- cess itself but also about attitudes and ad- ministrative data concerning the search. Not only were these institutions willing participants, from the presidential level to the most junior member of a search com- mittee, but several academic officers in particular indicated that discussing the search process after the fact allowed them to reflect both on the outcome of that par- ticular event and about how they might improve future searches. The study aHempted to determine the impact and the focus of the search and selection process in research uni- versities. COMMON THEMES FOR A SUCCESSFUL SEARCH The five universities in this study had a number of common characteristics which appeared to contribute to a successful search. These included: • Relative openness with respect to the process and its various elements, • A clear understanding of the process with respect to affirmative action guide- lines, • A commitment to the library by aca- demic officers, and • Interest from the three major constitu- ent groups on most campuses -librari- ans, faculty, and administrators. Not all facets of each search process were totally satisfactory, of course, and certainly divisions of opinion about candi- dates existed. On at least two occasions, the chief executive officer selected a differ- ent individual than was ranked first by the search committee or favored by the library staff. In another instance, the search pro- 352 College & Research Libraries cess had to be extended significantly when final negotiations with a candidate were unsuccessful. Yet, on an overall ba- sis, the final outcome of the search process-a candidate who had (after sev- eral months) become an accepted and con- tributing member of the university admin- istrative staff-was satisfactory at all five sites. The Search Process In general, the major elements of the search process that were outlined earlier in this paper remained relatively compara- ble among the five universities. A number of factors seem to account for this relative standardization: • The presence of affirmative action guidelines and practices and an accep- tance of these as a means of '' regulariz- ing'' at least the process elements of a search in order to collect comparable data about candidates and ensure equal treatment of those individuals involved in the search; • The experience of a substantial number of faculty members on search commit- tees within their own disciplines as well as for administrative positions (such as Dean searches); • A clear mandate for action and a deci- sion timetable from administrative offi- cers of each university (as opposed to indecision about the initiation of a search or lack of clarity about the poten- tial role of the library in the university); and • The administrative support available for each part of the process. While the search process itself remained relatively standard in terms of the major elements, differences were more readily apparent in the interpretation of each part of the process. These differences included the size of search committees, the types of individuals and the constituencies they represented on the search committees, and the types of individual desired for the final candidate (particularly in terms of personal characteristics and m;ganiza- tional fit). Differences in the search process seemed largely unrelated to size of institu- July 1990 tion, type of institution (private/public), institutional mission, or geography. Rather, the unique characteristics, "self- perception'' and culture of each organiza- tion were more likely to shape the inter- pretation of the search process and its outcome. These perceptions related to the nature of the institution and its history, its future mission and goals as defined by present constituents, the level of ex- pressed interest in the university library as a fundamental part of the academic enter- prise, the interest in the university librar- ian as a potential member of an adminis- tration team, and concern with the contribution of a newcomer toward mak- ing the university a better place for the fu- ture. Nearly all individuals interviewed iden- tified the differences in process as being related to the unique combination of con- stituencies in each organization. Aca- demic administrators in particular ex- pressed their desire to have found an individual who would serve as a catalyst for change; in each case, however, the change desired was different, reflecting future directions of each university and the past position of the library. These de- sired changes included enhanced non- traditional services after a long period of traditional service under the same direc- tor; incorporation of significant new tech- nologies; attention to the enhancement of the research status of the university; em- phasis on outside support; and staff reor- ganization. Committees and Their Roles Search committees are a relatively re- cent phenomenon in higher education. All of the universities used the committee format as the major means of developing a list of final candidates for the university li- brarian's position; chief academic officers made the final selection of the successful candidate. Search committees in this study included an average of nine mem- bers. While the composition of these commit- tees varied in terms of academic disci- plines and university constituen~ies rep- resented, the usual array of members included faculty from a variety of arts and sciences departments as well as profes- sional programs (as well as a balance rep- resenting the faculty governance struc- ture), several members of the library staff (usually a support staff member and a pro- fessional librarian, one of whom repre- sented the staff association and/ or collec- tive bargaining unit, if appropriate), and students (usually a graduate and an un- dergraduate). In one case, a representa- tive from a "sister" state institution also served as a member. All of the institutions seemed to understand clearly the need to represent these various constituencies that make up a university environment, and the appointing officer (usually the president or academic vice-president) went to great lengths to ensure adequate representation. Each committee had a chair (generally a faculty member) who had administrative support provided most often by the aca- demic vice-president's office for corre- spondence with candidates. In general, the chair was responsible for overall coor- dination of the process in terms of sched- uling meetings, setting and keeping to agendas and decision timetables, and managing the movement of information in candidate files; in general, the chair also arranged the scheduling of final candidate appearances on campus. Committee members were expected to participate fully in the development of a position de- scription and advertising information, re- viewing of candidate files, selection of fi- nalists, and visitation with final candidates on campus. In some personnel selection processes, particularly in the civil service sector, per- sonnel staff members often conduct pre- liminary screening of applicant files to de- termine minimal compliance with qualification statements. While clerical and support personnel often assisted with the organization of candidate files, screen- ing was clearly the purview of the search committees in this study. This activity re- quired extensive time committments on the part of members, since the average number of applicants for the five universi- ties was 53, with the range being from 20 Selection of the University Librarian .353 to 65. Committee members were expected to have evaluative statements or ratings on each candidate available for committee meetings. In higher education organizations, as well as in many other environments, com- mittee assignments are sometimes viewed as burdensome and unproductive uses of time, and are thus taken on reluctantly. The committee members interviewed for this study, however, largely viewed the assignment of selecting a new university librarian as an opportunity to provide a valuable service to the university. More- over, they believed the opportunity to share in academic decision making to be genuine, and not merely an exercise in participative futility. Academic administrators in particu- lar expressed their desire to have found an individual who would serve as a catalyst for change. While it might seem that academic offi- cers have preconceived ideas about the fi- nal outcome of the search process, such problems did not appear at these five sites. One contributing factor may have been that there were almost no viable in- ternal candidates for the position. The perception of the university librarian's va- cant position as a "blank slate" upon which to write as well as a clear mandate from each of the presidents and their aca- demic vice-presidents to select an individ- ual who could help the university achieve its educational and service aims and en- hance its research capabilities seemed to create a particular spirit of mission in the committees. The Acceptable Applicant Pool Once organizational politics have been considered in forming a search committee and writing a job description, perhaps the most difficult time begins for a search committee - the waiting period, as appli- cants respond to advertisements and ini- tial contacts. 354 College & Research Libraries The avenues for publicizing vacant aca- demic library positions have become fairly standardized over the past decade, and usually include the placement of written advertisements in the Chronicle of Higher Education, College & Research Libraries News and other major library publications, the listing of positions on job "hotlines"; the placement of notices with library educa- tion programs for inclusion in placement bulletins; and often the participation in the American Library Association's place- ment service if the timing of the search co- incides with an ALA conference. While all of the universities expressed satisfaction with their choice of a final candidate pool and the final selection of a candidate, for most, there were difficult moments, cen- tering primarily around the initial re- sponse to advertisements. There are several possible explanations for the difficulties encountered in generat- ing an acceptable applicant pool. A num- ber of interviewees expressed difficulty with constructing a printed advertisement which conveyed a real sense of the mis- sion of the university; it was seen as par- ticularly hard to convey intentions about new directions that may differ from past practices. It often remained for the search committee and other members of the uni- versity community to convey or interpret the university's direction to potential can- didates or to those people who could pro- - vide names of potential candidates. In some cases, individuals applied for posi- tions who believed that they understood the present status and conditions of a par- ticular university; because they were not "insiders", they may not have under- stood that the university wished to move in a direction for which they were not suited. Conversely, other individuals may have felt constrained from applying for positions based on this same information - that they understood the present state of the university and felt that it had little to offer them or that they have little to offer it, when in fact the intended change in di- rection would have offered them consid- erable challenge. Quite typical, then, was the disappoint- ment expressed regarding the quality of applicants to initial advertisements. The search for acceptable candidates at the five July 1990 sites took on a more proactive stance after applicants began to respond to initial printed advertisements, when it was rec- ognized that additional effort would need to be made to find an acceptable group. Two kinds of expectations may also have worked against the creation of a via- ble applicant pool. First, when confronted with the knowledge conveyed by such data as that identified by DePew and Alli- son about turnover, change, and high risk in academic library directorships, many individuals may be wary of taking posi- tions which suggest unacceptable levels of such risk without commensurate reward. Second, search committees at the outset seem to have a tendency to look for "someone who walks on water, makes bread and fish, and comes with a wheel- barrow full of money"; in other words, to have an unrealistic expectation of the na- ture of candidate qualifications for aca- demic administrative jobs. 18 In most cases, library personnel in- cluded on search committees were not able to be particularly helpful in identify- ing suitable candidates, although fellow committee members expected the con- trary. Their knowledge of potential candi- dates, other than major figures in librari- anship who are known to almost all academic librarians, was limited. While- faculty members from various disciplines often know the major or "up-and- coming'' individuals in their field, the aca- demic library environment seems far more hierarchical. Thus, since library director search committees obviously did not in- clude the outgoing director or even an as- sistant director, the knowledge base of the library personnel on the committee (such as heads of reference, support staff, non- managerial professionals) was not the same as for those already involved in upper-level library management. The stratification of librarianship by manage- rial level thus tended to work against iden- tifying potential candidates by using the library representatives on the search com- mittee as resources. Interestingly, it was academic officers who tended to seek soliticitations from third parties, using whatever resources were at their disposal, including contacts at other universities, members of the board of trustees, library directors and li- brary science deans known from prior em- ployment experiences, and the like. In fact, at the institutions surveyed, aca- demic vice-presidents and other adminis- trators were more likely to be able to iden- tify potential applicants either because of direct knowledge or through secondary sources who were a part of their own ''network''. Provosts and presidents have had multi-faceted careers in higher educa- tion, have probably served at several insti- tutions, and thus have come to know a va- riety of librarians. They may, for example, have been junior professors and served on committees with librarians; they may have been deans and been members of an academic council with the library director of their campus. Affirmative Action The role of the affirmative action officer differed in each university visited. For the most part, these university representa- tives served primarily as ensurers of com- pliance with regulations and processes, and as available sources of information as deemed necessary by the committee chair. While these officers all expressed willing- ness to serve in a more active capacity if necessary, their general view was that the individuals involved in the search were knowledgeable about affirmative action processes and concerns. They felt that in general, library-related searches had the reputation of being conducted with a posi- tive attitude toward affirmative action in their respective universities. This "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" atti- tude allowed the search process to move with reasonable speed; detailed instruc- tions and/or intervention by the affirma- tive action officer simply were not neces- sary. Most officers cited the searches as being ''exemplary''; indeed, if one looks simply at the composition of both the inti- tial and final candidate pools, this is cer- tainly true. If one looks at the end result of the search process as a judgment of affirm- ative action success, however, the data are not as supportive. While at least four of the universities had female applicants as a part of the ''best and final'' pool of choices presented to academic officers, only one university selected a female and no minor- Selection of the University Librarian 355 ity group members were chosen. The uselect List" and the Final Candidate In the final analysis, all of the universi- ties had an excellent pool of applicants from which to form a ''select list'' of three to five individuals from whom a final choice could be made by the provost with the consent of the president, or by the president him/herself. Applicants in- cluded in the initial pool represented a wide spectrum of credentials, both accept- able and unacceptable. These included re- cent M.L.S. graduates with little experi- ence, individuals who were serving currently as associate/assistant directors or heads of libraries at smaller or less research-oriented universities, and indi- viduals who had a variety of managerial and administrative experience outside the university environment (including two- and four-year colleges, special libraries and information centers, government agencies, and private consulting firms). The selection of a final pool of applicants to be invited for campus visits reflected the recent comments in the Chronicle of Higher Education concerning the few ''out- siders" to the academic world who are chosen for administrative posts. 19 The in- dividuals in the final choice pool were as- sociate/assistant directors, held major staff positions, or were already library di- rectors in the university or research library environment. Other individuals who may have had excellent capabilities as man- agers from, for example, a large and com- plex two-year college environment or a government staff position with extensive administrative requirements were not considered as viable final choices. Quite typical, then, was the disap- pointment expressed regarding the quality of applicants to initial adver- tisements. The qualifications of the ''short list'' of candidates as well as the finalists attest to the desirability of particular characteristics for the academic library director's job: vis- 356 College & Research Libraries ibility in the professional community, aca- demic credentials (M.L.S., advanced graduate work desirable but generally not a requirement), direct and significant ex- perience in academic library manage- ment, and the elusive qualities that would allow the individual to move the library forward both as a leader and as part of the larger administrative team. In this sense, the new library director was expected to function as a middle manager- balancing the needs of the larger organization with the unit that he/she leads. Generally, two or three finalists were in- vited to campus for interviews, with a fi- nal choice being invited a second time for negotiation. Although the candidate is sometimes viewed as the ''seller'' and the organization as the ''buyer'' in this sce- nario, the organizations in this study felt that they must sell themselves to potential candidates whom they wished to attract, particularly those whom they had actively solicited. Activities undertaken during these visits reflected those reported in the higher education literature; that is, inter- views with the search committee, major administrative officers, potential adminis- trative colleagues (such as deans and di- rectors), and library staff. Also generally included were a presentation by the candi- date and a tour of the local area, as well as numerous luncheons and dinners. For the most part, interviewees expressed satis- faction with this part of the process in terms of its usefulness in viewing the ca- pabilities of the candidate. The final selection process and decision making activity was a delicate balancing act between organizational/ administra- tive unit desires and willingness to offer certain incentives, and the personal and professional needs of candidates. There were stories of candidates who removed their names from the short list, who turned down offers, and who accepted an offer and then changed their minds. CONCLUSIONS While it is difficult to generalize from five case studies about the universe of search process experiences, it is possible to make general observations that should be helpful to institutions searching for ali- brary director. July 1990 The consensus of individuals inter- viewed was that the search process, re- gardless of its pitfalls, yielded a final can- didate who was not only acceptable to all parties, but who was in fact the most ap- propriate person for the institution at that particular moment in its history. The se- lection process in all cases reflected con- cerns for institutional politics; university mission and goals; organizational climate and culture; and human, technological and fiscal constraints on the institution. Many variables influence both the final selection of a candidate and that candi- date's own decisions with respect to the acceptance of a position. Certain key '' crit- ical factors'' do, however, seem to be com- mon to the searches studied: • Careful attention to the composition of the search committee • The management of group dynamics (especially by the chair) within the search committee • The accurate representation of the uni- versity so that only candidates who are truly interested in addressing the uni- versity's problems and prospects will apply • Accurate knowledge on the part of the search committee of the type of individ- ual academic officers desire for the uni- versity librarian- a good manager, a scholar, a team player • A communication of the direction the institution will be taking in the future from academic officers to all involved in the search The Critical Role of Outsiders These five searches serve as a reminder of the increasingly critical role '' outsid- ers" (that is, non-librarians) play in the li- brary and the increased number of levels in the university hierarchy that have placed the library in a different organiza- tional position than in the past. The academic library community often discusses the need for increasing the visi- bility and the understanding of centrality of the academic library within both faculty and administration, as well as the need for constant encouragement of faculty to use library resources and services for their re- search, students/classwork, and scholarly communication. Every new generation of college student also affords yet another opportunity to acquaint the often uniniti- ated into the information age via library instruction and use. Often a university library is the ''silent partner'' in the academic enterprise - im- portant, but sometimes overlooked. The authors were reminded of the absolute critical nature and centrality of the library to the life of the university at the five sites visited. In a unit the size of the library, one might expect that a search would be influ- enced largely by internal pressure groups and the wishes of the library staff. The fact that "outsiders" play such an enormous role in deciding the leadership of the li- brary, while perhaps negative from the perspective of some library staff members, is actually a positive contribution to the centrality of the library and a critical factor in demonstrating the importance of the li- brary on the campus. The search processes examined here demonstrate a particular reason for the need for greater contacts of faculty and ad- ministrators with the library community in the academic environment. If the pat- tern of recruitment of academic library di- rectors continues as suggested here-that is, applicants are advertised for but also unofficially sought and screened through others than the library staff-then aca- demic officers must continue to be ex- posed to the library portion of the aca- demic enterprise in greater depth, not so they can become experts, but so that they can develop adequate networks necessary for recruitment in this environment. Critical to the searches studied were the input and ultimate decision-making power of the president/chancellor and provost/academic vice-president. These individuals did not concern themselves with the mechanics of the search process except to provide necessary secretarial and clerical support. They, however, played key roles at four particular points in the process: (1) the initiation of the search process, with a charge to the com- mittee as to what was to be accomplished, (2) the recruitment of individuals who be- came part of the applicant pool, (3) the de- lineation of characteristics desired in the final candidate, and (4) the final selection Selection of the University Librarian 357 of the candidate who was to become the university librarian. The Assertive Search Judging from a recent discussion of the search process in the Chronicle of Higher Education, academics are becoming more assertive in undertaking search processes in order to secure good leadership in the face of institutional change.20 This asser- tiveness includes the increased use of ex- ecutive search firms for the recruitment of academic officers, and often the pursuit of individuals who are not applicants for a position. Although no such approach was used in the search processes studied, nor has one been identified in the library literature, it nevertheless would appear that some kind of enhancement of the library direc- tor search process would have been useful to the committees at the institutions repre- sented. In fact, in spite of the overall suc- cess of the recruitment effort in terms of the quality of final candidates, a number of interviewees cited the lack of assertive- ness on the part of the committee as the single biggest weakness in the search pro- cess. A number of interviewees cited the lack of assertiveness on the part of the committee as the single biggest weakness in the search process. Numerous individuals commented that had universities somewhere to turn to re- ceive assistance in identifying outstand- ing candidates, or at least had they a better understanding of the dynamics of the aca- demic library professional community in terms of potential available candidates, they would have been in a better position to construct an outstanding applicant pool earlier on. Given that four of the five final candidates had previously served at the assistant/ associate director level and that one had served as a director at a smaller in- stitution, even the availability of a current list of such individuals from whom to so- licit possible candidacy might have been helpful. 358 College & Research Libraries Earlier in this paper, it was noted that in the past, higher education institutions did not appear to be grooming potential suc- cessors for administrative positions. In 1986, however, J.A. Rodman and M.R. Dingerson note that not only do internal candidates for academic dean and assis- tant! associate chief academic officer posi- tions have a greater likelihood of being in- terviewed for positions but also have a much higher probability of filling such po- sitions.21 However, in the five searches studied, current library staff members were rarely considered as viable candi- dates or included in a final ''short list.'' Data from Rodman and Dingerson sug- gest that internal grooming processes can be useful for the development of applicant pools. Further, developmental programs such as the ACE National Identification Program for Women in Higher Education serve as a model for the identification of potential candidates for administrative positions. Librarianship, unfortunately, appears to have neither external models for fhe identification of administrators that are as far-reaching as the ACE pro- gram, nor the internal processes within many libraries that promote the develop- ment to any great extent of individuals for upward career progression to the position of director. The difficulties indicated by this study involved in identifying out- standing candidates and the lack of inter- nal choices for the applicant pool suggest that the library community would do well to promote the development of an identifi- cation program for future library directors that is as widespread and far-reaching as July 1990 the ACE program. Further, research uni- versities should give greater attention to the development of managers in libraries below the rank of director in order to pro- vide a greater pool of potential applicants in the future. Questions for Future Study This study did not specifically address the issues facing academic libraries and how they affect the choice of library lead- ership, nor did it address the specifics of leadership qualifications. There is usually a great amount of information available on the types of academic, budgetary, man- agement, and other issues that a univer- sity, its library, and a new university li- brarian will face. But how do these issues affect the search and selection of a new university librarian? In light of these is- sues, are large research university li- braries choosing individuals today with the same leadership, educational qualifi- cations, experience, sex, and background as previous appointments? Are there characteristics of candidates and dimen- sions associated with the position of uni- versity librarian that specifically impact on the search, screen and selection proc- esses, and to what degree can these same concerns be identified at different types of universities? These questions, as well as those that deal with the applicant pool and the input of outsiders in the search process, must be studied in order to provide a truly compre- hensive view of a complex administrative process that has far-reaching conse- quences for higher education. REFERENCES 1. Kathryn M. Moore, "The Structure of Presidents' and Deans' Careers," Journal of Higher Education 54:501 (Sept./Oct. 1983). 2. Thomas H . Maher, "Assessing Candidates : There Are Better Ways," AAHE Bulletin 35:12 (May 1983). 3. Theodore I. Marchese, The Search Committee Handbook (Washington, D.C. : AAHE, 1987) . 4. John F. Harvey and Mary Parr, "University Library Search and Screen Committees, " College & Research Libraries 37:347-55 (July 1976). 5. Paul Metz, ''Administrative Succession in the Academic Library,'' College & Research Libraries 39:358-65 (Sept. 1978). 6. William Fisher, "Use of Selection Committees by California Academic Libraries, " Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship 10:94-99 (May 1984). 7. Albert F. Maag, ''Design of the Library Director Interview: The Candidate's Perspective,'' College Selection of the University Librarian 359 & Research Libraries: 41:112-21 (Mar . 1980). 8. Arthur M. McAnally and Robert M. Downs, "The Changing Role of Directors of University Li- braries," College & Research Libraries: 34:103-25 (Mar. 1973). 9. Susan A. Lee "Conflict and Ambiguity in the Role of the Academic Library Director," College & Research Libraries: 38:396-403 (Sept. 1977). 10. Paul Metz, "The Role of the Academic Library Director," Journal of Academic Librarianship 5:148-52 (July 1979). 11. Sandra A. Neville, "Academic Libraries at the Mid-Life Transition," Journal of Academic Librarian- ship 6:20-23 (Mar. 1980). 12. Miriam A. Drake, "Managing Innovation in Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 40:503-10 (Nov. 1979). 13, John N. DePew and Anne Marie Allison, "Factors Affecting Academic Library Administration, 1976-1981," Journal of Library Administration 5:13-57 (Summer 1984). 14. W. L. Cohn, "Overview of ARL Directors, 1933-1973," College & Research Libraries 37:137-44 (Mar. 1976). 15. Jerry L. Parsons, "Characteristics of Research Library Directors, 1958 and 1973," Wilson Library Bulletin 50:613-17 (April 1976). 16. DePew and Allison, p. 13-57. 17. Ronald Dale Karr, 'The Changing Profile of University Library Directors, 1966- 1981," College & Research Libraries 45:285 Ouly 1984). 18. Scott Heller, "Though Many Search Firms Have Ties to Business World, Their Candidates for College Jobs are Usually Academics," Chronicle of Higher Education 33:14 (April22, 1987). 19. Heller, p.14. 20. Scott Heller, "A Headhunter Helps Dartmouth-and Many Others-Find a New President," Chronicle of Higher Education 33:1 (April22, 1987). 21 . J.A. Rodman and M.R. Dingerson, "University Hiring Practices for Academic Administrators," Journal of the College and University Personnel Assocation 37:24-30 (Summer 1986). CORRECTION To the Editor: In our recent article "The Serial/Monograph Ratio in Research Libraries" published in the January 1990 issue of College & Research Libraries we have un- fortunately found an error that may need an errata notice. On page 53 of the article there is a formula that reads: M = S- S % This formula is incorrect. The correct formula should read: M = S (100-%) % Apparently the formula got transformed somewhere along the way. We apolo- gize for not catching the error until this (too late) point in time! ROBIN B. DEVIN and MARTHA KELLOGG University of Rhode Island