THE LIBRARY MANAGER'S DESKBOOK --- 102 EXPERT
SOLUTIONS TO 101 COMMON DILEMMAS Paula Carson and
Kerry Carson and Joyce Phillips. American Library Association, 1995
    HOW TO USE THIS DESKBOOK

    Given the hectic and relentless pace demanded of library professionals, very few managers have the luxury of reading a book from cover to cover.

    Recognizing this fact, the deskbook was designed in a way that, when managerial difficulties arise, the you can immediately locate the problem and quickly find effective and legally defensible solutions.

    STEP 1--- Locating a problem

    All 101 Questions are listed in the Contents section of this book

    The 101 questions are organized into 18 "Topical" Chapters. And the 18 Chapters are organized into Five Sections:

      1) Communication Issues --- A section that should be consulted when interactions with staff members and patrons are more conflict-ridden and less productive than desired.

      2) Professional Issues --- A section that should be consulted when questions arise about the rights and responsibilities of either professional or support staff members.

      3) Employment Issues --- A section that should be consulted when you, the library manager, are in the process of screening and hiring new job applicants.

      4) Personnel Issues --- A section that should be consulted when current staff members feel they are not being fairly treated or when they feel their contributions are not being adequately recognized.

      5) Liability Issues --- A section that should be consulted when the library is threatened by inappropriate staff behaviors, natural disasters, health risks, or even unsocialized patrons.

    STEP 2 --- Implementing the Proposed Solution

    Once you have located the relevant problem, answers are presented in comprebensive, understandable terms.

    Lingo, jargon and abstract solutions are all avoided. Instead, the answers focus on solutions that are useful, effective, and legal.

    Each solution offered has been tried and tested, and established as sound practice in the managerial literature.

    STEP 3 --- Preventing Problems Altogether

    Significantly, this book assumes that the best time to think about a problem is before it occurs! Instead, the book offers a "102nd" solution, which is a solution aimed at preventing problems before they arise! It is a simple, but integrated, overview of the philosophy of "Total Quality Management."

    This management approach is introduced as a mechanism for anticipating and mitigating potential dilemmas before they escalate into problems that will require your intervention.

    Thus chapter 19 differs from the earlier chapters that focus on detecting and resolving problems after they occur. Instead of adopting a retrospective perspective, the "102nd Solution" is a continuous and prospective strategy.

    In short, then, this book is aimed at assisting you --- as a manager --- before, during, and after management crises surface.

    STEP 4 --- Detecting Problems of Which the Manager Is Unaware

    In many organizations (including libraries), managers reach uninformed conclusions, implement suboptimal solutions, and adopt potentially illegal positions because they are unaware of preferable alternatives.

    To highlight areas where these pitfalls are particularly likely, the "Management Maxims --- Guidelines for Browsers" section is included at the end of this "deskbook."

    STEP 5 --- The "Management Maxims" They are statements condensed from the solutions or statements intended to highlight common misperceptions, refute accepted myths, and dispel managerial fallacies.

    By browsing through this section, you may find suggested solutions when you thought there were none. You may also discover that solutions are available to problems that you did not recognize as a problem. In short, the "Management Maxims" can alert you to questions that have not been, but perhaps should be, raised in your library setting!

    CHAPTER 12

    Potential pitfalls in performance evaluations

    QUESTION 62

    Why are performance appraisals so often met with resistance?

    Although it is statistically impossible, four out of five library staff members believe their performance is "above average," and 90 percent think they out-perform their peers. Given the natural tendency to overestimate individual performance, employees who receive negative appraisals are likely to grow defensive and resentful. But employees are not the only ones who don't like performance evaluations. Library managers don't like them either. Nearly three-quarters of all supervisors question the usefulness of evaluating subordinate performance.

    Although appraisals are often met with opposition and cynicism, the evaluation of work-related behaviors dates back several centuries. For example, in the 1600s, the Chinese Civil Service employed an "Imperial Rater" to assess the Royal Family's performance. The first industrial appraisal system was devised around 1800 by Robert Owens, a Scottish industrialist, who would place color-coded blocks at each worker's station indicating the previous day's performance.

    If you survey the librarianship literature, you can find that writings on performance appraisals date back to an article in the September 1887 issue of the Library journal. A 1914 monograph on the Oxford University Libraries demonstrates the simplicity of early library evaluations. It states that the Library director "who was to be in the Holy Orders, should once a year hand over to the Chancellor and Procters the keys of the library. If after visitation he was found to be fit in morals, fidelity, and ability, he received them back." Despite historical precedent, performance appraisal continues to be the subject of much research, study, and debate. Since the early 1900s, more than 250 library science articles have been written on this topic.

    QUESTION 63

    Why should performance appraisals be conducted at all?

    Contemporary literature agrees that performance appraisals are conducted for TWO main purposes: (a) developmental --- to identify areas of deficiency that might be improved through training; and (b) evaluative --- to gather data for making personnel decisions about promotions, pay increases, discipline or discharge.

    It is the contradiction between these two purposes that creates resistance to performance evaluations. The former purpose is aimed at helping, while the latter is aimed at judging the worker. Hence, how can an evaluator be perceived as helpful when he or she may jeopardize the worker's future employment?

    Or, how can a staff member admit to needing training when that admission may lead to disciplinary action?

    And how can appraisers give accurate ratings --- if they will diminish trust between the supervisor and the worker? These inherent conflicts can only be resolved through the development of a "procedurally fair" performance evaluation system.

    QUESTION 64

    Who should evaluate staff member performance?

    CHAPTER 65 Finding value in performance evaluations (p109)

    QUESTION 67 Should pay be based upon performance evaluations? 109

    QUESTION 68 What laws should the library manager be aware of when determining compensation? 110

    One critical consideration in designing a fair performance appraisal system is selecting the evaluator or evaluators. Two conditions must be met before an individual can appraise another's performance. First, the evaluator must understand the job requirements of the specific position. Second, the evaluator must have ample opportunity to observe the worker's "on-the-job" performance.
    In over 75 percent of all libraries, a staff member's direct supervisor will be the one and only evaluator. This may, however, be problematic, especially if the supervisor oversees the work of many subordinates, or if the supervisor is geographically separated from her or his subordinates. Furthermore, many library managers do not have the requisite (essential) skills, knowledge, ability, or desire to evaluate staff performance. Therefore, other appraisers should also be considered.

    For example, intra-departmental peer evaluations may be used. However, peers who are employed in different positions may not fully understand the requirements of a coworker's job. Further, peer evaluation may result in deflated ratings --- if employees are competing for advancement to the same position. Or, inflated ratings --- if employees feel a need to "cover" for one another. Therefore, "peer ratings may be more suitable for training than for evaluation purposes. One notable exception is that peer review is typically used to assess the performance of professional librarians. As such, administrators without library science training would not be qualified to serve as evaluators of professional activities.

    A third option is "self-rating" by the worker who is being evaluated. Inviting self-ratings gives staff members the opportunity to identify problems of which others may be unaware, such as outdated technology that prevents maximum performance. Self-ratings may also provide a non-confrontational opportunity for staff members to disagree with library managers. Like peer evaluations, though, self-ratings may be most suitable for developmental or training purposes. If employees trust that honest evaluations will be used only to help improve their performance and not to penalize them, they are more likely to provide accurate assessments of their own deficiencies.

    While supervisory and self-ratings are most often used to evaluate the performance of non-managerial staff, "subordinate evaluations" are increasingly being used to assess the performance of library managers. Subordinates may be asked to evaluate their supervisors since they are in a unique position to provide "constructive feedback" on management styles and methods. To prevent fear of retaliation or artificially inflated evaluations, subordinate evaluators should be anonymous. Concealing the identity of evaluators may, however, encourage subordinates to use performance appraisals to vent hostility and frustration --- especially if there is no other outlet for reporting supervisory misconduct.

    Finally, librarians have a unique opportunity to solicit performance feedback from patrons. Consistent with the "Total Quality Management" philosophy (see chapter 19), "customer" input can be a valuable source of information. However, three caveats are in order.

    First, patrons are likely to report only incidents of extremely good or extremely poor behaviors. Second, some staff members have only minimal contact with patrons, while others have none. In the absence of such contact, patrons do not observe all library staff members in action. And third, patrons often focus only on the personality of the employee, such as friendliness and helpfulness, rather than on more "objective" measures of performance. This is particularly problematic since a 1970 ruling from the Supreme Court in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company indicated that performance appraisals should be tied to job requirements rather than to individual traits.

    QUESTION 65

    What aspects of staff member performance should be evaluated?

    Many performance appraisal techniques, instruments, and formats currently exist. To simplify the confusing choice of which method to use, libraries too often select the one that appears to be the simplest, fastest, or cheapest. However, this encourages the development of arbitrary, unlawful, and ineffective performance appraisal systems. Alternatively, the following four criteria must be considered.

    Validity --- If a performance appraisal instrument evaluates any aspect of behavior or personality that is not included in the job description, the evaluation is "contaminated." If an instrument fails to evaluate any behavior included in the job description, the evaluation is "deficient." Only when there is "perfect overlap" between the instrument and the job description is the evaluation valid.

    Reliability --- Reliability refers to consistency. That is, if two evaluators observe the performance of the same employee, both should provide similar ratings. Such consistency can only result when performance appraisal inquiries are specific and job related.

    Acceptability --- A performance appraisal instrument must be understandable and tolerable by both evaluators and employees. That is, both parties must perceive the evaluation as being fair and beneficial.

    Usefulness --- The appraisal instrument should provide guidance and direction for performance improvement. That is, the employee should be able to examine a "sub-optimal" or "sub-standard" rating and understand what behaviors must be engaged in to improve performance in subsequent evaluation periods.

    Unfortunately, most performance appraisal systems currently used in libraries fail to satisfy these criteria. This is particularly true of the all-too-common "graphic rating scale" format that assesses staff members' personality --- as when evaluators are asked to rate the "cooperativeness" of a staff member on a scale ranging from "unacceptable" to "outstanding." Although simple to construct and use, graphic rating scales always pose two insurmountable problems --- even if inquiries about personality are avoided. First, these scales are not reliable, as anchors such as "outstanding" may mean different things to different raters. Second, these scales do not suggest strategies for performance improvement.

    CONCLUSION --- Given the deficiencies surrounding the graphic rating scale, "behaviorally-based" performance appraisal systems are recommended by personnel experts in the librarianship field!

    QUESTION 69 --- How Can Performance Evaluations Direct Training Initiatives? (p111)

    QUESTION 70 --- What Educational Programming Should Supplement On-the-job Training? (p112)

    QUESTION 71--- How Can the Library Manager Determine If Training Initiatives Are Successful? (p113)

    QUESTION 72 --- What Effect Might Library School Closings Have on the Profession? (p115)

Return to Training Tool #3: Leadership Category Abstracts