Approaches to Leadership Development in Libraries & Museums: The Global Leader Development Landscape

Session Submission Type: Symposium

Short Description

The settings provide important contexts for formal and informal means to leader development. After briefly presenting new research, challenges will be framed within the context of economic, social, organizational, and environmental realities.

Detailed Abstract

Why study leader development in museums and libraries? Surprising to some, museums are economic and cultural engines (AAM, 2014). More than 400,000 Americans are employed in museums. Museums contribute $21 billion to the US economy each year. There are more than 120,000 libraries in the U.S. (ALA, 2014) employing more than 366,000 people. Studies have shown that libraries are vital to communities contributing to economic growth and the feeling of well-being (BBER, 2011). Museums and libraries provide services to visitors of all ages and offer specialized programming to students/teachers, older adults and people with disabilities. Yet, even though they are educational resources for so many, they are challenged to turn that learning inward (Johnson, 2013; Johnson, et al., 2014;Sandell & James, 2007). The two presentations explore the landscape of leader development in these settings. Although situated in museums and libraries, the cases and findings have relevance for other sectors including small business and non-profits.

Presentation 1: Ephemeral Leadership: Building Capacity to Address Global Challenges in 21st Century Libraries [Sobczak]
In an August 2014 blog post, David Lankes, Professor and Dean’s Scholar for New Librarianship at Syracuse University, reflects on the power libraries have as an integral part of their communities. He recounts how during the Arab Spring the Library of Alexandria was protected by its citizens. He links that to the events of Ferguson, Missouri noting that when the right to assemble was suspended and the schools close, the library did its job – it was the place for community gathering. “If our goal is an improved society then that means that individual librarians must risk personal comfort and clearly defined boundaries for the greater good” (Lankes, 2011. p. 134); they must become leaders.

Libraries (including academic libraries) are steeped in tradition from their history, cultures, attitudes, and laws of their constituents, to the type of work being done and the people who are attracted to doing it. The role of the library continues to evolve in the face of new technological and societal demands; the increased pace of life and work. Efforts to digitize, to mitigate the challenges of the digital divide, and make equipment and resources available to their customers has created new challenges and opportunities (Johnson, et al., 2014). Libraries are put in the position of having to develop technological and leadership capacity at an unprecedented pace. Hernon & Ole Pors (2013) note additional drivers including globalization, demographic shifts, and competing services and products (p. 112). These forces have spurred the field to rethink the concept of library as a collection of books located in the physical space to a more flexible concept of libraries as conversation, convening, and community well-being. Thus, the 21st century has imposed technological, financial, structural, cultural, and organizational shifts that threaten their formal, hierarchical cultures while also creating opportunities for new approaches to the old leadership models.

What does the role of the library and librarianship look like moving forward? What are the opportunities for leading in the current environment and what are the mechanisms for developing its capacity? Libraries are not alone in wrestling with these questions (Goh & Ryan, 2008; López, Peón, & Ordás, 2005). Across the non-profit and service sector, organizations are considering how past modes of capacity development conflict and/or intersect with new and necessary ways of operating. It appears that libraries in the U.S. and in Europe are one of the last public and professional bastions to investigate and integrate leadership development in their environments (Hernon & Ole Pors, 2013).

We know that programs such as Simmons College’s Ph.D. in Managerial Leadership in the Information Professions and ILEAD USA exist to develop service leaders; there is relatively little literature about the effects of these programs. We also know there is growing evidence of the importance of workplace learning as a means for improved organization success (Goh & Ryan, 2008; López, Peón, & Ordás, 2005). We know less about these activities for developing leadership in place for libraries.

Findings from a survey of library and information science professionals attending the Collective Conference and those funded by the Institute of Museums and Library Services will be shared. I explore how organizational structure and customs (i.e., traditional service and engagement practices) may outweigh innovations in development practices, perspectives on the styles of leadership needed in libraries, and approaches being used to develop this capacity.

Presentation 2: Leadership development in Place: Moving from training to practice [Johnson]
The drivers affecting museums and cultural institutions are similar to those affecting libraries; structural and organizational influences are also similar. However, there has been growing focus on the development of leadership capacity both for individuals and organizations in the last decade. Recent dissertations and essays have created a sense of urgency around what it means to develop the capacity of individuals and organizations. As museums and cultural institutions strive to be relevant and innovative they are more inclined now, than before, to seek examples from outside the field.

This presentation reports on continued work by the researcher to understand the organizational impacts and influences on the experiences of museum professionals who have participated in formal (and usually external) leadership development programs. These are contrasted with the experiences of individuals (usually mid-level personnel) whose development has taken place or is taking place by more informal means.

Data collection methods included an online survey and semi-structured interviews. The 21-item Dimension of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Watkins & O’Neill, 2013) was used to assess supports for learning in place. Findings shared are based on two data sets: (1) a purposeful sample of 1,996 museum professionals working in the U.S. as identified through member databases of two professional associations American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) as well as alumni of several museum-specific leader development programs who participated in these experiences between 2007 and 2011 and (2) subsequent follow-up interviews with a subset of survey participants as well as new participants in programs since 2011.

Sub Unit

• Leadership Development

Chair

• Martha F. Miser, Aduro Consulting, LLC

Individual Presentations

• Ephemeral Leadership: Building Capacity to Address Global Challenges in 21st Century Libraries - Patricia D. Sobczak, Virginia Commonwealth University

• Leadership Development in Place: Moving from Training to Practice - Julie I. Johnson, National Science Foundation