College and Research Libraries Editorial Collegial and Administrative Interface in Faculty Governance In May, College & Research Libraries News published the newly ratified stand- ards for faculty status for librarians. Li- brary governance under this philosophical stance varies from pure faculty models such as that described by Joan Bechtel at Dick- inson College to dictatorships with only a shadow of faculty participation.• For most libraries, neither extreme works. What does work is a carefully constructed and nurtured balance between the responsibili- ties of the faculty for self-governance and the responsibilities of the administrators for meeting university requirements. Pitfalls in achieving a balance between collegial and administrative roles may develop in the areas of personnel, plan- ning and budget, and communications. Although infrequently acknowledged by librarians, teaching faculty depart- ments are at times run as dictatorships by the chair or oligarchies of the senior tenured professoriate. Clark Kerr's oft repeated maxim that governing faculty is like herding cats troubles library ad- ministrators because running a library requires a greater degree of cooperation than does running an academic depart- ment. In teaching departments, faculty advise academic administration, while administration, in the guise of depart- ment heads or deans, manages the day- to-day, planning, and long-term operations of the departments. In libraries where fac- ulty status exists, the collegial structures advise the dean, university librarian, or director. Because faculty often forget the advisory nature of their input to decision making, a level of organizational dis- satisfaction occurs just as it does in other academic departments on campus. Several examples may be useful. Many personnel decisions involve both collegial input and administrative deci- sion making. When hiring new faculty, a search committee may be charged to seek candidates and to create a short list for administrative consideration. Typi- cally, search committees are not charged to select one candidate, although mem- bers often believe that is their duty. In reality these committees may have no role to play in actual selection of the final candidate. Promotion and tenure com- mittees also advise about the suitability of candidates for the particular traits needed for a faculty assignment. But ultimately, selection of the best candidate, at a given salary, is an administrative decision based on consultation with library faculty. The concepts of seeking, screening, and ad- vising often get lost as the committees work through the process. Similarly, in faculty structures, peer pro- motion and tenure recommendations are a key part of the academic governance process. Although the library dean or direc- tor may not always heed the advice given, faculty input to this process is critical to its integrity. Recommendations by peer com- mittees for nonrenewal of appointments, a collegial mechanism, probably effects the dismissal of more faculty than does ad- ministrative decision making. Based on ideas presented as an invitational talk to the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh Libraries on May 27, 1992. 377 378 College & Research Libraries Planning and budget are two other areas requiring cooperation between the two governance styles. University faculty documents often require that administra- tors involve faculty in a planning process. Of course, good management practice ar- gues for full participation, if governance documents do not. Faculty acceptance of a strategic plan is crucial for its success- ful implementation. For the administra- tor, a set strategic plan makes it difficult to take advantage of unexpected oppor- tunities. The university librarian who seizes such an opportunity should explain that decision to planning participants. Both the collegial and the administrative structures need to encourage active par- ticipation in the creation and continuing revision of strategic plans. _ Budgeting ties closely to the planning process. In some states, public university budgets are open documents, and the two processes may proceed openly and in consultation. In other states, budget infor- mation is closely guarded and tradition- ally not shared with faculty or with the public. My informal research indicates that library faculty have only very foggy ideas about the amount of money availa- ble for such discretionary items as travel, equipment, and supplies even in those in- stitutions with full disclosure. Although openness about availability of money does not bring happiness, the process within the library should be open and participative. Even in institutions without open infor- mation requirements, select faculty budget committees sometimes have an overview and advising function. Dividing the collections budget is another responsibility typically shared among administration, faculty, and teach- ing faculty. Often the assistant dean or director responsible for collection man- agement will seek the advice of an internal library committee. Further, a faculty senate appointed committee may want to study the division for equity among the departments and for balance be- September 1992 tween monographs and serials. While such discussions should create goodwill and a spirit of cooperation, they some- times devolve into verbal altercations over specific allocations. As painful as these sessions might be, they are a part of an essential interaction between the library and the university. Open communication and understand- ing of the unique nature of cooperation are key to a successful coalition between col- legial and administrative governance structures. When we as faculty get our own ways, communications have been good. When we do not, communications have failed. Yet, knowing that our con- cerns are being heard and used in the decision-making process is preferable to thinking that our ideas were not con- sidered. Dividing decision making be- tween collegial and administrative structures requires added efforts at com- munications. University faculty senates are notoriously sticky about decisions made without their knowledge. Library faculty share that sensitivity. Organiza- tional communication is a rapidly develop- ing field; librarians hip needs more research about effective methods for communicat- ing in mixed collegial organizations. Mark Shields of the "The McNeil/Leh- rer News Hour" often comments on how the divided U.S. government, with a presi- dent of one party and a congress of another, results in gridlock and stagna- tion. Competing agendas from a col- legial and an administration s.tructure can create library gridlock and organiza- tional dysfunction. Each structure has its own, responsibilities and roles. Together they can provide a stronger and more cohesive leadership for a library than either can provide separately. Clear per- sonnel decision making, open planning and budget processes, and effective com- munications can optimize the Associa- tion of College & Research Libraries' heritage of library faculty status. GLORIANA ST. CLAIR REFERENCE 1. Joan Bechtel, "Collegial Management Breeds Success," American Libraries 12:605-7 (Nov. 1981).