Full-text source: WilsonSelect_FT
Are your library support staff
classifications ready for the twenty-first century?.
Author:
Stambaugh, Laine. Source: Library Administration &
Management v. 14 no3 (Summer 2000) p. 167-71 ISSN: 0888-4463
Number: BLIB00007336 Copyright: The magazine publisher is the
copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further
reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.
In the course of compiling a recent ARL SPEC Kit (no. 252) on "Library
Support Staff Classification Studies," it became clear rather quickly that
those of us in academic/research libraries would almost rather move an entire
library collection than devise or even be remotely involved in planning a new
classification system that is applicable to today's workplace environment. In
fact, our initial survey indicated that 95 percent of the respondents are
utilizing a classification system that is eight years or older!(FN1) Why the
hesitation to hunker down and come up with a system that applies to library
support staff jobs as we enter the twenty-first century? We had all our
networks and databases Y2K satisfactory and ready to go at the turn of the
millennium. Why not our vital job classifications?
As stated in Shelley Mosley's "How to Survive a Classification Study"
article in 1998, library classification schemes are currently useful for only
about five to seven years, due to the rapidly changing technologies and
organizational structures within today's libraries.(FN2) These studies are so
labor- and time-intensive it is no small wonder that it takes us ten years to
realize how outdated we are. The alternative is living and trying to work with
a series that no longer operates efficiently. And that does not make any of
our jobs easier.
The State of Oregon recently designed and implemented a more broadband type
of classification system for computer support/analyst positions. These new
classifications ("information technology consultant" is now used in our
library instead of "user support specialist") are meant to reflect, according
to their documentation, "today's business needs and the changing environment
of work. We are moving away from discrete, narrowly focused 'jobs and into an
environment where the complexities of work require broader skills and
flexibility." Sounds like libraries, doesn't it?
Traditionally, state classifications have been scrutinized closely by local
unions, and have consisted of fairly rigid classification ranges with numerous
pay levels that are attained through annual step increases, until one reaches
the top of one's respective range (i.e., through seniority or longevity). We
are anxious to see how this experimental classification system works
especially now that we have just implemented a new Library Technician Series.
This implementation was completed after much time, effort, delay, and all that
is incumbent with a major classification study in a large system (we had six
other state campus libraries providing feedback on our work).
Regardless of the fact that I am already looking ahead to something
"better" in the near future, other academic/research libraries might benefit
from the process and outcome of our project. I have yet to come across any
recent literature on the subject of classification studies in
academic/research libraries that deal solely with library-specific support
staff, so would like to offer these tips to any library that is considering a
classification review in the near future.
WHY DO A CLASSIFICATION STUDY?Our library was fortunate in many ways to be
asked to take the initiative on revising a statewide series via our campus
Human Resources Office. I realize, of course, that this process may not be an
option in all cases, depending on the environment. If you do have a shared
statewide system, however, you might be doing yourself a big favor by
informally polling your colleagues at their respective institutions to see if
they are satisfied with the current system. If not, see what suggestions they
have, keeping in mind that not all campuses or organizations will utilize a
classification system or will support staff positions in the same way. Some
libraries may have more library technicians or library assistants at the lower
levels rather than the higher levels, or vice versa. Individual organizational
history is generally the culprit, whatever the case. But "tradition" does not
necessarily have to tie your hands if you are willing to take the necessary
steps. It is a generally widespread occurrence in academic libraries for
librarians at all levels and ranks to be relinquishing "lower level"
responsibilities to paraprofessional support staff. This allows them to focus
on resolving complex policy and standards questions, provide more in-depth
research assistance and instruction, and possibly exercise greater
administrative and personnel decision-making responsibility.(FN3).
Once you have some sense of what you would like to accomplish (i.e., how do
you want to change the current system and why?), make first contact with your
campus HR classification/compensation manager and share your concerns and
findings. You may be surprised to learn that she would be ecstatic to have the
library spearhead an overview of a system that the campus or state can't make
heads nor tails out of. After all, who speaks "library" better than those of
us who work in them day-in and day-out?
Do keep in mind that not all classification reviews or revisions result in
pay increases whose burden your library must bear. Just acknowledge up front
that this will be a tedious, time-consuming exercise, so you must have a good
reason for attempting it at all.
WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?There are many ways and different methods to go about
this within a library (e.g., point factoring or broadbanding). Our library
administration decided to designate a "library spec team" consisting of four
members (two faculty librarians and two managers, representing personnel,
public services, technical services, and a branch library). Much will depend
on your individual organization (e.g., size, variety of types, and locations
of positions throughout the system). Our spec team met as needed with the
campus HR classification/compensation manager, who in turn, reported back to a
statewide classification/compensation group, thus the entire process was
monitored with checks and balances along the way. It was our spec team that
determined the methods and criteria to be used in the project. The team also
developed a list of distinguishing features and a survey instrument to assist
us in developing a list of typical tasks for each level within the
classification. Department heads and/or supervisors were interviewed about
specific positions we thought would make good benchmarks for the various
classification levels.
The main premise to keep in mind is that the more individuals you have
involved, the more difficult it will be to come to a consensus. You will need
to identify the most expedient route for your library.
JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND BENCHMARKSTypically, the first place to start with is
the dreaded position description. I say dreaded, because most of us agonize
over getting the wording just right or strongly encouraging the supervisor to
get it just right (i.e., describe the job in terms that a layperson could
understand and value) to accurately reflect what it is the person does on the
job. Keep in mind that position descriptions do not need to be as detailed as
a desk manual, but should definitely reflect the criteria that will ultimately
determine its classification level (decision-making authority, independent
problem-solving, supervisory responsibilities, and so on).
The term "benchmark" can be traced back to Robert Camp's book,
Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior
Performance.(FN4) In that study, it was applied to industry standards within
companies such as Xerox and L. L. Bean. The data required for benchmarking are
derived from analyses of organizational processes and procedures.(FN5).
In libraries, we tend to select those positions for benchmarks that are
stable and well defined at the various classification levels (1, 2, 3, etc.).
Those benchmark positions assist in indicating the levels of performance,
responsibility, skills, and expectations required to do the job.
There are, no doubt, many ways to go about this. Our library went over the
organizational staff roster and selected positions we thought would help us
determine benchmarks in the various divisions. Approximately 45 percent of our
support staff positions were scrutinized in order to get a good, fair sampling
that the spec team could agree upon.
Ideally, you will have enough time to plan ahead. Start by requesting that
supervisors submit their most recent employee position descriptions at the
time of the classification study, if they have not recently done so. Outdated
descriptions will not be of much use in this type of study. While functions we
perform in libraries may not have changed much over the years, how we perform
those functions has changed dramatically. Our last statewide classification
allocation occurred in 1990 in Oregon, at which time our library did not even
have a preservation department (the way it is comprised today), therefore,
position descriptions did not fit neatly into typical library technician
classifications. Preservation, conservation, systems and networking, and the
necessity for Web authoring and maintenance are just a few examples of new,
specialized areas that need to be melded into the library fold. We can not do
the work without those essential skills and abilities in today's library
environment.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURESEarly in the spec team's involvement, we were
fortunate enough to come across a matrix of distinguishing features from a
recent study performed by Texas A&M University Libraries.(FN6) Seeing
essential functions and responsibilities divided up into neat squares
immediately made us feel confident. We knew where we wanted to go and the
desired final outcome: a concise, one-page document that clearly delineated
the difference between levels of our library technicians. From that list, we
were able to develop our own list of core values and weighted criteria. A copy
of that document is available in the ARL SPEC Kit (no. 252) mentioned in the
first paragraph of this article. This will be the cornerstone of your
classification study.
TYPICAL TASKS--THE INTERVIEWSIn order to identify the typical tasks
performed by our library technicians, the spec team developed a Position
Analysis Survey. This survey was tested on a few colleagues. The team then
interviewed immediate supervisors for the positions chosen for review. While
not a perfect instrument, this survey allowed us to quickly identify patterns
of typical tasks and benchmarks at the various classification levels. It was
our goal to reflect a proportionate number of both technical and public
services types of tasks, as well as those that might be performed in a branch
library or special unit. Consequently, our final list was longer than we would
have liked. But at least it consisted of new functions, tools and processes
utilized in today's workflow.
It is worth noting that not all supervisors are equally adept at writing
position descriptions that accurately reflect what their employees are
actually doing (i.e., convey the value of the position functions). This was
the very reason we decided to conduct face-to-face interviews. These
interviews also allowed us to allay their fears (which they could then relate
to their individual employees) as to why we were doing this study, what was
happening, and what the process would be. Communication at all levels,
whenever possible, is vital for success. Early in the process all department
heads and staff members had received memos from the library administration,
telling them that the study would take place and who the spec team members
were. Due to the fact that our classified staff is unionized, we were unable
to include them directly in the process until the later stages. This may vary
from institution to institution. In hindsight, it would have been ideal to
interview the employees themselves in some cases to get a more accurate
reading. The downside to staff involvement is the expectation that everyone
will eventually receive a raise as a result of this study. As an upside, the
contact allows you to manage these expectations. It was our goal to revamp the
library technician series simply to make it more up-to-date and accurate. If
pay raises resulted, so be it.
MATCHING UP TYPICAL TASKS WITH DISTINGUISHING FEATURESThe Position Analysis
Survey immediately made one thing apparent to the spec team. The Library
Technician 2 was our Jack or Jill of All Trades, a "workhorse" classification
and natural benchmark. We all realize that there are high level and low level
library jobs within each classification. The wide range made us consider the
option of suggesting a new classification level, however, that recommendation
did not make it into our final report. Our campus was involved with collective
bargaining negotiations at the time of our study, therefore, we opted for the
quickest route to get a new series implemented.
Typical tasks were slotted within the distinguishing features framework by
the spec team, based on supervisors' input and our own knowledge of library
operations. These lists were compared to the previous classification series,
and changes were noted. For example, in the 1990 Oregon Library Technician
Series, a copy cataloger was considered a benchmark LT2. In the 1999 series,
the copy cataloger position had been delegated some original cataloging, which
brought it up to the LT3 level, thus providing a new benchmark for an LT3.
CONCLUSIONLibrary involvement in a job classification study is
time-consuming, tedious, and even frustrating at times. Let's face it. You
have to really want to design a new system to make this a success.
As you read about the University of Oregon experience, you might be
thinking about how your own institution is organized and who would naturally
be involved in a process like this. In a perfect world, the library will be
able to initiate and create a series that will work best for its own staff.
You will need the buy-in and commitment of every staff member from the top on
down. The study should be completed in a timely manner, or it may become
obsolete before it is finished. This is a project that calls for leadership.
Some individual or group needs to provide the stimulus, develop a
comprehensive plan, and follow through on its final recommendation.
If you and your library are willing to take the responsibility and the
initiative, you will no doubt end up with a job classification system that not
only works, but is actually useful in creating and/or classifying new
positions. As Shelley Mosley so aptly stated, "Out of sight, out of mind"
really means "out of luck" during a classification study.(FN7).
Added material.
Laine Stambaugh is head, Library Personnel Services, at the University of
Oregon in Eugene.
FOOTNOTES1. Library Support Staff Classification Studies (OMLS SPEC Kit
252). (Washington, D.C.: ARL, Oct. 1999).
2. Shelley Mosley, "How to Survive a Classification Study," Library Journal
123 (Oct. 15, 1998): 49.
3. Lucy R. Cohen, "Creating a New Classification System for Technical and
Supervisory Library Support Staff," Journal of Library Administration 10, no.
4 (1989): 60.
4. Robert C. Camp, Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices
That Lead to Superior Performance (Milwaukee, Wisc.: Quality Pr.; White
Plains, N.Y.: Quality Resources, 1989).
5. Thomas W. Shaughnessy, "Benchmarking, Total Quality Management, and
Libraries," Library Administration & Management 7 (Winter 1993): 9.
6. Thanks to Jacque Halverson, head, Personnel Operations, and to the
Career Ladder Steering Group, Sterling C. Evans Memorial Library, Texas
A&M University, whose classification program was implemented in the fall
of 1998.
7. Mosley, "How to Survive a Classification Study," 49.
SUMMARY OF TIPS FOR A SUCCESSFUL JOB CLASSIFICATION STUDY1. Determine why
you want to revise your classification system and be prepared for the results
(i.e., pay increases that the library may be responsible for).
2. Discuss a classification study project with your campus Human Resources
Office and find out what steps are involved, and if you will be supported in
this study by other campuses within your system.
3. Assign a team or committee that is primarily responsible for guiding
this project. Make sure you have library-wide representation from all areas,
if possible.
4. Make sure that everyone who needs to be involved "buys in" on this
project.
5. Communicate your plan with all staff along the way, as much as possible.
6. Put out a call early on in the project for revised position descriptions
from supervisors. Set a deadline and stick with it.
7. Decide which will be the distinguishing features for your library
support staff system--what will help distinguish between levels.
8. Identify benchmarks (key positions) to review in this study, choosing a
good cross-section of levels and staff functions.
9. Study the former classification series and identify missing or outdated
functions.
10. Design a Position Analysis Survey instrument that allows you to zero in
on core values for positions.
11. Using the Position Analysis Survey, conduct face-to-face interviews
with supervisors and/or staff members, using that information to develop a
list of typical tasks for each level of classification.
12. Typical tasks should be matched with distinguishing features to help
slot positions and levels.
13. Document the whole process so that timelines may be adhered to and
monitored. Make notes of any concerns for future studies.
