quinn.p65 248 College & Research Libraries May 2000 The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? Brian Quinn George Ritzer, a sociologist at the University of Maryland, has proposed an influential thesis that suggests that many aspects of the fast food industry are making their way into other areas of society. This article explores whether his thesis, known as the McDonaldization thesis, is applicable to academic libraries. Specifically, it seeks to determine to what extent academic libraries may be considered McDonaldized, and if so, what effect McDonaldization may be having on them. It also investi­ gates some possible alternatives to McDonaldization, and their implica­ tions for academic libraries. n 1993, George Ritzer, a soci­ ologist at the University of Maryland, wrote a book titled The McDonaldization of Society.1 It caused considerable controversy in the field of sociology and in academia gener­ ally, sold many copies, and inspired sev­ eral articles and even a book to be writ­ ten about the subject.2 In his book, Ritzer argued that the principles of the fast-food industry had gradually come to pervade other areas of society. In The McDonaldization of Society, Ritzer drew on the work of the great German sociologist Max Weber. It was Weber who first pointed out that society was undergoing a process of rationaliza­ tion, in which a growing number of so­ cial institutions were increasingly char­ acterized by efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control over uncer­ tainty, as well as the substitution of tech­ nology for human labor. For Weber, no social institution characterized the ratio­ nalization process better than bureau­ cracy, with its rigidly formalized hierar­ chy of functionaries performing nar­ rowly defined roles according to pre­ scribed rules.3 Weber was careful to point out that although rationalized social in­ stitutions such as bureaucracies had the advantage of being efficient, if carried to extremes, they could lead to their own form of irrationality, which he termed an “iron cage.” The iron cage metaphor re­ ferred to Weber ’s belief that extremely rationalized institutions could be dehu­ manizing and stultifying to both those who work in them and those they serve. Ritzer believes that the fast-food indus­ try, exemplified by McDonald’s, has re­ placed bureaucracy as the epitome of the rationalization process. It is the purpose of this study to investigate whether aca­ demic libraries have become “McDonaldized,” and if so, to what ex­ tent. How does the McDonaldization process manifest itself? If academic li­ braries have become McDonaldized, to what extent is this a positive or negative phenomenon? And finally, are there al­ ternatives to McDonaldization? Brian Quinn is Social Sciences Librarian at Texas Tech University; e-mail: libaq@lib.ttu.edu. 248 mailto:libaq@lib.ttu.edu The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? 249 McDonaldization and Higher Education According to Ritzer, one area of society that is becoming increasingly McDonaldized is higher education. We live in an age of mass higher education, in which many students attend college because they see a college education as a means to a more lucrative career, not because they love learning. Colleges and universities are experiencing growing pressure from the public and state legislatures to control costs and maximize efficiency. These changes in the govern­ mental and economic environment have contributed to increasing the management role of university administrators and less­ ening the independence of faculty, includ­ ing library faculty. Increased competition for students among many academic insti­ tutions has resulted in a new emphasis in academia on marketing, quality service, and treating students as consumers or even “customers.” We live in an age of mass higher education, in which many students attend college because they see a college education as a means to a more lucrative career, not because they love learning. This adoption of business management and marketing principles by academia has placed faculty under growing pres­ sure to be more accountable and more productive, to maintain longer office hours, to assume greater teaching loads, to publish more, to compete for grants, and to submit to posttenure review. The importation of business concepts into academia generally, and the academic li­ brary in particular, has resulted in the growing popularity of mission and vision statements, service quality concepts, and an interest in leadership among library administrators. The prevalence and stan­ dardization of policies, procedures, strat­ egies, goals, and deadlines, along with the specialization of library work into increas­ ingly narrow roles, has contributed to the growth of bureaucratization. In larger li­ braries, the mushrooming of depart­ ments, offices, ranks, titles, reporting lines, and elaborate organizational charts is especially evident. Students themselves may contribute to the McDonaldization process by approach­ ing the university and the library as con­ sumers would. They examine cost, qual­ ity, and convenience and want to obtain the best-quality “product” for their invest­ ment. Like customers at a fast-food restau­ rant, students want to be able to take classes at convenient times, and the classes themselves must be “palatable” in terms of the way they are taught and the de­ mands they make on the students; other­ wise, students tend to drop them. Students want short lines, polite and efficient per­ sonnel, and the flexibility to “have it their way.”4 For example, many students who approach the library’s reference desk no longer merely ask for information but, rather, ask for it in a certain format, often specifying computer instead of paper sources. Determining which format would best provide information was once the professional prerogative of the librarian. Now, however, many students find com­ puters faster and easier to use than paper sources and may insist on obtaining their information in a convenient form. The quality of the information becomes sec­ ondary. In turn, librarians must acquiesce by providing the “Information Happy Meals” the students are seeking in order to guarantee “customer satisfaction.” The growing commercialism in higher education contributes to McDonaldization in other ways. To ensure a continued cus­ tomer base and keep students from drop­ ping out, many negative aspects of the li­ brary research experience are being reex­ amined. Accustomed to a higher level of service from public and school librarians, many new students may demand that the librarian find information for them rather than be shown by the librarian how to find it themselves. Many academic librarians have a goal to help create independent life­ long learners, but some students regard library research as being too much like work. The result is a “dumbing down” of reference services in order to placate the 250 College & Research Libraries May 2000 student.5 In the McDonaldized library, “the customer is king,” which essentially means giving students what they want rather than what they need. Characteristics of McDonaldization In his analysis of the McDonaldization phenomenon, Ritzer said that the ratio­ nalization process that lies at the heart of McDonaldization has four key character­ istics: efficiency, predictability, calculabil­ ity, and control. Ritzer believes that these aspects of rationalization now pervade so­ ciety. McDonaldization and Efficiency Efficiency is the systematic elimination of unnecessary time or effort in the pursuit of an objective. It is exemplified by var­ ied phenomena such as TV dinners, fac­ tory farming, the modern supermarket, and housing developments. The interest­ ing question for the purposes of this study is to ask: To what extent can these charac­ teristics be found in academic libraries, and with what effect? Efficiency in the workplace, according to Ritzer, has its roots in the scientific man­ agement principles of F.W. Taylor and in Henry Ford’s assembly line. Taylor con­ ducted time-and-motion studies to deter­ mine the “best” way for workers to per­ form a task and, in the process, reduced tasks to narrowly defined, repetitive mo­ tions that did not completely use the work­ ers’ skills and abilities. Ford’s assembly line also reduced work to a series of rou­ tine, repetitive tasks in which each worker made a highly specialized contribution to the overall production of the final prod­ uct. Academic libraries have nothing that quite approaches this level of mechaniza­ tion of human resources, but the highly rationalized division of labor and narrow specialization found in tiered reference may be thought of as a kind of intellectual assembly line. Although this model of ref­ erence service was originally introduced to make better use of the professional ex­ pertise of librarians, it may have the unin­ tentional effect of eroding their overall glo­ bal reference skills and responsiveness by underutilizing their skills in favor of much narrower subject specialization. To the ex­ tent that it does this, it may be considered inefficient, maladaptive, and dehumaniz­ ing—all qualities Weber warned about when he spoke of the “irrationality of ra­ tionality” that could lead to bureaucracy becoming an “iron cage.”6 The fast-food concept of quick service may have had the effect of raising the expectations of library users. Taylor ’s influence also may be found in recent attempts by some academic li­ braries to quantify certain tasks. Even though his time-and-motion studies were designed for the manufacturing sector, they also can be applied to the service sector. Wright State University, for ex­ ample, has attempted to create measur­ able standards of service to ensure that tasks are carried out in a timely way. Us­ ers who approach the service desk must be served within three minutes, periodi­ cals must be reshelved within twenty-four hours of receipt, and user suggestions must be responded to in five days. For­ mal statistics are kept on response times to monitor staff performance.7 Interest­ ingly, Burger King has a similar goal to serve customers in three minutes. The fast-food concept of quick service may have had the effect of raising the expectations of library users. Users seem less content with waiting in line for ref­ erence assistance and appear less willing to tolerate delays. Some libraries have responded by giving reference staff pag­ ers so they can be “beeped” if a line forms at the service desk. The use of pagers is another example of how services in aca­ demic libraries have become efficiently rationalized. To achieve even greater efficiency, fast- food restaurants have engineered a sys­ tem in which the customer performs some of the work. At some fast-food restau­ rants, customers have to wait in line, bus their own trays, fill their own drinks, add their own condiments, and dispose of The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? 251 their own trash when they have finished. The same efficiency is making its way into academic libraries. In some instances, users are being asked to do more them­ selves. Not only are they expected to do their own computerized searching, but also their own photocopying and interli­ brary loan (ILL) requests. Some libraries expect users to conduct their own “self­ guided” library tours, and 3M has intro­ duced a system that allows users to check out their own books. An ad for the new 3M SelfCheck System has a headline that reads: “They pump their own gas. They withdraw their own cash. They even buy their own stocks. Aren’t your patrons ready to check out their own materials?”8 Ritzer used the “just-in-time” auto parts inventory system developed by the Japa­ nese as an example of an improvement in efficiency over the American “just-in-case” system. In the American system, parts had to be stored until they were needed, greatly increasing storage costs. The Japanese sys­ tem enabled parts to be delivered to the assembly line, just as they were needed. Academic libraries have begun to use a similarly efficient approach to collection development. Rather than attempting to amass vast collections of books and jour­ nals, the libraries are relying more on ILL and document delivery services to supply resources on an as-needed basis.9 Choos­ ing access over ownership is more cost- efficient for libraries and yet another ex­ ample of how efficiency has come to per­ vade academic libraries. Aggregators themselves do not always allow libraries to select which titles they want, so the library may be faced with a “take it or leave it” proposition. User instruction is another area of aca­ demic librarianship that has become highly efficient. Like the McDonaldized package tours to exotic locales mentioned in Ritzer’s book, library tours constitute an efficient—albeit a quick and superfi­ cial—way of moving people through the library. Like vacation package tours that advertise “ten cities in two weeks,” the idea is to expose users to the maximum number of sights in the time allowed. Large research libraries sometimes run multiple tours simultaneously that are carefully coordinated, scripted, and cho­ reographed so as not to run into one an­ other. The tours are run on a tight sched­ ule that allows little time for spontaneity, digression, or surprise. Other aspects of user instruction have not escaped McDonaldization. Many “one-shot” classes and semester-length courses in library research methods offer standardized, predetermined organiza­ tion and content. Even evaluation of user instruction has been reduced in some in­ stitutions to a standardized checklist of elements that supposedly constitute effi­ cient and effective instruction. McDonaldization and Calculability Calculability is another key characteristic of McDonaldization. Ritzer defined the term calculability as the tendency to mea­ sure quality in terms of quantity. In fast- food restaurants, “bigness” is often syn­ onymous with quality, as in “Big Mac or “Quarter Pounder.” McDonald’s also sug­ gests that quality is reflected in the num­ ber of transactions by advertising “Billions Served.” Academic libraries manifest a similar preoccupation with size. The As­ sociation of Research Libraries (ARL) has created a Membership Criteria Index which consists of a score that is based on the number of volumes held and added, number of current serials, total library ex­ penditures, and total number of profes­ sional and support staff reported over a period of years. Candidates for member­ ship must score highly in these categories in order to be eligible for membership.10 Many college and research libraries also keep extensive statistics on every­ thing from reference transactions, catalog­ ing statistics, and ILL statistics to circula­ tion statistics, entrance gate statistics, and statistics about online transactions. Often the statistics are compiled for use as evi­ dence of the library’s performance to jus­ tify requests for budget increases. Even http:membership.10 252 College & Research Libraries May 2000 the service quality approach to evaluat­ ing academic libraries, which attempts to measure the quality of service provided, makes heavy use of quantification and statistics. Although research on service quality often involves the use of focus groups, it also uses sampling methods and survey research instruments such as SERVQUAL that attempt to quantify quality by measuring user satisfaction. Information technology has contrib­ uted to the growing emphasis on calcu­ lability. OPACS can be used to gather sta­ tistics on the number of users who are able to find what they are looking for. The statistics also can be used to determine what category of borrower (faculty, stu­ dent, public) is using the collection.11 In addition, Web-based databases and Web sites can keep track of the number of people who use the resource and when. McDonaldization and Predictability Another key aspect of the rationalization process that is central to McDonaldization is predictability. A rational society is one in which people know what to expect. One of the reasons McDonald’s is so popular is that customers know what they are get- ting—the menu is predictable and the food is consistently mediocre no matter which outlet they visit. Thus, the world of McDonald’s is a bland world in which surprise and delight are largely absent. McDonald’s meals are predictable be­ cause they offer uniform contents and preparation. Similarly, academic libraries offer increasingly predictable content re­ sulting from the widespread use of ap­ proval plans to add books and of aggregator packages to add electronic databases and journals to the collection. The collection development process has become more and more standardized, re­ sulting in collection content varying less from one library or type of library to an­ other.12 Thus, many small college librar­ ies might be expected to have roughly similar collections, whereas the contents of large research libraries might bear many similarities. Many academic librar­ ies use the same vendors, and although particular subject profiles may vary some­ what, the differences often depend more on a particular library’s depth of collect­ ing than on the books themselves. Many titles are chosen from standardized re­ viewing sources such as Choice and ARBA, so that most of the unique and unusual content in a library’s collection is relegated to “special collections.” Just as paper collections have come to exhibit more similarities than differences, the advent of aggregator packages has resulted in a growing similarity of elec­ tronic collection content. Many of these packages are negotiated through library consortia that do not allow their member libraries much flexibility in terms of cus­ tomizing content. Aggregators them­ selves do not always allow libraries to select which titles they want, so the li­ brary may be faced with a “take it or leave it” proposition. Not only have many of the resources found in academic libraries become in­ creasingly predictable, so have the services. The kind of service one receives at the ref­ erence desk, for example, has become fairly predictable. Most professional librarians working at the reference desk receive simi­ lar training in both library school and ori­ entation after they arrive at the library. Stu­ dent assistants working at the desk also are generally given standardized training. Sample questions and role-playing re­ sponses are designed to encourage predict­ able responses.13 Similar training is given to all McDonald’s counterpeople so that they will behave in a predictable manner when interacting with customers. The same kind of training is given at other li­ brary service desks such as circulation and reserve, resulting is a high degree of uni­ formity at major service points through­ out the library. In addition, the processes and procedures by which materials are re­ quested and delivered such as ILL, docu­ ment delivery services, and searching for and recalling items are all standardized and require completion of standardized forms by users. Many academic libraries even offer users a predictable culture. Just as http:responses.13 http:other.12 http:collection.11 The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? 253 McDonald’s predictably features a bright, cheerful, fun, carnival-like atmosphere symbolized by the clown figure Ronald McDonald and, more recently, specialized play areas with rides, slides, and chutes designed to attract families with children, many academic libraries have a predict­ able ambiance. A number of academic li­ braries now offer “art in the library” pro­ grams. Many of these programs have a similar goal: to position the library as not just a research institution, but also a cul­ tural center on campus. Art in the library programs typically feature a series of con­ certs, readings, performances, screenings, or exhibits that often bear more similari­ ties than differences to one another. Some libraries also use uncomfort­ able seating or remove chairs from terminals altogether, so that users must stand to conduct a search and are less likely to monopolize a terminal for an extended time period. McDonaldization and Control The fourth and final aspect of McDonald­ ization is control. People represent the most unpredictable aspect of rationalized, bureaucratized systems, so it is people that McDonaldized organizations attempt to control. In academic libraries, these people include both librarians and library users themselves, the students and faculty. Ritzer believes that the main way McDonaldized organizations control people is through technology, broadly defined. He believes that bureaucracy itself may be thought of as one form of technology. Academic librarians are typically sub­ ject to an elaborate, formalized system of bureaucratic accountability that serves as a form of control. Each librarian’s perfor­ mance is carefully documented by vari­ ous means, such as systematized monthly reports to supervisors, annual or semian­ nual evaluations recorded on standard­ ized forms that must be signed by both librarian and supervisor, less frequent, but periodic, review by promotion and tenure committees, and, more recently, posttenure review committees. Typically, librarians must pursue both personal and departmental goals that have been screened and approved by administra­ tors. Often these goals are accompanied by mandatory time frames specifying when they will be attained and by what means. Librarians who do not meet ex­ pectations are likely to be “written up” by their supervisor and receive a nega­ tive evaluation. Supervisors faced with a librarian who presents them with perfor­ mance problems are likely to create a “pa­ per trail” of detailed notes and observa­ tions about the employee’s behavior, in an attempt to document a pattern of un­ satisfactory performance. According to Ritzer, technology is easier to control than humans, so the ul­ timate goal of McDonaldization is to re­ place humans with technology. As an ex­ ample, he mentioned the mechanized as­ sembly line used to produce food and drinks at McDonald’s. The author used physicians as another example and be­ lieves their professional judgment is gradually being eroded by, on the one hand, sophisticated computerized diag­ nostic systems that analyze medical test results and, on the other, do-it-yourself diagnostic kits for conditions such as dia­ betes and pregnancy. Analogous develop­ ments may be occurring in academic li­ braries. In technical services, the use of online bibliographic utilities such as OCLC has eliminated the need for much professional judgment in cataloging. In public services, the development of ex­ pert systems in reference, such as the University of Houston’s Reference Ex­ pert, may lessen the need for professional reference assistance. Reference Expert is a computerized system that recommends reference sources for answering some types of questions.14 In addition to controlling employees through bureaucratic supervision and fast-food technology, McDonaldization also represents an effort to control cus­ tomers. Restaurant customers are ex­ pected to gather their own napkins and utensils, add their own condiments, serve http:questions.14 254 College & Research Libraries May 2000 themselves, and clean up after them­ selves. In some fast-food restaurants, such as Burger King, customers also are ex­ pected to fill their own drinks. Moreover, some fast-food restaurants have even de­ signed the seating to be Spartan and un­ comfortable, featuring stools with no backs, so that customers are discouraged from lingering, thus enabling tables to turn over quicker. Academic libraries at­ tempt to control their users in similar ways, for example, by posting signs that limit the use of computer terminals to a specified time period or limiting comput­ ers to certain types of use, often exclu­ sively for research purposes with e-mail use forbidden. Some libraries also use uncomfortable seating or remove chairs from terminals altogether, so that users must stand to conduct a search and are less likely to monopolize a terminal for an extended time period. Alternatives to McDonaldization: Humor Rooms, Joy Clubs, and Skunk Works The overall portrait that emerges from the preceding analysis is that many academic libraries are highly efficient, predictable, and controlled environments. Although there are obvious advantages to maintain­ ing a well-organized and efficient work environment, there also are disadvan­ tages. A highly rationalized library can produce irrationalities for the librarians who work there in the form of dehuman­ izing, disenchanting work that lacks ex­ citement and challenge. Bureaucratic management systems that exclude librar­ ians from decision making and do not empower them to perform their job the way they see fit may create a McDonaldized environment of disaf­ fected individuals incapable of initiative and vision. A hyperrationalized, ultraefficient environment can create problems for users as well. Some research libraries now offer access to so many da­ tabases that users have difficulty choos­ ing and locating the right one. To accom­ modate the greatest number of users, some OPAC systems are programmed to terminate a session after only a few min­ utes if no commands are entered, forcing some users to start a new session again. Users who do not understand the differ­ ence between an information desk and a reference desk may wind up getting in­ adequate answers to their questions be­ cause they approached the wrong tier. The kind of bureaucratic, McDonaldized environment that seems characteristic of many academic libraries has been criticized for creating so many levels of administra­ tive approval that it is difficult to accom­ plish much that is innovative. Boldness, experimentation, and organizational re­ sponsiveness all suffer as a result. In a time of rapid change, McDonaldized libraries are slow to respond, simplistic, and short­ sighted because they are unable to engage the heads and hearts of their employees and are out of touch with the real needs of their users.15 At the same time, organizations in the private sector are discovering that their ability to survive depends on imaginative responses to rapid change. Companies that fail to create new products and ser­ vices are unable to survive in the face of more creative competitors. New alterna­ tive models of organization rely less on rationalization than on fostering creativ­ ity and intuition among employees to solve problems. Engendering creativity among librarians may thus constitute an antidote to the bureaucratic excesses of McDonaldization. The role of administra­ tion becomes one of promoting an inno­ vative environment by encouraging new ideas and initiatives. Major companies such as Frito-Lay and Dupont now offer creativity-training programs to their em­ ployees. The idea is to teach staff to view problems from completely different per­ spectives in order to help arrive at fresh solutions. Creativity enhancement tech­ niques are taught, such as brainstorming and recording one’s dreams. At Boeing, employees are taught the use of mind mapping, in which a central idea is drawn on paper and new ideas are than added on stems branching out from the original concept.16 Dupont sets aside time for “cre­ http:concept.16 http:users.15 The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? 255 ativity social hours,” in which creative role models talk about how they use the creative process.17 As successful as these programs have been, some management faculty feel that stimulating creativity is not as critical as creating an environment that does not extinguish creativity through hierarchy, closed- mindedness, skepticism, and criticism. One highly cre­ ative and successful company, Virgin At­ lantic Airways, has no organizational flowchart, traditional company hierarchy, or formal meetings.18 Large, bureaucratic, McDonaldized libraries also may learn much from the experience of large high-tech companies that struggle to compete with smaller, more nimble compa­ nies. If organizational structure and culture play a pivotal role in how creative a library is, how can these be utilized? One ap­ proach is to encourage risk taking and ex­ perimentation by making them acceptable and tolerating mistakes and failures. En­ couraging employees to question even the most basic assumptions of the library by asking the kind of questions a child might ask, such as “What is a library?” is another means.19 At The Body Shop, a personal care products company with hundreds of re­ tail outlets, a creative culture is encouraged by urging employees to constantly ques­ tion what it is they are doing and how they are doing it. Equally important is the fact that when staff have ideas they can con­ tact DODGI (Department of Damned Good Ideas), where management will lis­ ten and take them seriously.20 Kodak has helped to create a risk-tak­ ing culture by taking itself lightly, through the creation of a humor room. The humor room is stacked with toys, games, and funny videos that help employees to “lighten up” and generate novel, uncon­ ventional ideas. It contains a resource li­ brary of books, audiocassettes, and car­ toons by leading humorists. The walls are hung with photos of Groucho Marx and Charlie Chaplin, and the room contains meeting areas that allow groups to hold meetings there. There is also a high-tech area equipped with personal computers that run creative problem-solving and idea-generation software, which employ­ ees can use to gain novel perspectives on work problems.21 Hallmark has its own innovation facility called Carney Farm, a complex of studios near its Kansas City headquarters where employees can at­ tend workshops, hear lunchtime speak­ ers, and engage in arts and crafts activi­ ties, all designed to stimulate creativity and ideation.22 Similarly, AT&T has cre­ ated Idea Verse, a place designed to in­ spire creative activity that features avant­ garde decor such as purple walls, bean­ bag chairs, and wildly painted floors and ceilings. Like Kodak’s humor room, em­ ployees can drop in to browse the library or watch videos. But Idea Verse also of­ fers “Ideaversity,” a collection of courses designed to help staff generate fresh so­ lutions to company problems by jarring them out of conventional thinking pat­ terns and routines.23 DuPont also has es­ tablished a Center for Creativity and In­ novation that uses creativity techniques to educate employees.24 Just as Kodak has a humor room to stimulate employee creativity, another innovative and successful company, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, has created a “joy gang” to help reduce routine and increase enthusiasm among staff. The joy gang challenges established company routines by sponsoring special events at work once each month. One such event was Elvis Day, in which employees participated in an Elvis look-alike contest. The gang con­ sists of six volunteers from different de­ partments that periodically engage in unusual and eccentric activities, such as preparing a full-course Italian dinner for the night shift workers.25 They also dis­ tribute “joy grants” of up to $500 to work units that come up with the most creative ideas. The joy gang can be seen as a cre­ ative approach to promoting creativity and spontaneity within an organization. Southwest Airlines has a strongly anti- McDonaldized company culture in which http:workers.25 http:employees.24 http:routines.23 http:ideation.22 http:problems.21 http:seriously.20 http:means.19 http:meetings.18 http:process.17 256 College & Research Libraries May 2000 creativity, breaking the rules, spontane­ ity, and humor are emphasized. Employ­ ees are given the flexibility to express their personalities as they see fit and frequently will relate to customers and colleagues in a playful, irreverent way. One flight at­ tendant has been known to put rubber cockroaches in customers’ drinks when they become difficult. Subsequently, she was awarded SWA’s President’s Award for her outstanding performance, which is considered one of the highest awards an employee can receive. One of the rea­ sons Southwest is so successful is that cus­ tomers love being treated like real people rather than “customers.” Think of the im­ plications this may have for the growing trend among academic libraries to char­ acterize their users as customers. Southwest’s decidedly unbureaucratic culture is reinforced by the SWA Culture Committee, which consists of sixty-six employees from various departments as well as customers. The committee is a cre­ ative management group that generates ideas to promote and sustain a cultural emphasis on employees doing things that are out of the ordinary and extending themselves beyond the call of duty.26 The committee has helped the airline main­ tain its iconoclastic culture despite the company’s rapid growth and expanding workforce. Large, bureaucratic, McDonaldized li­ braries also may learn much from the ex­ perience of large high-tech companies that struggle to compete with smaller, more nimble companies. Some of these firms have taken to forming “skunk works,” a small group of five to seven employees who work on formulating cre­ ative solutions to company problems. Companies such as Lockheed, IBM, and Dupont have all used skunk works suc­ cessfully. To be effective, a skunk works must have the support of management and must be insulated from the company’s day-to-day operations. The skunk works needs to be protected be­ cause its culture is antithetical to that of a McDonaldized bureaucracy. The inflex­ ible requirements of a bureaucratized management structure, with its constant demands for reports, memos, and meet­ ings, would undermine the focus and flexibility needed for a skunk works to be effective. McDonaldized organizations frequently have multiple levels of admin­ istration as well as administrators who may engage in petty office politics. They form fiefdoms that have numerous rules and policies associated with them that can end up creating considerable red tape for anyone who is trying to accomplish some­ thing that is not “standard procedure” or who is unwilling to “go through chan­ nels.” By avoiding bureaucracy, skunk works members can be more creative and achieve results faster.27 Ideally, the skunk works should con­ sist of the most creative and visionary li­ brarians available, perhaps with an en­ trepreneurial bent as well. Participants can be recruited through voluntary sign- up to increase commitment. Rather than having a leader appointed for the group, the leader should be allowed to emerge naturally so that the group seems less hi­ erarchical. Group members may need to be rotated periodically to avoid burnout. They should be allowed to go directly to the library’s top management with ideas that they believe are important and thus bypass layers of entrenched middle man­ agers who might be tempted to dismiss an idea with the all-too-common epithet “that will never work here.”28 Recruiting Un-McDonaldized Librarians Creating an un-McDonaldized culture in the library is much easier when the library has un-McDonaldized librarians. These individuals can be actively recruited by going beyond the standard requirement of an ALA-accredited MLS, an affinity for technology, knowledge of a foreign lan­ guage, or other conventional criteria. Ask­ ing a candidate for evidence of creativity, whether in terms of unusual projects un­ dertaken or a bold vision of the future, could be one way to gauge a person’s potential. Perhaps a key question might be, How much of a risk taker is the per­ http:faster.27 The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? 257 son?29 A librarian who has taken some intelligent risks, and learned from fail­ ures, might be a better fit for an un- McDonaldized library than one who has a flawless, but colorless, career based on always playing it safe. Another way to build an un-McDonaldized culture is to create a system of evaluation and incen­ tives that rewards librarians for innova­ tion and encourages those who refuse to be venturesome to perform better. It helps to reward librarians based on the risks they take, rather than on just the results. Rewards do not necessarily have to take the form of increased salary; they also can take the form of more time free of regular responsibilities to think creatively. Hewlett Packard, Texas Instruments, and 3M allow their most creative people to spend a percentage of their time on the job coming up with new ideas and solu­ tions.30 TRW and Apple award employ­ ees free time in the form of “fellowships” that consist of larger blocks of time along with freedom from corporate interfer­ ence.31 Although the use of teams has become popular in some academic libraries, making creativity a team project may not necessarily result in better ideas. Although these ideas may seem novel to the typical McDonaldized library, some companies have gone even further. Hewlett-Packard has awarded “medals of defiance” to employees who defy top management to pursue projects they be­ lieve in that later turn out to be success­ ful. Providing this kind of organizational recognition to maverick employees can be an effective way to cut through the mo­ rass of politics and bureaucracy that of­ ten characterizes a McDonaldized culture and serves to stifle fresh ideas.32 To elimi­ nate “yes-men,” Scandinavian Airlines has instituted a training program for new employees that is designed to “flatten the pyramid” by encouraging them to behave assertively with management and tell managers how to improve company op­ erations whether they wish to hear it or not. The idea is to prevent subordinates from allowing bosses to make decisions or institute policies that the employees know will have a negative effect on op­ erations. One company, Royal Dutch Shell Group, has even gone so far as to sanc­ tion designated devil’s advocate groups to actively promote alternative strategic plans designed to help the company cope with any scenario.33 Creativity Audits and the Tyranny of Teams McDonaldized libraries also might con­ sider conducting a creativity audit. This involves identifying those individuals within the library who seem to come up with interesting ideas on a regular basis. These librarians should be sheltered from criticism and rewarded whenever they produce valuable insights. Moreover, they should be given special assignments and projects that address important or­ ganizational issues so they will be chal­ lenged and not feel underutilized.34 In addition, they might be appointed discus­ sion leaders to help stimulate the ex­ change of ideas among colleagues. Cre­ ative individuals should be given direct access to top-level administrators in or­ der to prevent supervisory personnel at various levels from undermining ideas. It also might be helpful to avoid the tyranny of teams, which sometimes may interfere with the development of creativ­ ity. Although the use of teams has become popular in some academic libraries, mak­ ing creativity a team project may not nec­ essarily result in better ideas. Many indi­ viduals may not respond well to group brainstorming for fear of saying some­ thing foolish in front of others or their supervisor. Librarians who are individu­ alists may need privacy and a degree of isolation in order to be their most origi­ nal. Management should not try to force all librarians to be “team players” when it comes to the creative process and should allow some librarians to venture off on their own if that is how they work best. http:underutilized.34 http:scenario.33 http:ideas.32 http:tions.30 258 College & Research Libraries May 2000 A Career Path for Creatives To advance in their career, many of the most creative academic librarians have little choice but to assume supervisory roles at some point and move into man­ agement. This usually involves a lot of administrative paperwork as well as re­ sponsibility for overseeing the work of others, tasks the individual may not be particularly interested in or suited for. The alternative would be for the librarian to stay in his or her present position with little possibility for advancement, which could potentially create a morale problem. Com­ panies such as Microsoft and 3M avoid this problem by creating dual-career paths, one administrative and the other technical and professional. Each path offers comparable positions in terms of pay, benefits, and sta­ tus. A similar structure would allow the library to retain its most creative people and yet allow them to develop and stay engaged by utilizing their creative ability as librarians.35 Information Technology and Creativity Although Ritzer believes McDonald’s uses technology as a means of controlling people with the eventual aim of replacing them altogether, the relationship between technology and McDonaldization is more complex. Although technology may have a negative effect on employees and help contribute to a mechanized, rationalized, McDonaldized environment, it also may have the opposite effect and become a tool for creativity in the library. Much depends on how technology is used. The McDonaldized library, with its bureaucratic hierarchy of superiors and subordinates organized along narrow and rigid reporting lines, is designed to re­ strict and control information. Top admin­ istrators tend to have a monopoly on in­ formation and know about things before anyone else in the library. Information can be withheld from subordinates as a way of controlling them. One advantage of information technology is that it tends to open up channels of communication so that simultaneous dissemination of infor­ mation, in which managers are informed at the same time as subordinates, becomes technically possible.36 The role of many middle managers in McDonaldized libraries has been one of information gatherer and disseminator, someone who serves as both a link in the communication chain and a gatekeeper. The middle manager interprets the wishes of top management to those below and conveys information about the rank and file to those above. Yet, middle managers often serve a countercreative function in the library by telling creative subordinates that their ideas will never be accepted by top administrators and thus blocking off access. Thus, controlling information be­ comes a way of maintaining or enhancing the middle manager’s power.37 Informa­ tion technology may threaten this power by making it easier for subordinates to bypass middle managers and communi­ cate ideas directly to the top. Information technology can contribute to creativity in other ways. It can be used to generate new ideas; to facilitate asso­ ciation between disparate ideas, as in the case of hypertext; or to explore ideas in­ formally using e-mail or chat systems.38 Spreadsheets allow for the creative ma­ nipulation of numbers. Simulation pack­ ages make it possible for complex orga­ nizational processes to be modeled, mak­ ing it possible for people to experiment with ideas without engendering real- world consequences. In addition, there are software packages that simulate or facilitate creative problem-solving tech­ niques such as brainstorming and mor­ phological analysis, which allows users to conceptualize the dimensions of a product and then derive attributes that can be managed and sorted to create new product ideas.39 Another way that information technol­ ogy can enhance creativity is through electronic meeting systems. Although still commonly used in academic libraries, many companies have abandoned brain­ storming as a way of generating creative ideas in favor of electronic meeting sys­ tems. One reason is that brainstorming is http:ideas.39 http:systems.38 http:power.37 http:possible.36 http:librarians.35 The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? 259 a group process that tends to be person­ ality driven. Extroverted and aggressive personalities tend to dominate brain­ storming sessions, with the result that quieter, more thoughtful participants tend to be overlooked. In addition, many brain­ storming participants are afraid of say­ ing something foolish or speaking up in front of supervisors. Electronic meeting systems allow par­ ticipants to engage in “brainwriting” rather than brainstorming. Participants sit at networked PCs and type in their ideas, which then appear anonymously on a screen that all can see. These ideas then become springboards for further contri­ butions. People are able to express can­ did and bold opinions and ideas without fear of ridicule or reprisal.40 General Mo­ tors uses an electronic meeting system to facilitate brainwriting sessions. It features a bank of networked Macintosh comput­ ers arrayed around a conference table. GM has found it an excellent way to re­ duce group uniformity pressure and per­ ceived threats from managers in atten­ dance.41 In addition, there are software pro­ grams designed to enhance individual creativity.42 Generally, librarians accus­ tomed to working in McDonaldized en­ vironments are not accustomed to tap­ ping their creative abilities. Many of these software programs are designed to help a user break free of conventional think­ ing patterns so that he or she can come up with alternative solutions to a prob­ lem. One of the best-known programs is Idea Fisher, which uses memory prompts, analogy, metaphor, and free association to help users generate bold ideas.43 The user begins by choosing a word, and Idea Fisher then generates thousands of asso­ ciations and concepts designed to stimu­ late creative thoughts. As one browses through the associated concepts, ideas can be recorded on an electronic notepad. Idea Fisher also contains a database of thou­ sands of questions that are designed to talk the user through a concept. The pro­ gram then screens the user ’s answers and isolates the most important concepts, which then can be resubmitted to the pro­ gram to generate additional ideas.44 Idea Fisher is only one of many creativity en­ hancement programs available. Other well-known programs include MindLink, The Innovator, Decision Pad, Idea Gen­ erator, Thoughtline, and the Art of Nego­ tiating. Although these packages can be very helpful in the creation of new ideas, it should be emphasized that they are designed to stimulate creativity rather than simulate it. They are not meant to be a substitute for the human thinking pro­ cess but, instead, are meant to comple­ ment it.45 Conclusion Using the criteria that Ritzer has suggested are most characteristic of McDonald­ ization—efficiency, predictability, calcula­ bility, and control, it appears that in many ways academic libraries can be character­ ized as McDonaldized environments. Large research libraries in particular tend to be complex institutions that are orga­ nized and managed along bureaucratic lines. Added to this highly bureaucratic en­ vironment is a more recent trend toward using business and marketing principles to manage higher education, which has af­ fected the way that academic libraries are being managed. Library administrators are being encouraged to think of students and faculty as “customers” who must be given high-quality service in order to deter them from taking their business to a competing institution.46 The McDonaldization process has re­ sulted in the increasing standardization of products and services, so that academic libraries are becoming more similar to one another. Ironically, at a time when college and university libraries are feeling the pressures of the marketplace and an in­ creasing commercial ethos on their opera­ tions, many businesses are moving away from the bureaucratic, McDonaldized model of management that characterizes academic libraries. Companies have dis­ covered that to survive in an intensely competitive business environment, it is increasingly necessary to cultivate creativ­ http:institution.46 http:ideas.44 http:ideas.43 http:creativity.42 http:dance.41 http:reprisal.40 260 College & Research Libraries May 2000 ity among employees. The more creative a company’s environment, the more likely it will generate new products and services needed to differentiate itself from its com­ petitors in the marketplace.47 Firms in the private sector thus regard building a cul­ ture of creativity as essential to survival, rather than a fleeting management fad. As the field of higher education be­ comes more competitive and adopts more of a marketplace emphasis, academic li­ braries will likely experience additional pressure to come up with new products and services to keep users satisfied.48 Like their business-world counterparts, they may need to become less McDonaldized and more creative. If they do not, more innovative competitors may take the ini­ tiative and create new and better ways to meet user needs. This study has tried to suggest some of the ways that companies are becom­ ing less McDonaldized and more creative. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that academic libraries could take a cue from some of these firms and try to adopt some of their ideas. Is it impossible to in­ troduce a humor room, a joy gang, or a skunk works into the academic library environment? At the very least, reorga­ nizing for innovation by experimenting with some of these alternatives might make the work of librarians more inter­ esting and engaging.49 Perhaps in the pro­ cess, academic libraries may come up with their own versions of creativity en­ hancement programs and strategies that seem to be most effective or appropriate. More research is needed on the vari­ ous means that companies are using to become more creative. It also would help to investigate the kinds of results these companies have had with their undertak­ ings. On the library side, libraries need to experiment more with creativity en­ hancement techniques and initiatives, and report their results in the library lit­ erature. The eventual goal would be to make libraries less rigid, less bureaucra­ tized, and less imitative of each other; in other words, less McDonaldized and more like laboratories for experimenta­ tion whose most important results are shared and built on. Notes 1. George Ritzer, The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Pr., 1993). 2. Mark Alfino, John S. Caputo, and Robin Wynword, eds. McDonaldization Revisited: Critical Essays on Consumer Culture (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998). 3. Max Weber, Economy and Society (Totawa, N.J.: Bedminster Pr., 1968). 4. George Ritzer, “McUniversity in the Postmodern Society,” in The McDonaldization Thesis: Explorations and Extensions, ed. George Ritzer (London: Sage, 1998), 151–162. 5. Katherine Washburn and John F. Thorton, eds. Dumbing Down: Essays on the Strip Mining of American Culture (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996). 6. Thomas W. Segrady, “Rationality and Irrationality: New Directions in Weberian Theory, Critique, and Research,” Sociological Spectrum 8 (Jan/Mar. 1988): 616–33. 7. Susan Wehmeyer, Dorothy Auchter, and Arnold Hirshon, “Saying What We Do, and Do­ ing What We Say: Implementing a Customer Service Plan,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 22 (May 1996): 173–80. 8. College and Research Libraries News 60 (Mar. 1999): 260. 9. Bruce R. Kingma, “The Economics of Access versus Ownership: The Costs and Benefits of Access to Scholarly Articles via Interlibrary Loan and Journal Subscriptions,” Journal of Library Administration 26, nos. 1 / 2 (1998): 145–62. 10. See the ARL Web site at http://www.arl.org/. 11. Peter Hernon and Ellen Altman, Service Quality in Academic Libraries (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1996). 12. Celia Scher Wagner, “Academic Book Trends—Approval Plans and Library Collections— Do They All Look Alike?” Against the Grain 10 (Nov. 1998): 73. 13. Janet E. Sheets, “Role-Playing as a Training Tool for Reference Student Assistants,” Refer­ ence Services Review 26 (spring 1998): 37–41. 14. Shiao-Teng Su and F. Wilfred Lancaster, “Evaluation of Expert Systems in Reference Ser­ vice Applications,” RQ 35 (winter 1995): 219–28. http:http://www.arl.org http:engaging.49 http:satisfied.48 http:marketplace.47 The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries? 261 15. Gifford Pinchot and Elizabeth Pinchot, The End of Bureaucracy and the Rise of the Intelligent Organization (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993). 16. “Can Imagination Be Taught?” Supervision 52 (Nov. 1991): 5–26. 17. David Tanner, “Innovative and Creative Change,” Executive Excellence 9 (June 1992): 15– 16. 18. David Sheff, “The Interview: Richard Branson,” Forbes (Feb. 24, 1997): 94–102. 19. Shari Caudron, “Corporate Creativity Comes of Age,” Training and Development 52 (May 1998): 50–55. 20. Lisa K. Gundry, Charles W. Prather, and Jill R. Kickul, “Building the Creative Organiza­ tion,” Organizational Dynamics 22 (spring 1994): 22–37. 21. Shari Caudron, “Humor Is Healthy in the Workplace,” Personnel Journal 71 (June 1992): 63–68. 22. Gail Dutton, “Enhancing Creativity,” Management Review 85 (Nov. 1996): 44–46. 23. Bob Filipczak, “It Takes All Kinds: Creativity in the Work Force,” Training 34 (May 1997): 32–40. 24. David Tanner, “Applying Creative Thinking Techniques to Everyday Problems,” Journal of Consumer Marketing 9 (fall 1992): 23–28. 25. Jennifer L. Laabs, “Ben & Jerry’s Caring Capitalism,” Personnel Journal 71 (Nov. 1992): 50–57. 26. Brenda Paik Sunoo, “How Fun Flies at Southwest Airlines,” Personnel Journal 74 (June 1995): 62–73. 27. Peter Gwynne, “Skunk Works: 1990’s-Style,” Research-Technology Management 39 (July/ Aug. 1997): 38–41. 28. Arthur W. Single and William M. Spurgeon, “Creativity and Commercializing Innovation inside a Skunk Works,” Research-Technology Management 39 (Jan./Feb. 1996): 38–41. 29. Tom Peters, “Walk on the Wild Side,” Incentive 167 (June 1993): 43. 30. Thomas Kiely, “The Idea Makers,” Technology Review 96 (Jan. 1993): 32–40. 31. Ashok K. Gupta and Arvind Singhal, “Managing Human Resources for Innovation and Creativity,” Research-Technology Management 36 (May/June 1993): 41–48. 32. Charlan Jeanne Nemeth, “Managing Innovation: When Less is More,” California Manage­ ment Review 40 (fall 1997): 59–74. 33. Frank Sommerfield, “Paying the Troops to Buck the System,” Business Month 135 (May 1990): 77–79. 34. Michael Syrett, “Nurturing Ideas Pays Dividends,” Asian Business 32 (Feb. 1996): 20–23. 35. Shari Caudron, “Motivating Creative Employees Calls for New Strategies,” Personnel Journal 73 (May 1994): 103–6. 36. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Can Giants Dance in Cyberspace?” Forbes (Dec. 2, 1996): 247–48. 37. David Jackson and John Humble, “Middle Managers: New Purpose, New Directions,” Journal of Management Development 13, no. 3 (1994): 15–21. 38. Omar E. M. Khalil, “Innovative Work Environments: The Role of Information Technology and Systems,” S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal 61 (summer 1996): 32–36. 39. Tony Proctor, “Computers and Creative Problem Solving,” Management Research News 16 (Sept./Oct. 1993): 21–26. 40. Michael Finley, “Meeting Tools Organize Brainstorming Process,” Public Relations Journal 49 (Mar. 1993): 40–43. 41. Kiely, “The Idea Makers,” 34. 42. Brenda Massetti, “An Empirical Examination of the Value of Creativity Support Systems on Idea Generation,” MIS Quarterly 20 (Mar. 1996): 83–97. 43. John Thackray, “That Vital Spark,” Management Today (July 1995): 56–58. 44. R. A. Proctor, “Can Computers Simulate Managerial Creativity?” Leadership and Organiza­ tion Development Journal 12, no. 4 (1991): 13–16. 45. Kyle Heger, “Whiz …Bang …Eureka! The Automation of Creativity,” Communication World 8 (Nov. 1991): 18–21. 46. Annette Davies and Ian Kirkpatrick, “Face to Face with the ‘Sovereign Consumer’: Ser­ vice Quality and the Changing Role of Professional Academic Librarians,” Sociological Review 43 (Nov. 1995): 782–807. 47. Constantinos Markides, “Strategic Innovation,” Sloan Management Review 38 (spring 1997): 9–23. 48. Martin Parker and David Jary, “The McUniversity: Organization, Management, and Aca­ demic Subjectivity,” Organization: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 2 (1995): 1–20. 49. Tim Handyside and Janice Light, “An Experiment in Organization for Innovation,” Inter­ national Journal of Technology Management 15, nos. 1 / 2 (1998): 160–72.