poole.p65


Technological Change in the Workplace  503

Technological Change in the 
Workplace: A Statewide Survey of 
Community College Library and 
Learning Resources Personnel 

Carolyn E. Poole and Emmett Denny 

It is a commonly held belief that technostress caused by change is af­
fecting library personnel, although research on its impact in two-year 
colleges is practically nonexistent. This investigation examined how 
employees in Florida community college library and learning resource 
centers are dealing with technological change in their work environment. 
The results of the investigation indicated that staff are reacting posi­
tively. However, greater attention needs to be directed toward improving 
their inclusion in decision-making, revising job descriptions, and experi­
menting with alternative reward systems. 

he professional library litera­
ture of the past decade is re­
plete with articles on the rapid­
ity of change taking place in 

libraries and its symptomatic technostress 
exhibited by library employees. Most 
studies have focused on technological 
challenges faced by MLS-degreed librar­
ians in university work environments. 
Few, if any, researchers have paid com­
parable attention to staff in two-year com­
munity college libraries or in learning 
resource centers. 

As the youngest stratum of the Ameri­
can higher education system, community 
colleges tend to be more flexible, innova­
tive, and nimble in responding to society’s 
educational needs than are older, estab­
lished universities. A recent national sur­
vey conducted by the American Associa­
tion of Community Colleges found that 

two-year institutions are playing a criti­
cal role in the new technology-driven 
economy by narrowing the “digital di­
vide” and delivering convenient, cost-ef­
fective computer training.1 Far from be­
ing second choice, community colleges 
have risen to the status of “provider of 
choice” for computer/technology-related 
education. Consequently, one might ex­
pect these institutions to provide a degree 
of computer training to staff equal to that 
training offered their customers, as tech­
nically competent employees tend to en­
hance both services and reputation. 

Community colleges in the state of 
Florida are held in even greater esteem 
than four-year colleges or universities, 
and Florida residents have high expecta­
tions of their impact on the workforce.2 

Several Florida two-year colleges—in­
cluding Florida Community College at 

Carolyn E. Poole is Director of Library Services at Chipola Junior College; e-mail: poolec@chipola.cc.fl.us.
 
Emmett Denny is Library Services Specialist at Tallahassee Community College; e-mail: dennye@tcc.cc.fl.us.
 

503 

mailto:dennye@tcc.cc.fl.us
mailto:poolec@chipola.cc.fl.us


 

504 College & Research Libraries November 2001 

Jacksonville, Miami-Dade Community 
College, Okaloosa-Walton Community 
College, and Chipola Junior College— 
were ranked in the top 100 of “America’s 
Most Wired Colleges,” according to the 
Yahoo! 2000 list.3 Library resources were 
part of the judging criteria. Florida’s 
twenty-eight public community college 
libraries are well connected through an 
automated information system, Library 
Information Network for Community 
Colleges (LINCC), which is considered to 
be one of the most advanced and sophis­
ticated networks in the country. Commu­
nity college library systems in other states 
often look to Florida when making stra­
tegic and tactical plans for their state sys­
tems.4 

If community colleges are key provid­
ers of computer/technical education, and 
Florida in particular is a model two-year 
system, one might wonder whether li­
brary employees in these statewide insti­
tutions are in a better position to deal with 
technochange in the workplace because 
they are so well supported, philosophi­
cally and practically. 

Review of the Literature
Revoee io tee Worerlvce 
The nature of library work has changed 
dramatically in the past twenty-five years, 
largely because of technology. Changes 
are evident in role definitions, tasks, or­
ganizational structures, user expectations, 
vendor relations, and campus perceptions 
of academic library/learning resources 
personnel. 

Larry R. Oberg’s 1997 article in the 
Journal of Academic Librarianship on achiev­
ing clarity in an age of change reminded 
readers that professional librarians have 
yet to resolve issues of who does what in 
the workplace or what to call themselves.5 

Traditional production work performed 
by librarians a generation ago is accom­
plished today by machines, forcing a re­
definition of roles or imminent extinction. 
As library work as been more intellectu­
alized, several writers have suggested 
that the information professional’s role 
has expanded into that of a knowledge 

worker, access engineer, content expert, 
negotiator, trainer, facilitator, translator, 
teacher, and guide.6 Moreover, new titles 
have emerged for support staff, such as 
library technical assistant (LTA), library 
technician, and computer specialist, re­
flecting new directions in duties.7 

Changes in roles were evident in a recent 
survey of position descriptions used by 
Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 
member institutions and analyzed in 
SPEC (Systems and Procedures Exchange 
Center) Kit 256.8 

The mushrooming expense of 
buying electronic information, site 
licensing, and accuracy of coverage, 
in addition to continuous pressures 
to update computer hardware and 
software, have given rise to new 
worries. 

Tasks that once were the sole preroga­
tive of librarians (e.g., reference desk 
shifts, cataloging, systems maintenance) 
have been usurped by paraprofessionals 
whose work, in turn, has migrated to stu­
dent assistants. According to Oberg, 
Bonnie A. Osif, and Richard L. Harwood, 
task overlap exists at all levels, creating 
tension and resentment, devaluation of 
the MLS, more ambiguous work assign­
ments, and blurring of job responsibili­
ties.9 

Editor Charles Schwartz introduced 
the concept of “boundary spanning” in 
his 1997 book, Restructuring Academic Li­
braries: Organizational Development in the 
Wake of Technological Change.10 He advised 
libraries to realign themselves closer to 
campus computer networking, consortia, 
and scholarly communication systems to 
achieve better collegial integration. A 
trend toward flatter organizations that are 
less hierarchical, which is now in favor, 
was predicted years ago by James G. 
Neal.11 Libraries have slowly adopted 
some managerial innovations (e.g., TQM, 
reengineering, benchmarking) that make 
them more flexible and responsive to 
changing needs.12 Team formation and 
increased communication among depart­

http:needs.12
http:Change.10


Technological Change in the Workplace 505 

ments have helped emphasize the impor­
tance of everyone’s contribution to suc­
cessful library operations. 

In her 1999 essay, “Reflections on Aca­
demic Librarianship,” Karyle Butcher 
noted that as libraries have incorporated 
more electronic information resources 
into their collections, user demands also 
have accelerated.13 The convenience of 
unmediated searching is assumed; yet 
patrons also insist on immediate personal 
assistance in navigating complex data­
bases and expect instant online satisfac­
tion from the push of a button. Custom­
ers trust that librarians are always on call 
to handle technicalities involved in down­
loading files to disks, clearing paper jams, 
and troubleshooting computers. The frus­
tration voiced by Amy M. Kautzman, 
head of reference at Harvard’s Lamont 
Library, is typical: “I spend more of my 
time solving problems brought about by 
technology than I do thinking up new 
programs for my students.”14 Soo Young 
Rieh’s comprehensive overview of chang­
ing models of reference service high­
lighted empirical studies reporting library 
users’ confusion in identifying librarians 
from support staff and their perplexity 
regarding where to go for reference con­
sultation.15 

Database interfaces and formats 
change (usually without announcement) 
at the business whims of vendors, often 
to the disadvantage of librarians, re­
searchers, and scholars. The mushroom­
ing expense of buying electronic informa­
tion, site licensing, and accuracy of cov­
erage, in addition to continuous pressures 
to update computer hardware and soft­
ware, have given rise to new worries. Li­
brarians are uncertain about the longev­
ity and/or accessibility of the products 
they purchase today.16 

In “Technological Innovation and Or­
ganization Change Revisited,” Miriam A. 
Drake pointed out that librarian informa­
tion specialists in academic environments 
are increasingly being tapped to manage 
institutional knowledge bases involving 
internal data, legalities of copyright, in­
tellectual property, and consortium nego­

tiations.17 They are gaining more visible 
roles on campus through outreach, com­
mittee participation, and faculty collabo­
ration in the teaching/learning process. 
Moreover, academic librarians have en­
tered the political arena to voice library 
values in the changing information mar­
ketplace. 

One of the few constants in library life 
is change itself, so librarians may always 
fear falling behind in the technology race. 
Osif and Harwood’s article on the chal­
lenges of change quotes a memorable 
anomaly of “running in a marathon to­
day, clomping along in wooden shoes.”18 

Impact of Technology on Personnel 
Opinions and anecdotes abound as to 
how technology has been received in li­
braries, although few writers have ven­
tured beyond descriptive research to de­
termine the impact on human resources. 
Some of those who have contributed sur­
vey investigations include Elizabeth B. 
Winstead, Cathleen C. Palmini, Roberta 
Kahan, and Dorothy E. Jones.19 

Winstead examined staff and faculty 
reactions to automation in three libraries 
on a university campus during two time 
periods to see whether opinions changed 
after an integrated library system was 
fully implemented.20 She found insignifi­
cant differences between a survey instru­
ment administered in 1987 and one ad­
ministered in 1993. Library employees in 
this sample welcomed automation and 
expected it to enhance job satisfaction. 
Further, educational level had no bearing 
on the acceptance of automation. The 
majority of library personnel expressed 
concern about ergonomic factors associ­
ated with computer usage and suffered 
some negative repercussions. Automation 
apparently had no influence on the 
library’s administrative hierarchy, nor did 
it impede interpersonal communication. 

In a 1992 study of support staff in Wis­
consin academic libraries, Palmini sur­
veyed the impact of computerization and 
its relationship to job satisfaction.21 She 
hypothesized that employees who had 
been in their positions for an appreciable 

http:satisfaction.21
http:implemented.20
http:Jones.19
http:tiations.17
http:today.16
http:sultation.15
http:accelerated.13


506 College & Research Libraries November 2001 

length of time would find it difficult to 
adjust to computers and would be less 
enthusiastic about new technology. How­
ever, such assumptions were unsubstan­
tiated. Although the majority of this 
sample expressed greater job satisfaction 
since the introduction of automation into 
their libraries, they did not believe that 
computers offered any major timesaving 
benefits to their workloads. More than 
one-third of respondents felt that their 
training was inadequate, underscoring a 
need for better preparatory programs. 
Health problems and high stress levels 
stemming from computer usage also were 
prominent. Without specific reference to 
technology, an open-ended question 
asked, “What part of your job causes you 
the most frustration?”22 Sixty-two percent 
of all replies mentioned computer-related 
frustrations (e.g., computer being down, 
slow response time, not enough termi­
nals, too many different systems to learn). 

After all, technostress is not terminal 
(although it can be caused by one). 

Kahan’s 1996 interviews with nine Ten­
nessee medical librarians revealed a 
strong commitment to, and an eager ad­
aptation of, emerging computer informa­
tion technology.23 Their proactive atti­
tudes toward self-training and integrat­
ing new skills into their professional re­
sponsibilities to improve customer service 
were laudable, particularly in light of the 
inadequate institutional support that was 
revealed. 

In an era when many academic librar­
ies were in their initial technology acqui­
sition phase, Jones conducted a 1988 sur­
vey of support staff perceptions in three 
university libraries—the University of 
California at Santa Barbara, Northern Il­
linois University in DeKalb, and the Uni­
versity of Richmond.24 On the brink of a 
computer technology revolution, her re­
search sought to analyze the assimilation 
process experienced by the bulk of library 
workers whose voice had yet to be ac­
knowledged. Although Jones presented 
data results of a questionnaire without 

drawing many conclusions, the overall 
survey indicated a positive attitude 
coupled with undercurrents of personal 
frustration and irritation. 

“Ten Years Later: Support Staff Percep­
tions and Opinions on Technology in the 
Workplace” presented the results of 
Jones’s 1998 follow-up survey of the same 
sample group.25 Her initial questions, 
which had probed feelings about work­
ing with new technologies, training, pro­
duction speed, workload demands, re­
wards, personnel changes, involvement 
in decision making, and philosophical/ 
social implications, were updated to also 
query Internet usage and health issues. 
Reactions to the effects of technological 
change generally remained positive, with 
slight hesitancy. The pressure to keep up 
had intensified, there was still a gap in 
training, and new health/stress anxieties 
over computer-related ailments surfaced. 
In the 1998 survey, respondents’ attention 
shifted from automation in cataloging/ 
technical services to an emphasis on tech­
nological advancements in reference/re­
search departments. Upon discovering 
that only 25 percent of support staff per­
sonnel were included in library technol­
ogy planning and decision making, Jones 
argued strongly on behalf of their in­
volvement. She observed that: 

Change in the magnitude we are 
now experiencing is almost sure to 
cause turbulence. Collegial under­
standing among all members of a 
library staff, if carefully fostered, can 
certainly minimize trouble and 
maximize the many strengths avail­
able to make technological transi­
tions smoother.26 

Technostress in Libraries 
Defined originally by Craig Brod in 1984, 
technostress is considered to be a “modern 
disease of adaptation caused by an inabil­
ity to cope with new technologies in a 
healthy manner.”27 This definition covers 
a broad range of psycho-socio-physiologi­
cal problems that may be derived from the 
use of automation. There is an expanding 

http:smoother.26
http:group.25
http:Richmond.24
http:technology.23


 

Technological Change in the Workplace 507 

body of interdisciplinary literature on the 
subject, but no definitive evidence of a 
technostress crisis affecting librarians.28 For 
pertinent commentaries, the reader is re­
ferred to the following: an expert analysis 
by John J. Kupersmith; Gary M. Pitkin’s 
overview of cause and reaction to stress; 
Virginia F. Moreland’s comparison of per­
sonality types; Richard A. Hudiburg’s re­
search testing using a “Computer Hassles 
Scale”; Katie Clark and Sally Kalin’s cop­
ing strategies; and Michael Gorman’s trea­
tise on library values.29 

The 1993 World Labour Report placed 
computer-related jobs at the top of the list 
of stressful jobs, signaling that 
technostress has become increasingly glo­
balized.30 In striking contrast, the Jobs 
Rated Almanac continues to rank the posi­
tion of librarian in its list of top twenty-
five least stressful occupations, thereby 
reinforcing a publicly held image (yet to 
be challenged) that library work is not a 
technological field.31 

During the initial phases of conversion 
to a statewide automation system in Ohio, 
Donna Popovich surveyed eighteen li­
braries in the early 1990s to investigate 
staff resistance to change, computer anxi­
ety, and technostress.32 Attitudes toward 
the changes were analyzed in relation to 
implementation stages. She found that 
stress diminished as the system became 
fully operational and that both resistance 
and technoanxiety were found to be un­
related to the automation conversion. 

In 1995, Pamela M. Rose, Kristin 
Stoklosa, and Sharon A. Gray conducted 
a focus group study to ascertain causes 
of stress among part-time reference staff 
in a university health sciences library.33 

They determined that the increasing use 
of technology was partially to blame for 
inducing anxiety. Sources of frustration 
included intrusive phone calls at the ref­
erence desk while trying to serve indi­
viduals and the “technological idolatry” 
of students who unrealistically expected 
to complete class assignments using in­
appropriate electronic resources.34 

Robin Clute’s 1998 thesis examined 
technostress literature by evaluating fifty-

eight articles for symptoms of, reasons for, 
and recommendations how to handle 
technostress.35 Coded results denoted com­
mon symptoms such as fear and anxiety, 
with reasons implying computer inexpe­
rience and performance anxiety. The most 
frequently cited recommendation to alle­
viate or avoid technostress was training. 

One of the few traces in the literature 
on technostress in community college li­
braries and learning resource centers was 
a 1992 article edited by Kate D. Hickey.36 

The authors contributed case study ex­
amples from Kentucky, Florida, and Geor­
gia two-year institutions where stress re­
sulted from rapid implementation of new 
technologies. Start-up of a statewide li­
brary automation system in Kentucky 
required employees to juggle learning 
new computer programs while serving 
increased user demands. Good planning, 
inclusion of staff, and thorough training 
were remedies for the strain. 

Experiences at St. Petersburg Junior 
College, in Florida, showed that person­
nel felt overwhelmed when required to 
adopt and adapt to simultaneous tech­
nologies involving different operating 
systems. Inventory preparation for con­
version to a statewide library system, 
while also complying with local campus 
networking, demanded extensive train­
ing (without equivalent practice time) that 
had a negative impact on public service. 

At DeKalb College, in Atlanta, library 
staff learned to use an online catalog, e-
mail, facsimile, laser scanning, CD-ROM, 
and Internet technologies all at once. Sur­
prisingly, the loss of traditional print in­
formation was the factor that created the 
most distress for staff. 

Recommended coping strategies that 
were successfully employed by adminis­
trators in these community colleges in­
cluded endorsement of proper balance 
among work/professional life, periodic 
breaks, participation in professional or­
ganizations, group planning to stimulate 
a team atmosphere, and maintaining a 
sense of humor. After all, technostress is 
not terminal (although it can be caused 
by one). 

http:Hickey.36
http:technostress.35
http:resources.34
http:library.33
http:technostress.32
http:field.31
http:balized.30
http:values.29
http:librarians.28


508 College & Research Libraries November 2001 

Purpose of the Research 
The purpose of this study was to explore 
the perceptions and attitudes of library 
personnel in Florida community colleges 
regarding issues of technological change 
affecting their work. In light of commu­
nity colleges’ innovative orientation, 
adaptability to changing educational 
needs, and strong state network, do 
Florida community college library em­
ployees react positively to change? Five 
general areas were scrutinized: (1) per­
sonal/philosophical factors, (2) training, 
(3) personnel, (4) management issues, and 
(5) performance, workload, and reward. 

The current research was the third rep­
lication of a survey originally designed by 
Dorothy E. Jones of Northern Illinois Uni­
versity and published in Library Trends.37 
Her first questionnaire and its follow-up 
administration ten years later revealed 
some reservations among university li­
brary support staff about technological 
change on their work. Pressures to keep 
up with learning new technologies in con­
junction with heavier workloads and per­
sonnel decreases, were growing concerns 
among the support staff in the university 
libraries sampled. The authors of the cur­
rent research were interested in seeing 
whether administration of the same ques­
tions to a broader spectrum of library per­
sonnel in community colleges would yield 
results similar to those generated from the 
university group. 

Procedures 
Permission to use her questionnaire to 
conduct a Florida survey was granted by 
author Dorothy E. Jones. The instrument 
consisted of thirty-four multiple-choice 
questions requiring one or more answers, 
followed by a section soliciting open-
ended comments. Questions related to the 
five areas under investigation were dis­
persed randomly throughout the survey 
rather than grouped together. Personal 
background queries on education and 
experience as asked by Jones were omit­
ted in the Florida survey so as to encour­
age maximum participation and anonym­
ity. Respondents were assured the results 

would be tabulated and presented with­
out reference to particular libraries. 

The American Library Directory 1999­
2000, 52nd edition, was used to estimate 
the number of workers employed in the 
twenty-eight Florida public community 
colleges.38 Both professional and parapro­
fessional library staff were included in the 
sample population. An explanatory cover 
letter and a packet of surveys were mailed 
to the designated director of each library/ 
learning resource center in May 2000, 
with a three-month window of opportu­
nity for completion. Of the 665 surveys 
distributed, 302 were returned by August 
2000 for a response rate of 45.4 percent. 

The collected data were compiled and 
analyzed using descriptive statistics. Re­
sults of the research were displayed in 
pictorial representations as charts and 
graphs for presentation to the Learning 
Resources Commission of the Florida As­
sociation of Community Colleges at its 
annual convention in November 2000. 

Findings
FinsonallFhilosophical Factons 
Several questions of a subjective nature 
were designed to elicit personal feelings, 
reactions to working with computers, 
impact on health, stress levels, and philo­
sophical attitudes. 

Respondents were given a choice of 
nine words to describe their feelings about 
working with computers, as exhibited in 
table 1. Positive terms—excitement, enjoy­
ment, pleasure, and competency—were 
checked most frequently. “Frustration” 
was the most-checked negative word. 
Other negative terms—inadequacy, dis­
like, irritation, and tolerance—were 
checked much less frequently. The overall 
picture was one of positive attitudes to­
ward using computer technology. 

Another way to probe reactions to 
working with changing technologies was 
to ask respondents how they felt about 
learning something new. Almost 63 per­
cent indicated that they look forward to 
learning something new, compared to 12 
percent who said they felt irritated be­
cause of insufficient time. 

http:colleges.38
http:Trends.37


 

 

Technological Change in the Workplace 509 

TABLE 1

Descriptions of Feelings about Working


with Computers (N = 302)
 

mastering humans (56.9%, n = 
302). Nearly a third thought that 
automation neither dehumanizes 
nor influences creativity. 

Training 
The training needs of library per­
sonnel appear to be well met in the 
Florida community college system. 
With regard to what is demanded 
of employees relative to learning 
new technologies, those who think 
they are expected to learn too 
much too fast were found to be in 
the minority (24.5%). 

Eighty-one percent of commu-

Frequency* Percentage 
Enjoyment 209 69.2
Excitement 189 62.6
Competency 155 51.3
Pleasure 140 46.4
Frustration 122 40.4
Tolerance 64 21.2
Irritation 59 19.5
Inadequacy 39 12.9
Dislike 13 4.3 
* Respondents could check as many as applicable. 

Although technology-related health 
issues (e.g., technostress, carpal tunnel 
syndrome, ergonomics) appear to be 
prominent subjects in popular literature 
today, they received only slight concern 
from this sample group of library em­
ployees. Most (51.5%) believed that tech­
nology had made their work “neither 
less nor more stressful.” Reasons why 
some felt that technology increased their 
levels of job stress included: too little 
training (26.2%), rapid rate of change 
(11.9%), things too complicated (8%), and 
unrealistic pressure to produce (9.1%). In 
contrast to Jones’s survey reporting se­
rious levels of medical/psychiatric 
technostress suffered by 
university library staff, 
it was practically a moot 
question in the commu­
nity college ranks. 
People for whom tech­
nology had impacted 
health negatively were 
in the minority, and 38.9 
percent had no opinion 
one way or another. 

As for opinions on 
the social-philosophical 
implications of technol­
ogy, most respondents 
viewed people in con­
t rol of automation, 
rather than machines 

nity college library personnel said 
the quality of training they receive 

is moderately good to excellent. When 
asked to think beyond their own personal 
training experiences to judge the technol­
ogy training program librarywide, the re­
spondents’ quality ratings dropped 
slightly to 70 percent, perceiving quality 
to be adequate to excellent. 

As portrayed in figure 1, the question 
concerning whether employees are “ex­
pected to learn too many things too fast” 
received a significantly negative response 
from 62.4% of the sample. 

Preferences among various types of 
technology education also were solicited. 
Workshop learning, in a structured class, 
and with a manual on one’s own received 

FIGURE 1
Do You Think Library Employees Are Expected to
Learn Too Many New Things Too Fast? (N = 302) 

No 
62% 

No Opinion 
13% 

Yes 
25% 

Yes 
No 
No Opinion 



510 College & Research Libraries November 2001 

cording to 60.6 per-TABLE 2
cent of respondents. Perception of Displacement/Replacement of People Whether technologyby Technology (N = 281*) has influenced staff 
stability apparently Frequency* Percentage was difficult for re-We have a better organization. 88 31.3 spondents to deter-I feel good about the changes. 67 23.8 mine because nearlyPeople have been treated fairly. 64 22.8 a third (32.9%) of the We are no better off than we were before. 45 16 sample had no opin-People have been treated badly. 13 4.6 ion.It makes me angry. 4 1.4 

* Twenty-one people did not respond. Management Issues 
Community college 

the highest number of favorable re- library personnel in Florida are posi­
sponses. Learning new technologies from tively inclined toward implementing 
a supervisor or friend were the least-pre- new technologies, as evidenced by the 
ferred methods (9%). fact that three-quarters (75.4%) of the 

survey respondents rated their library’s 
Personnel progress as being “just right” and sup-
Sixty-two percent of the Florida commu- ported quick movement into new areas. 
nity college respondents felt that people Although most were satisfied with the 
had been neither replaced nor displaced pace of technological development, one-
by technology, almost twice as many as fourth (25.2%) felt that new technologies 
in Jones’s university sample who re- were introduced into their work areas too 
sponded more negatively. Less than two slowly. 
percent of the community college em- The availability of technical assis­
ployees felt angry about displacement/ tance was queried, with almost 81 per-
replacement of people by technology, and cent rating their libraries as very good 
nearly a third said that “we have a better or excellent. Seventy percent of commu­
organization” as a result of it. Table 2 dis- nity college library/learning resource 
plays sentences that respondents chose to employees use the Internet in their work 
describe their feelings about the displace- “a lot.” 
ment/replacement of people by technol- As shown in table 3, when asked what 
ogy. library department had made the great-

Recent patterns of personnel 
changes in community college li- TABLE 3
braries were difficult to deduce Greatest Positive Technological Strides
from this survey. Nearly a quarter by Department
(21.5%) of the respondents indi­
cated that there was no change in Frequency* Percentage 
the number of library personnel in Reference 132 43.7
the past five years; the departments Circulation 84 27.8
that increased or reduced employ- Information Delivery/ILL 81 26.8
ees seemed evenly divided. How- Cataloging 73 24.2
ever, the majority (52.5%) did not Serials Management 49 16.2
believe that technology was re- Acquisitions 48 15.9
sponsible for most of the person- Other 18 5.9 
nel changes. 

The personnel stability factor * Some respondents checked more than one answer. 
has remained about the same, ac­



 
  

 
  

 

  

  

Technological Change in the Workplace 511 

est positive technological advancements, 
Florida community college individuals 
ranked reference first, followed by circu­
lation and information delivery/interli­
brary loan. Only two years earlier, Jones’s 
university study cited stronger numbers 
for the cataloging department as making 
the most progress. 

Respondents were asked whether su­
pervisors in their libraries/learning re­
source centers used technical surveillance 
to monitor staff productivity, but nearly 
half (41.6%) ventured no opinion on this 
practice. 

A low degree (37.9%) of staff involve­
ment in technological decision-making 
was revealed, although there appears to 
be very high interest (72.6%) in offering 
more input into planning and decision-
making regarding technology. 

Performance, Workload, Reward 
As revealed by their positive responses 
to a series of questions about technologi­
cal progress in libraries/learning resource 
centers, community college personnel 
perceived that technology has made li­
brary work easier, faster, and more accu­
rate. The majority (63.5%) also believed 
that technology has increased their 
workload and added more responsibili­

ties to their jobs. Whether technology al­
lows more or less control over one’s work­
day received a neutral reaction. There was 
little disagreement that technological ad­
vances have improved the accuracy of li­
brary records, as expressed by 82.6 per­
cent of respondents. 

Technostress resulting from too little 
training has apparently been 
alleviated in Florida by a strong 
statewide training program available 
to community college library 
personnel. 

As displayed in figure 2, many partici­
pants felt that additional responsibilities 
stemming from technological changes 
were not adequately reflected in pay­
checks, job descriptions, or degree of re­
spect from colleagues. 

Comparisons to Jones Study 
Library automation is new to neither uni­
versities nor community colleges, al­
though implementation and expansion of 
it within these systems of higher educa­
tion has varied considerably over the past 
few decades. In Jones’s study of univer­
sity support staff and the current investi­
gation of community college personnel, 

FIGURE 2

When Additional Responsibility is Assigned in My Library,


It is Reflected in: (N = 302)
 
Paycheck 

Paycheck 2% 

Job Job Description 
None of Description 
Above 33% 

Respect Shown to 50% 
Individual 

Respect None of Above 
Shown to 
Individual 

15% 



512 College & Research Libraries November 2001 

reactions to working with new technolo­
gies were quite similar. Overall, there was 
a positive attitude among library employ­
ees toward learning and using high-tech 
automation. 

Both library groups of university and 
community college employees felt left out 
of decision-making during acquisition 
and incorporation of technology in their 
workplace and indicated a strong desire 
to participate in the process. 

The impact of technology on health was 
surprisingly different between the univer­
sity and community college respondents, 
with Jones’s sample suffering more nega­
tive consequences. Technostress resulting 
from too little training has apparently been 
alleviated in Florida by a strong statewide 
training program available to community 
college library personnel. 

There was a greater perception by 
Jones’s university respondents of a less-
stable personnel environment in libraries 
and the belief that people have been both 
replaced and displaced by technology. 
More community college library respon­
dents felt that they have been treated 
fairly during the recent surge of techno­
logical growth than did Jones’s univer­
sity support staff. 

Implications for Planning and 
Implementing Technological Change 
Results of the survey imply that library 
personnel in Florida community colleges 
are receptive to a changing workplace, but 
greater consideration should be given to 
issues involving decision-making, job 
descriptions, and reward. 

Employees feel disenfranchised from 
the process of incorporating new technolo­
gies into their work areas. Who better to 
be included in the technical planning than 
those who are directly affected by such 
changes! Increased cooperation, smoother 
transitions, and greater support of changes 
could result from such inclusion. 

More attention needs to be directed to­
ward revising and updating library job 
descriptions to adequately reflect increased 
duties involving new technologies. Rapid 
changes in library automation require that 

job descriptions at all levels be reviewed 
by supervisors more frequently, not just 
when human resource departments de­
mand the procedure. In recent years, many 
Florida institutions have engaged the ser­
vices of consulting firms outside education 
to accomplish this analysis, often to the 
detriment of academic library units. A 
compilation of current job descriptions 
published by ACRL offers a starting point 
to improve the “one-size-fits-all” industry 
terminology being applied by such exter­
nal forces.39 

Areas of performance, workload, and 
reward produced the most noticeable 
red flags. 

As job descriptions are revamped in 
light of new technologies, it is important 
to be realistic about heaping more tasks 
on library personnel without also scaling 
back on inessentials. For example, com­
munity college libraries and learning re­
source centers in Florida have begun a 
“stop doing” campaign in an attempt to 
identify practices that are no longer vi­
able in a changing information environ­
ment. Community colleges have a long 
tradition of doing more with less. Perhaps 
it would be better to point out that we 
can no longer afford to do so. 

Florida public community colleges 
continue to receive meager increases in 
funding from the state legislature.40 Sig­
nificant pay increases are unlikely in the 
near term, despite the spiraling technical 
complexity of library/learning resource 
jobs. Therefore, college administrators 
should think beyond traditional reward 
systems for their personnel and test in­
novative incentives and recognitions in 
lieu of monetary compensation. Employ­
ees with good performance records may 
be recognized with perks such as flex­
time, floating holidays, telecommuting, 
job sharing, career-banding (i.e., no mini­
mum/maximum pay ranges), office space 
privileges, equipment upgrades, and ex­
perience certificates in the form of vouch­
ers to attend special schools, retreats, or 
excursion groups.41 

http:groups.41
http:legislature.40
http:forces.39


Technological Change in the Workplace 513 

Other states may look to emulate 
Florida’s College Center for Library Au­
tomation (CCLA) in addressing the train­
ing needs of library personnel. The well-
organized statewide series of workshops 
sponsored by CCLA have a proven track 
record of assuaging technophobias asso­
ciated with learning new technologies. 
They are also planning to experiment 
with alternative training formats and will 
soon launch Web-based modules. Because 
staff training will always be a continuing 
need, benchmarks and best practices such 
as those used in Florida and other state 
systems should be widely disseminated 
to a national audience. 

Conclusion 
Results of the survey indicate that Florida 
community college library/learning re­
source employees ar e handling 
techochange admirably. With regard to 
the personal/philosophical factors inves­
tigated, they appear enthusiastic and op­
timistic about incorporating new tech­
nologies in their work, while manifesting 
nearly negligible stress-related conse­
quences. Training needs have been cov­
ered sufficiently in Florida two-year col­
leges. Perceptions of the impact of 
technology on personnel changes are 
somewhat ambiguous, although most 
employed in community college library/ 
learning resource centers are unruffled by 
any technological threat of displacement/ 
replacement. In terms of management is­
sues examined, the professional mantra 
to include staff in planning and decisions 
that affect their work environments is ap­
parently still lip service that has yet to be 
actualized. Areas of performance, 
workload, and reward produced the most 
noticeable red flags. Despite enhanced 
work performance resulting from techno­
logical progress, it also has expanded 

workloads while commensurate remu­
neration remains stagnant. 

If other states are experiencing eco­
nomic belt-tightening of a degree compa­
rable to Florida, a collective national dia­
logue is now critical. More than merely 
adapting, coping, or tolerating new tech­
nology is requisite for library/learning 
resource specialists to take a leadership 
role in the information marketplace. If we 
fail to ride the waves of change, we may 
soon find ourselves drowning beneath 
the deluge! 

Recommendations for Further 
Research 
The authors suggest replicating this sur­
vey in Florida after a new statewide li­
brary automation system has been imple­
mented. Although the community 
colleges were in final stages of migration 
to a new DRA system (Taos) in early 2002, 
the entire public higher education system 
is currently in a reorganizational flux. 
Recent government actions have decreed 
that the twenty-eight public community 
colleges and ten state universities must 
merge their library management systems 
and develop one new, common library 
portal.42 Under the gun to proceed imme­
diately, they are being forced to work to­
gether cooperatively to deliver seamless 
library information services to a broad 
clientele. It is expected that the State Li­
brary of Florida—including all public li­
braries—and K–12 schools also will join 
to form an experimental future model of 
“womb-to-tomb” (or K–100) library ser­
vices to a statewide population. As imple­
mentation of the shared system 
progresses, it will be interesting to com­
pare rates of technostress among all seg­
ments of library/learning resource per­
sonnel resulting from this state-mandated 
technological change in the workplace. 

Notes 

1. Kent A. Phillippe and Michael J. Valiga, “Summary Report,” Faces of the Future: A Portrait 
of America’s Community Colleges, Apr. 2000. Available online from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ 
initiatives/faces/facesfut.pdf. 

2. John Immerwahr and Anthony Foleno, Great Expectations: How the Public and Parents— 
White, African American and Hispanic—View Higher Education (San Jose, Calif.: National Center for 

http:http://www.aacc.nche.edu
http:portal.42


514 College & Research Libraries November 2001 

Public Policy and Higher Education, 2000). See also “Florida and the Nation at Large,” Great 
Expectations: How Floridians View Higher Education, Aug. 2000, available online from http:// 
www.highereducation.org/reports/expectations_fl/expectations1.shtml. 

3. Yahoo!, “Two-Year School Rankings,” America’s Most Wired Colleges 2000. Available online 
from http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/college/college2000/rank_twoyears_100.html. 

4. State of Florida Technology Review Workgroup, “New Developments Arising from Cur­
rent Legislative Session” (Unpublished document submitted to State of Florida Legislature, Tal­
lahassee, Mar. 2001). 

5. Larry R. Oberg, “Library Support Staff Deployment and Utilization: Achieving Clarity in 
an Age of Change,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 23, no. 1 (Jan. 1997): 42–43. 

6. Allen B. Veaner, “Paradigm Lost, Paradigm Regained? A Persistent Personnel Issue in 
Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 55 (Sept. 1994): 389–402; Jerry D. Campbell, 
“Shaking the Conceptual Foundations of Reference: A Perspective,” Reference Services Review 20, 
no. 4 (1992): 29–36; Mary Lynn Rice-Lively and J. Drew Racine, “The Role of Academic Librar­
ians in the Era of Information Technology,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 23 (1997): 37; Miriam 
A. Drake, “Technological Innovation and Organizational Change Revisited,” Journal of Academic 
Librarianship 26, no. 1 (Jan. 2000): 53–59. 

7. Marshall A. Berger, “Technology Brings Challenges and Opportunities for Support Staff,” 
American Libraries (Mar. 1997): 30–31. 

8. Janice Simmons-Welburn, comp., “Changing Roles of Library Professionals: SPEC Kit 256,” 
ERIC ED 443440 (2000). 

9. Oberg, “Library Support Staff in an Age of Change: Utilization, Role Definition and Sta­
tus,” ERIC ED 382197; Bonnie A. Osif and Richard L. Harwood, “Support Staff Issues,” Library 
Administration & Management 14, no. 4 (fall 2000): 228–32. 

10. Charles Schwartz, ed., Restructuring Academic Libraries: Organizational Development in the 
Wake of Technological Change. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 1997. 

11. James G. Neal, “Academic Libraries: 2000 and Beyond,” Library Journal, 121 (July 1996): 
74–76. 

12. John Perry and Anne Woodsworth, “Innovation and Change: Can We Learn from Corpo­
rate Models? Journal of Academic Librarianship 21, no. 2 (Mar. 1995): 117–19. 

13. Karyle Butcher, “Reflections on Academic Librarianship,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 
25, no. 5 (Sept. 1999): 350–53. 

14. Amy M. Kautzman, “Digital Impact: Reality, the Web, and the Changed Business of Ref­
erence,” Searcher 7 (Mar. 1999): 23. 

15. Soo Young Rieh, “Changing Reference Service Environment: A Review of Perspectives 
from Managers, Librarians, and Users,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, no. 3 (May 1999): 
178–86. 

16. Kautzman, “Digital Impact,” 18–23. 
17. Drake, “Technological Innovation and Organizational Change Revisited,” 53–59. 
18. Osif and Harwood, “Change: Challenges and Coping, Part II,” Library Administration & 

Management 14, no. 1 (winter 2000): 39. 
19. Elizabeth B. Winstead, “Staff Reactions to Automation,” Computers in Libraries 14, no. 4 

(Apr. 1994): 18–21; Cathleen C. Palmini, “The Impact of Computerization on Library Support 
Staff: A Study of Support Staff in Academic Libraries in Wisconsin,” College & Research Libraries 
55 (Mar. 1994): 119–27; Roberta Kahan, “Attitudes of East Tennessee Medical Librarians about 
Evolving Computer Information Technology,” Tennessee Librarian 49, no. 1 (summer 1997): 19–26; 
Dorothy E. Jones, “Library Support Staff and Technology: Perceptions and Opinions,” Library 
Trends 37 (spring 1989): 432–56; —–, “Ten Years Later: Support Staff Perceptions and Opinions on 
Technology in the Workplace,” Library Trends 47 (spring 1999): 711–45. 

20. Winstead, “Staff Reactions to Automation.” 
21. Palmini, “The Impact of Computerization on Library Support Staff.” 
22. Ibid., 124. 
23. Kahan, “Attitudes of East Tennessee Medical Librarians.” 
24. Jones, “Library Support Staff and Technology.” 
25. ———, “Ten Years Later.” 
26. Ibid., 711. 
27. Craig Brod, Technostress: The Human Cost of the Computer Revolution (Reading, Mass.: 

Addison-Wesley, 1984), 16. 
28. D. Fisher, “Technostress and the Librarian: A Critical Discussion,” Education Libraries Jour­

nal 39, no. 2 (summer 1996): 9–14. 
29. John J. Kupersmith, “Technostress and the Reference Librarian,” Reference Services Review 

20, no. 2 (summer 1992): 7–14, 50, available online from http://home.pacbell.net/jjkup/ 
tstress.html; Gary M. Pitkin, “Technostress in Libraryland,” Colorado Libraries 23 (fall 1997): 58– 

http://home.pacbell.net/jjkup
http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/college/college2000/rank_twoyears_100.html
www.highereducation.org/reports/expectations_fl/expectations1.shtml


 

Technological Change in the Workplace 515 

61; Virginia F. Moreland, “Technostress and Personality Type,” Online 17 (July 1993): 59–62; Rich­
ard A. Hudiburg, “Assessing and Managing Technostress,” available online from http:// 
www2.una.edu/psychology/alatalk.htm; Katie Clark and Sally Kalin, “Technostressed Out? How 
to Cope in the Digital Age,” Library Journal 121 (Aug. 1996): 30–33; Michael Gorman, “Technostress 
and Library Values,” Library Journal 126 (Apr. 2001): 48–50. 

30. James McPartin, “Ten Years of Hard Labor: Computer-related Jobs Top the List of Stressful 
Occupations,” Information Week, 29 Mar. 1993, 52. 

31. Les Krantz, Jobs Rated Almanac (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999). 
32. Donna Popovich, “The Effects of Computer Anxiety and Technostress, as Functions of 

Resistance to Change, on the Staff of the 18 Founding OhioLINK Libraries as the OhioLINK 
System Is Initiated,” ERIC ED 401923 (1994). 

33. Pamela M. Rose, Kristin Stoklosa, and Sharon A. Gray, “A Focus Group Approach to As­
sessing Technostress at the Reference Desk,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 37, no. 4 (sum­
mer 1998): 311–17. 

34. Ibid., 314. 
35. Robin Clute, “Technostress: A Content Analysis,” ERIC ED 423911 (1998). 
36. Kate D. Hickey, ed., “Technostress in Libraries and Media Centers: Case Studies and Cop­

ing Strategies,” TechTrends 37, no. 2 (1992): 17–20. 
37. Jones, “Ten Years Later,” 711–45. 
38. American Library Directory 1999–2000, 52nd ed. (New Providence, N.J.: R. R. Bowker, 1999). 
39. Judy Born, Sue Clayton, and Aggie Balash, comps. and eds., Community College Library Job 

Descriptions and Organizational Charts (Chicago: Community and Junior College Library Section, 
Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000). 

40. Florida public community colleges were allocated $29.8 million more state program fund­
ing in the 2001 legislative session, in comparison to a $45.4 million increase given to the State 
University System, despite the fact that community colleges serve four times more students. See 
“2001 Session Summary of Major Legislation Passed,” Florida Senate 2001 Session Summary, avail­
able online from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/publications/2001/senate/reports/summaries/pdf/ 
approp.pdf. 

41. Kathryn Tyler, “Compensation Strategies Can Foster Lateral Moves and Growing in Place,” 
HR Magazine 43 (Apr. 1998): 64–71. 

42. State of Florida Senate Bill 1162 Second Engrossed, 8 May 2001, 47. Available online from 
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/session/index.cfm. 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/session/index.cfm
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/publications/2001/senate/reports/summaries/pdf