Managing Change When Technology Changes
Sarah Andrews ©2002
Libraries now integrate multiple technologies
in all areas. Technology continues
to change at a rapid pace, with no sign of slowing down. Drake (2000) describes technology as “one of
the primary drivers of change in the ways that people work, seek information,
communicate, and entertain themselves. For
the library, there is a strong emphasis on content, context, customer service,
training, and collaboration with information technology (IT) staff.”
Drake (2000) further describes the
current environment of an academic library by describing the expanding roles of
all librarians in the modern environment.
In many libraries, technical and public services now often overlap. For example, cataloging staff must now be
concerned with providing retrieval of sources as opposed to description of the
physical object (p.58). Electronic
resources and websites may be added to the library catalog as well. Drake sees the new role of the librarian as
a teacher, providing training on information literacy. As such, libraries now must spend more time
training both staff and customers (p.55).
How can library administrators
effectively manage rapid technological change?
While no studies currently exist comparing different management
techniques to specific outcomes, best practices can be inferred from studying
current trends appearing in the literature.
Current
Trends
Libraries must be flexible to
allow change to happen quickly.
Drake (2000) says that less hierarchical organizations can respond more
quickly to change, but she also notes that some staff may feel threatened when
hierarchies are removed (p.59). Riggs
(1997) describes this as a collapse of rigid organizational design, where “staff
are encouraged to work across boundaries” and he notes the increasing ambiguity
in environments. Riggs also states that
developing new styles of management requires creativity from leadership and the
ability to rethink roles (p.4). Riggs
sees some benefits in academic library reorganization, including being able to
act quickly on timely issues and changing the culture or environment of a
library (p.5).
In comparing libraries to
corporations, Perry and Woodsmith (1995) state that innovative leaders can
change organizational values and culture over time. They believe libraries need to develop a flexible staff who can
adapt readily to change (p.117).
Libraries are in a better market position to make changes than a
corporation. First of all, libraries
usually promote a collegial atmosphere and a culture of shared vision. Libraries often use teams and committees to
assist in decision-making processes, and employees generally cooperate with
each other instead of compete (p.119). Most
importantly, Perry and Woodsmith state “collegial practices…encourage
exploration and innovative practices” (p.119).
Gary Pitkin (1997) discusses how to
create a change environment. He
recommends managers make a commitment to a collaborative decision-making
process, which may require a significant change of habits. “Collaborative decision-making also required
excellent and frequent communication with all library personnel, not just those
who get on the bandwagon. Regular open
forums are valuable tools in establishing the habit of open discussion among
all personnel. Managers can not be coy
or secretive about the reallocations of resources that will be required to
implement change” (p.61).
Library managers need to make sure
their organization can adapt quickly to necessary changes. Managers should promote a trusting
atmosphere, encouraging creativity and innovative behavior. Hierarchical management systems have less
ambiguity—and possibly less creativity or innovation. Staff with clearly defined roles who work in a confined area may
not be as flexible and may react to change more slowly.
All library staff should be
involved in selecting technology.
Dorothy Jones (1999) conducted a research study of library support staff
at three universities called “Ten Years Later: Support Staff Perceptions and
Opinions on Technology in the Workplace.”
Jones found that approximately 26% of support staff were involved in
technological decision making, and only about 7% of the staff studied think
this is enough involvement. She further
concludes that higher staff involvement leads to greater satisfaction
(p.730-1). Of those surveyed, 93
answered yes to the question 34 “do you think support staff should be more
involved in technological planning and decisions than they are now? 7 answered no to this question, and 18 had
no opinion or no response (p. 731).
Poole and Denny found similar results in their 2001 study. “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” (p.512).
Coffey and Lawson conducted a study
on how communication about technology affects decision making in 2002. They studied administrators from different
areas—IT, public services and technical services—at ARL libraries. Coffey and Lawson wanted to test how
administrative staff with very different levels of technical skills communicate
during the decision-making process.
Their survey found most discussions reported as collegial (90 percent),
spirited (81 percent), but also difficult (56 percent) and frustrating (50
percent) (p.156). Coffey and Lawson
recommend using a gatekeeper at these meetings—someone to ensure all present
understand the technical terms and the technological implications (p.160).
In a study at a mail-distribution
center in England, Axtell et al. (2002) studied employees’ reactions to a
technological change in the work environment.
They found that low-level (operational) employees are more open to
change when “they felt informed, prepared and had input into decisions about
the implementation,” and had higher exposure to the technology (p.223). The study did not find similar results for
managers or engineers. Higher-level
staff (managers, engineers) were less affected by the amount of input and
preparation. Their study further
suggests that staff working with technology early have more input and ability
to modify the technology, and consequently took more ownership for the
technology, resulting in greater satisfaction (p.228).
Managers need to obtain input from
all levels of staff—especially low-level staff—before technology is selected
for the library. Because of the recent
trend where support staff perform the majority of day-to-day or routine work,
these staff members may be the best equipped to advise what technological
features are necessary to function efficiently. Getting input from staff will improve employee morale and make
the change process easier. If employees
have input in the selection process, they will be more inclined to accept the
change. Managers can also avoid
embarrassment by soliciting employee input—staff with hands-on experience may
be able to point out gross inadequacies of technology before a decision has
been made.
Managers must also make an effort to
reduce the amount of technical jargon used during meetings so that all staff
can follow the conversation. Even if a
manager can follow a technical discussion, she may want to ask descriptive
questions for the benefit of others. IT
staff may need to be trained or coached to make presentations accessible for
all staff as well.
Staff need more training more
often. Poole and Denney (2001)
researched community college library staff.
Their subjects reported that too little training on technology increased
their job stress, and 25% reported that library employees are expected to learn
too many new things too fast (p.509).
They also surveyed employee technology education preferences. Employees preferred to receive training in a
workshop or structured class first, followed by learning on one’s own with a
manual. Only 9% preferred to learn new
technologies from a supervisor or friend (p.515-516).
Jones’ study found a similar pattern
of training preferences for academic library support staff. Training from the supervisor was ranked last
as well (p.721). Jones speculates
supervisors have become overloaded with work, resulting in a negative
perception of their training ability.
Staff also report needing time to practice and absorb technology before
it is introduced to the public in Jones’ study (p.719). For example, one response was “My biggest
complaint is the sink or swim attitude toward staff training” (p. 720). Employee training programs were most often
ranked adequate, followed by inadequate, then excellent (p.720).
Gwendolyn Eastmond (2002) recommends
some practical ways to implement technology training. First, employees must be sold on the technology and be motivated
to use the technology (p.73-74). Next,
she recommends that employees be surveyed to assess their technology skills,
and train employees in groups based on their skill levels (p.74-75). She recommends asking staff specific yes/no
questions such as I know how to send an e-mail attachment to assess user
needs. Before actual training begins,
libraries must make sure the trainer’s skills are adequate (p.75). Eastmond recommends libraries use a variety
of training methods so students can choose the teaching style they prefer, and
allow students sufficient practice time (p.76).
Library managers must make sure
staff receive training by experienced trainers in advance of being required to
work with new technologies. Many staff
need time to practice with new technology before becoming comfortable using
it. Do libraries routinely screen or
test employees to assess their skill levels?
Perhaps this should become a routine part of training for
libraries. Another positive aspect of
these studies was the report that many employees prefer to learn on their own
with a manual. While the employee may
spend more time learning a new technology this way, the actual cost of training
is significantly reduced.
Managers need to provide employees
with lists of specific technologies necessary to perform their job at an
adequate level, and also provide the employee with a list of additional
desirable skills. These lists need to
be customized by job type—for example, reference librarians may need to know
how to assist a remote user with connecting to the database, but a cataloger
may need to know how to set up OCLC on a workstation. Ideally, employees should know about upcoming technologies and be
able to identify skills they lack. If
the employee lacks initiative, managers need to direct them and make the
employee’s preferred training available.
Staff stress must be addressed. Poole and Denny (2001) studied community
college library staff in Florida. They
recommend “revising and updating library job descriptions to adequately reflect
increased duties involving new technologies.”
They further recommend that managers be realistic about the amount of
new tasks employees can add on. Some tasks
or services may need to be eliminated, and managers need to look for creative
ways to reward employees (p.512).
Jones’ study also found a pattern of
staff dissatisfaction because of additional responsibilities because of
technology, and the perception that managers are not aware of the consequences
of workload changes. Employees now have
health concerns such as carpal tunnel syndrome and perceived stress from
increasing workloads that may or may not be related to concentrated use of
computers and the rapid pace of change (p.738). Pitkin also talks about the difficulty librarians have with
technological change. “Librarians feel
they must choose between devoting time to change and neglecting their daily
duties or emphasizing their daily duties and being left behind in the dust.”
Kjell Nytro et.al. (2000) looked at
different studies concerning occupational stress. Their research indicates that organizations should be talk openly
about previous failures and the reasons for failure in order to create an
atmosphere of trust (p.216). They
also recommend managers assign specific roles to employees as part of the
change process:
(1)
Experts should be able to assess working conditions and provide advice or
evaluation on outcomes or processes.
This role participates at the beginning and end of projects (changes).
(2)
Advocates convince employees to participate and understand projects. They help maintain enthusiasm.
(3)
Enablers track details of projects, keep records of progress and setbacks, and
set up procedures.
(4)
Change facilitators have some duties like the enabler, but this role also uses
leadership and social skills to develop alliances across work groups (p.221).
All of these articles point to the
need for a manager to pay attention to employees. Managers must know how subordinates spend their time at work so
they can accurately estimate if additional tasks can be assigned. Managers may need to decide if daily tasks
take precedence over learning new skills, and give employees direction. Bull’s idea of visiting other libraries to
help assist employees adapt to change seems a low-cost, viable option in most
circumstances.
Technology now provides many new
services, but generally numbers of library staff have not increased. Managers need to begin assessing the
services provided at their libraries, and determine which ones should be scaled
back or discontinued entirely.
Librarians now spend much of their time teaching or providing
service. Support staff may have greater
responsibilities than in the past, and managers must make distribute work
equitably.
Change Models
Elrod and Tippett (2002) provide an overview to current change models. Here are some models provided in their study that seem most applicable to libraries.
Imara’s stages of personal
grief
Imenger’s morale curve
Schneider's classic change curve
Katzenbach
and Smith's team performance curve
Their research found that performance declines were
a natural part of the change process (p.278). “To be effective change managers, leaders must:
- Recognize that the true cost of change must
include the inevitable initial decline in performance;
- Adequate and effectively prepare individual and
organizational stakeholders for the change process so that expectations do
not clash with reality; and
- Serve as guides to those journeying through the
change process so they will persevere” (p. 282).
Library managers must be prepared for performance
declines when changes occur.
Schneider’s classic change curve shows that performance may never
improve past the level before a change was implemented. Managers that expect great gains in
performance will be disappointed or frustrated if they expect technological
change to greatly improve performance.
Conclusions
Librarians need to perform research
studies to determine how to best deal with or manage the continuously changing
environment. Librarians also need to
report their failures in adapting to technological change so we may learn what
not to do. Most of the difficulties
library staff has adapting to change can be corrected with improved
communication. I have developed an acronym
to help managers deal with technological change:
C Count everyone in. All employees need to take part in decisions
about technology.
O Organization
matters. Plan for training needs in
advance.
M Maintain an atmosphere
of trust, honesty, and open communication.
M Make sure all staff
understand your expectations about technological skills. Make sure your expectations are reasonable.
U Use good judgment and be
fair when reassigning work after a change.
N Never be afraid to admit
failure.
I Ignoring problems
doesn’t solve them. Plan for and deal
with employees’ stressful reactions to change.
C Creative solutions can
be found. Ask your employees for some.
A Accept that performance
can vary greatly when change is implemented.
T Training helps staff
accept technology. Provide adequate
training before technology is implemented, and make sure employees acquire
adequate skill sets.
E Everyone is
important. Pay attention to your
employees. Know how they spend their
time, and what they need to succeed.
References
Axtell, Carolyn, et
al.(2002). Familiarity breeds content:
The Impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, (75); 217-231. Retrieved July 30, 2002 from Catchword.
Bull, Jennifer (2002). Managing the Emotional Side of Change. Library Mosaics, March/April; 11-12.
Coffey, Daniel & Karen
Lawson (2002). Managing Meaning:
Language and Technology in Academic Libraries.
College and Research Libraries (63); 151-162.
Drake, Miriam A.
(2000). Technological Innovation and
Organizational Change Revisited. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship (26); 53-59. Retrieved July 29, 2002 from ScienceDirect.
Eastmond, Gwendolyn. (2002).
Technical Training: From “Eeek!” to “Oooh!” Library Administration
and Management, (16); 73-78.
Elrod, P. David II &
Donald D. Tippett. The “death valley”
of change, Journal of Organizational Management, (15); 273-291. Retrieved July 31, 2002 from EmeraldInsight.
Jones, Dorothy E.
(1999). Ten Years Later: Support Staff
Perceptions and Opinions on Technology in the Workplace. Library Trends (47); 711-745.
Kjell, Nytro, Per Oystein
Saksvik, Aslaug Mikkelsen, Philip Bohle & Michael Quinlan. (2000). An appraisal of key factors in the
implementation of occupational stress interventions. Work & Stress (14); 213-225.
Retrieved July 31, 2002 from Taylor and Francis.
Perry, John & Anne
Woodsworth (1995). Innovation and
Change: Can We Learn from Corporate Models?
The Journal of Academic Librarianship (March 1995); 117-120. Retrieved July 30, 2002 from ScienceDirect.
Pitkin, Gary. (1997). Technostress in Libraryland. Colorado Libraries, (23); 58-61. Retrieved July 30, 2002 from Wilsonweb.
Poole, Carolyn E. &
Emmett Denny. (2001). Technological
Change in the Workplace: A Statewide Survey of Community College Library and
Learning Resources Personnel. College
and Research Libraries, (11); 503-515.
Retrieved July 30, 2002 from Wilsonweb.
Riggs, Donald E. (1997).
What’s in Store for Academic Libraries?
Leadership and Management Issues.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, (23); 3-8.
Retrieved July 29, 2002 from ScienceDirect.