Why Public Libraries Close

This report is now available from Webjunction: Why Public Libraries Close This report was also presented at the American Library Association in Anaheim California.

I was very interested in this report. It isn't extensive as From Awareness to Funding which I wrote about in three parts. However, the Awareness report would seem to explain why libraries close more than this report does.

Very few libraries have actually closed, very few
I read about this program in Library Journal when they reviewed the programs for the annual conference. It was rather slammed. The quote from Library Journal's review was, "Sounds alarmist, very few have actually closed. Very few."

One Tenth of One Percent
After reading this report, the statement that very few libraries have closed seems entirely accurate. According to the ALA Fact sheet there are over 123, 291 libraries in the United States, 16,543 are public libraries. This report makes an assessment between the years 1999-2003. During that time 438 public libraries closed. Well...that's not accurate, 134 libraries actually closed. The first number includes libraries that have closed and re-opened or where services were merged, replaced, etc. It doesn't mean closed and no services. The 134 libraries closed are closed with no services and no alternatives. What is the ratio between the number of libraries in the United States versus the number that have actually closed in a four year period. One Tenth of One Percent!

More than a few flaws
The report only retrieved anecdotal information from one library staff member at each library. I know from my own research into various best practices with libraries that it's important to get the person in charge, but then also speak to front line staff. For this research report, maybe just sticking to the data or using local newspapers may have been a better approach. It is hard to say what exactly is intended here. This approach doesn't seem to stand on solid ground.

Some segments from the report:
The categories of closure are good as well as analysis as to why libraries fail. The ongoing issues are extremely useful:

1) specific actions to minimize potential impacts of the closure on existing library users are rarely if ever taken.

(my comment, how many libraries have used story time, closure, and other items as a political pawn when other cost savings could be implemented?)

2) during the 1999-2003 time period of this study, the socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics of the population within the immediately surrounding 1 mile radius the closed library tended to be poorer, less educated, and with more renters than homeowners when compared to the U.S. population in calendar year 1999 year as a whole.

(my comment, the poor are most affected. However, according to the Awareness report, they provide the least amount of support to the library.)

3) migration of America’s population to large population centers may be creating
problems for rural libraries.

(my comment, we actually have the opposite effect. More people are moving to our community because of the low cost of living. This has created greater usage and strain on our services that we have struggled with. More houses mean more one time revenue, but not more operating revenue. That's a entirely different long term problem.)

Big error in data

"It was during this time researchers discovered a large number of the 438 outlets identified as potentially closed were never closed. Further discussions with the identified contact person for each of these “closures” showed that most had no idea on why the library was not listed in the FSCS database for that particular year. A few suggested that it could be due to their non-reporting of the requested FSCS data for that particular year but they remained unsure about this anomaly. There were 192 library outlets that fell into this “unsure why we weren’t listed in that year’s FSCS report” category out of the original 438 outlets. There was no further processing or analysis done on the libraries in this
category."

(my comment, My library is listed twice. One as part of a system and one as a stand alone. I have no idea why that is, nor do I know how to fix it.)

Conclusions
The general conclusion about libraries was the best part. Even though not that many libraries closed, the advice to avoid it is very beneficial. Here is some advice from the front:

"Finally, question seven asked advice from the librarians for how to prevent negative
closures from happening...
Neighborhood advocacy would help prevent closures. ...

“prior to opening a branch” make sure the library systems can sustain it – ...

Shopping centers might not be the best fit for libraries, if rent changes frequently or it is inconvenient for users to reach...

if the library does control or own the facility, possible closure can not be controlled...

Grants that are not recurring should not be used to open libraries...

open hours that are convenient for its users, in one instance banker’s hours where no one could get to the library led to its demise.

maintain an attractive building with services and resources that people need and can access. "p 25

In summary, it can be seen that public library closures are usually caused by the evolving needs of the local libraries (e.g., remodeling, branch relocations, library mergers) or due to factors that are somewhat outside of the library’s direct control (e.g., reduction in funding or staffing). Lack of library use at the closed library is not the primary reason for most public library closures. p 25

I feel really good after reading this report. There aren't that many libraries closing. The title is a bit alarmist, but not misleading. In fact, the advice provided on how to avoid a closure is gold. It is extremely valuable to emphasize meeting the needs of the community. We are building a new branch and we are looking carefully at the hours and resources so that we don't get in over our heads before we even open the building. It is far more difficult to pull services, than to never have provided them. In the end, I feel good since it confirms the comment, "very few libraries have closed."

Management is easy, it's like having 50,000 bosses

I read three great articles about management yesterday. Two from Library Journal and one from the Sites and Soundbites blog. The general theme is the difficulty in being a manager and the difficulties caused by managers. Managers will cause a majority of a library's problems (or any organization) since the decisions they make influence everything. That's why my tag line is,

"An executive is a person who always decides; sometimes he decides correctly, but he always decides."

The inherent problem is when you make the wrong decisions or you make decisions based on your ego. Who does this benefit? How will I do it? Who are you thinking of when you are making a decision? Is it what the community wants, your staff wants, or something that you want? In the end, the average employee has one boss, but a good boss answers to 50,000 people.

I don't agree that it is an impossible job. In fact, it is a very rewarding job. You aren't gathering small accomplishments here. You can make a huge impact. It comes from stuffing your own ego and doing what everyone wants. Figuring what that is, gathering resources, and implementing is the tough part.

Do you know your community?

The pressure on the library director is knowing the community. Making a move, starting a program, speaking with community members, all, of which, are part of establishing that relationship. Most librarians are liberal. Many of the ideals of librarianship set forth by the American Library Association are liberal in nature.

Some of the problems with library directors in trouble stem from a lack of understanding in relation to a conservative base or a group that they may not understand or agree with. It may have nothing to do with the library director's viewpoint, but if concerns are not addressed, things tend to blow-up.

A few years ago Jo Ann Pinder was fired by the Gwinnet County Library Board. This drew a very heated discussion from the library world and from a conservative group that pushed her out. There is a great deal of detail here and here. She was fired without cause. Some would say she was unfairly fired, others would say that she didn't listen to a growing community group that criticized her direction.

Who is right here? It isn't for me to say. It makes me wonder as to whether some library directors look to serve the community or look to serve what they think is serving the community. If there is enough people to push through something like this, it begs that question.

Which brings me back to The Impossible Job post:

"The principle is valid. However, few administrators or the members of their governing authorities have the tolerance and flexibility needed to maintain the balance of power and still make the right policy and operating decisions. Few have learned how to navigate the troubled waters when administrators disagree with their bosses on the board. Yet I remember a strong director who was faced with board opposition to acquiring video formats because it competed with a local store wisely agreeing to acquire the library collection from that store. The discount in purchasing locally was a bit lower, but everyone was happy."

What is worth it?
We can also discuss the fotonovella controversy of the Denver Public Library. This actually prompted our own review and the major vendors also reviewed the content they made available for libraries. The Phoenix Public Library dealt with a very serious controversy regarding the library's filtering. Again, it forced us to review our policy. Is resistance to this need worth it? Is the complaint valid or unreasonable?

Library directors have their own set of feelings about how things should be. The question becomes is it worth it to resist this demand. Do you stand on principle or do you make the change because the community demands it? If you are not on the same page with the board or the public, then you are perceived to be out of touch. If you do nothing to address known concerns, it will only lead to a big blow-up.

It takes engagement whether it is the public or your own staff Slow Leadership: Why People Resist Change:

"If you would take the time — and be honest and sincere in your efforts — you could ask people for ideas and be assured they will come up with most of the solutions required for them to do their best, both for themselves and for the good of their team and organization. Asking employees improves their self-esteem, motivates them, and empowers them. They take ownership for finding solutions and making change. Asking communicates: “I value you as a person. Your opinion is important to me/us/the team/the organization.”

"I will bend like a reed in the wind."
OCLC talks about Environmental Scans and what the library needs to be doing in the community. We talk of strategic plans and ways to integrate the library in the community. The truth of the matter is that we need to provide the collections and services the public wants instead of what WE think it wants.

From Library Journal: Check Your Ego at the Door

"The ego, we concluded, can be a very damaging thing. Inflated. Overbearing. Egos create rules for rules’ sake. Egos complicate procedures and keep good people down. Egos squash good ideas and can take the best of an organization and turn it on itself."

It should be more of a discussion as to whether the staff is available to provide such a program. Once the personal opinion of a director thinking what he or she wants to do, rather than the community, problems occur. Why don't you do this? Why don't your provide that?

The reality is, every complaint, every concern must be addressed. It must be addressed in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the issue and a response or review, then follow-up. It shows that you care about everyone and when librarians talk about every reader his/her library, this is when that principle matters the most.

Why would you want to deal with all of that?

It isn't for everyone. Many librarians went into their field from other jobs. Their hope was to escape the politics that may be more prevalent in the private sector. If that is the case, they would hate management.

It's worth it if you want to make change on a larger scale. My library can make moves for the community's biggest needs. It is interesting on that type of programs we put out on a specific need and how many other organizations begin to put that out, or put it out at the same time. It demonstrates a need that is identified and where organizations can collaborate. If you are creative, like working with people, and have a high stress threshold, management is for you.

It isn't an impossible job. It is a job that requires delayed gratification. Working towards building a new library takes years. New programs, new services, building changes, technology changes, all take planning to develop, fund, and implement. Knowing where to get money, knowing where to re-allocate resources (including staff), and the ability to influence others and be influenced by all will lead to great success. I have been fortunate enough to be able to build one library, renovate another, and in a few years, build a new main library. It is an impact I can see that is much faster than average. It is that success that makes the job really wonderful.

Library directors can get obsessed with the numbers

I was reading an article that has been circulating through the library world, Hartford Public Library: a study in bad behavior. The article describes the various illegal acts that have been occurring in the library with total disregard from the library administration.

A troubling discovery is that the library director removed the security gates simply because they did not go with the new layout of the library. The gates were also not working properly, but that is no excuse to remove them completely. Furthermore, illegal acts have been routinely ignored. In fact, the article seems to indicate the library director encourages people to avoid calling the police. In the end she justifies her decisions based on the numbers. The library is getting heavy use, isn't that what we all want?

There are many statistical tricks for library directors to boost their numbers. One of them is to remove restrictions: removing barriers such as fines, security gates, and not having or not enforcing behavior guidelines in the library. No need to upset anyone and make your library look bad or provide someone with a bad experience at the cost of looking unfriendly. However, the long term costs are dramatic. People will not want to come into the library as they would perceive it as dangerous and out of control. Furthermore, books and materials that state "in" on the catalog are in fact not really there, leading to further frustration and lowered use. They say they have it, but they really don't. Nothing good is ever in, again, leading to a decline in usage. I've even worked in a library that didn't require ID in order to obtain a library card. You can imagine the non-return rates.

What troubles me the most is the lack of a behavior policy and the amount of illegal activity nobody does anything about. Library staff shouldn't have to engage with someone who is committing a criminal act. They shouldn't have to deal with overwhelming situations which they alone have to handle on a regular basis. It leads to low morale, and in worse situations, bodily harm. Police officers are trained to deal with these situations. If a situation suddenly changes, then a staff member must find a way to minimize the situation until the police arrive. Of course, they must do something. There is an obligation for staff to be proactive in preventing and stopping these types of issues, but not on their own, and not if the situation is overwhelming.

Stats go up because of good service, good collections, and fully functioning computers. That, plus marketing, will lead to an increase. It is not necesssary to remove all restrictions and rules to increase usage. We can't have an unsafe environment in which patrons and staff are afraid. We cannot hemorrhage money through lost collections. In the end, the short term gain only leads to a long term loss.

When school students flunk reading, what do you do? Cut funding for the library of course!

I am not sure what to make of this. In the last post, I mentioned bad news in libraryland due to the recession. Arizona in particular will be hard hit because the economy relied so heavily on construction and the housing market. Arizona is notorious for underfunding education and the students having poor reading skills. In fact, Arizona ranks last in education (read the full report here http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm)

So of course, when the budget crisis hits home and there needs to be cuts in education, they of go after the library. Well-funded school and public libraries have resulted in increased test scores for students year affter year, but they are not protected by the state as mandatory. Here is a clip from the article:

Shrinking budgets mean fewer school librarians by Pat Kossan The Arizona Republic
Arizona's consistently low school funding is claiming another victim: the school library.

Many Arizona school districts are shedding librarians and cutting their hours. Like most other states, Arizona has no dedicated funding for libraries and no law requiring school libraries to exist. The fate of the libraries and librarians is up to district officials.

"Almost any district at any time facing a funding crisis can say, 'Here's an easy fix,' " said Sara Kelly Johns, president of the American Association of School Librarians. "They're looking at what programs are mandated instead of what programs are effective," Johns said.

Research shows that strong library programs improve student test scores. That has caused some states to maintain or even strengthen K-12 libraries. But Johns said more and more school libraries, especially in elementary and middle schools, are taking a hit, many in Western states.

Traditionally, school librarians have found books to inspire kids to read for the sheer joy of it and helped them to unravel the Dewey decimal system.

Now, librarians also build and maintain computer-based libraries, teach kids to sort fact from fiction on the Internet and help teachers find online training or videos for lesson plans. "The need for the librarian and the expert in the field hasn't changed; it has just multiplied," said Jaqie Gardner, the librarian at Fountain Hills High School. "We have the physical space to take care of, plus we have the virtual space."
END SNIP

I think this one is a vote for "librarians do MORE complex work." I liked the line from the librarian stating that, "We have the physical space to take care of, plus we have the virtual space." I find it quite amazing that educators don't place libraries, librarians, and education together. The impact of a good library is always long term. Anyone can view the results of a literate population, simply by the types of businesses that move in. Good libraries create a strong workforce that help attract great businesses to the area, and create a thriving economy. It is amazing what a few dollars of library service provides a community. The effects are felt far beyond the year to year. Good investments lead to strong communities. It is too bad that we have stuck with cutting the bottom line regardless of value, especially when we are dealing with our children's education.

Conversational Leadership, Poor Library Leadership, and What I Learned from Cesar Chavez and Carl Hayden

I recently attended one of the PLA trainings for the Certified Public Library Administrator certificate in Phoenix last week. We talked about strategic planning and building advocacy for libraries. The program was presented by George Needham and James Peak. It was a great discussion over the role of libraries today and how libraries need to change. More librarians need to take leadership roles in their communities. However, too many are reluctant and others don't seem to approach their advocacy efforts in the most effective means. This past week I listened to two great podcasts on leadership, one from Uncontrolled Vocabulary and the other from the infopeople podcasts, both of which were discussing the same issue on leadership. There is either a distinct lack of leadership or bad leadership and there are others afraid to take chances and lead their organization.

The Infopeople Podcast with George Needham and Joan Frye Williams discussed library leadership. Near the end of the podcast they discussed a training in which librarians agreed to change the way they do things and begin to lead. They talked about how they weren't going to be afraid to try new things. George when on to say that it is good to fall on your keister. However, no one wants to do that publicly (for example, you don't want to see your doctor do that.) One of the funniest parts of the discussion talked about how many librarians are "A" students in school, but that mindset leads to a perfection mindset. If a project or plan isn't perfect, it doesn't go forth. I was certainly not an "A" student in school and I don't mind making mistakes. I know that I cannot be perfect, so I don't try to be. What is better is to aim for something that is really good and be open to feedback and criticism. That way, a really good idea can come to fruition, but then I can adjust it to make it better. If I roll something out and declare its perfection, I won't be very receptive to making it better.

There have been many demonstrations of poor library leadership in the last few weeks. A lock-out in Victoria indicates that the library board doesn't care about the library. The demotion of several librarians to save money. The nepotism at many library systems where head librarians are being replaced by people close to the Mayor with no library experience. A Boston Public Library director is forced out and the mayor wants the library to submit all invoices to the city instead of providing a lump sum (essentially taking over the trust for the Boston Public Library).

All these moves were recently lamented by John Berry and Kathleen De la Cook the fact that libraries are changing into faceless community centers and by promoting automation and self-service we are losing our support base. Kathleen compared it to art and education and how it has been decimated in much the same way. She even laments this in her own library system.

The scary trends are the precise reason why librarians need to get involved in their communities (This isn't to suggest they aren't, but these are lessons to be learned.) We cannot just sit around and take what happens to us. We need to be proactive to our key community members and demonstrate library ubiquity. It takes a conversation with people one at a time. When I ran through my strategic plan, I was able to identify the key movers and shakers in the community and then demonstrate how the library can serve each of them. That continuous proactive conversation is key to sustain advocacy.

Reading about great leaders we can learn how, through overwhelming odds, people were able to succeed. These people saw a problem and moved to solve it. In one case, Cesar Chavez saw people taken advantage of and decided to do something about it. In another, Carl Hayden realized the problem in Arizona is lack of water and helped build the greatest water diversion project in the history of this country.

Leadership is very simple. It really just involves talking to people to get them motivated for a common cause. Once asked how he gathered so much support for his cause, Cesar Chavez said "I talk to one person, then I talk to another." The student asked again, "no really, how do you do it." To which the reply, "I talk to one person then I talk to another." Gaining library advocacy or getting a project going is the same. When it comes to leadership, people who lead don't have to be in any type of administrative role. They can get people motivated for a cause by persuasion. One doesn't need to be in administration to make that change if you talk to enough people. An open compelling conversation can be enough.

On the other end, conversation can also help diffuse a situation. You can never ignore something. If you don't talk about it or confront it, it will come back to haunt you. I picked up this little tip from Carl Hayden (This is from the book by Stephen Shaddegg: Arizona Politics: The struggle to end one party rule.) He was running for re-election in 1952, Stephen Shadegg was his campaign manager. He had two democratic contenders. They both did not have a chance to beat Hayden as he had been the Senator from Arizona for many years. (He would be the longest serving senator to ever serve, but Strom Thurmond broke that record.) Shadegg sent him on trips to keep him away from his two rivals, thinking that is what he wanted. However, without his knowledge, the Senator met with both gentleman much to the surprise of Shadegg. The reason:

"Never give your enemies any more reason than they already have to go on hating you."

People often get riled up for no reason and a conversation, often face to face, is the best one to have. It lets people know that you are human and sincere. Many people fall into this trap in their communities and online. If people knew more about you and who you are, they are less likely to be your enemy. In fact, the more they talk to you, the more the two of you will see eye to eye. It diffuses problems, but in a proactive setting, avoids them altogether.

I liked this article from PLN (you will need to register to read it), here is the snippet:
Citizens, engage! Jamie LaRue Speaks
SNIP

But civic engagement means more than politics and voting. It means taking actions, together, that result in a community worth living in, in which many can and do thrive.

That engagement will involve, on occasion, some conflict. There are competing visions of the future, and sometimes they have to be argued out.

The point, however, is not conflict. It is, finally, about cooperation, about processes of analysis and action to effect useful change.

What kind of community do you want to live in? And what will it take to craft that community, together? Isn't it time that you joined the conversation?

END SNIP

I am not trying to improve my library, but the community through the library. When workforce development came up as a community need, I needed to find out who to talk to and set up meetings with them. It takes persistence to the right people and get their attention. In the Infopeople Podcast, Joan Frye Williams stated that leadership is the ability to galvanize people into a group. This is what I was able to do when I spoke with the local college, the chamber of commerce, the Department of Economic Security. They are all moving in the direction of doing something, but not coordinating with each other. All I did was speak to each of them, see what they were doing, and then talk to the other groups. They had no idea what the other was doing.

The same thing happened when I tackled adult literacy. I spoke with local businesses regarding problems with their employees and they each knew others I could speak to in order to tackle this problem. Over time, I became the contact person for both literacy and workforce development because I formed the groups and made the contact. Now I know who to contact to move to make things happen. I don't have to talk about libraries, I talk about the community need. This is the key way we advocate, by talking to our community members and creating a library that fits the need of the community. The more we do this, the less people will see libraries as just books, but as a service that can do virtually anything. Once that is accomplished, libraries will be valued and insulated from some of the things that are happening around the nation.

There is no such thing as library management, just management

A recent discussion on pub-lib regarding the Sacramento Public Library's situation led me to think about management. I was wondering about perceptions about management and realized that most people would think that library management has something to do with the library. It doesn't.


The process of hiring a director is performed by people who often know nothing about how a library works. Management is a different career field. A director may know little about the day to day operations of his or her library. They are not selected for their technical ability. This is often the biggest complaint from frontline staff. It is also why staff prefer to have their say in the hiring process of a new director. They would like to see the candidate through the prism of their own jobs and if they know more about them, they make the better candidate. This is not a true statement.

Management is about dealing with people. It doesn't deal with a collection, or the few minutes handling patrons, but the long term dealing with staff and making the library a growing organism. Everything is viewed in macro terms. What are the big needs of the community, how can we reallocate staff and resources to meet those needs. People on the front line will wonder why this is happening, why these changes are being made, and how much better things were before the change.


Frontline staff, middle managers, and directors can be viewed in different ways.

Frontline staff are like a triangle, heavy on technical expertise, but don't require staff management and are not required to look beyond the day to day. Often the viewpoint is, if it's not broken, don't fix it.

Great to have technical expertise. It is critical for the day to day. However, these particular skills don't translate into management. You might be able to order great books, catalog fast and efficiently, or think of great programs, but none of these particular skills translate into management. Hence, a particular library skill doesn't translate into management. Often this is the case as someone gets promoted based on excellent technical ability. Once they move up, they don't have quite the effectiveness since they are unprepared to go into a different managment field.

Middle management is the diamond shape. Deals more with people and managing the frontline staff.

Usually, dealing indirectly with the technical piece and more dealing with people on how to do something. Managing people resources to accomplish a major library goal.

The Director, the upsidedown triangle.

Requires no technical expertise, relies on middle management to keep informed. Only knows what the library should do in macro terms. However, a good director will be engaged with their staff and plugged into what is going on. In fact, a good library director will be directly involved in how their library works so he can make better decisions. A director who doesn't do this is much like a coach in the pit telling their driver how to drive without seeing the road or asking the driver what is going on.

Businesspundit: Don't Look For Superstars, Look For Superteams

Businesspundit: Don't Look For Superstars, Look For Superteams
Businesspundit: Don't Look For Superstars, Look For Superteams

For all those people who didn't get the job, read this post. Sometimes it is just a matter of making the right fit. There is no way you can tell that in a job interview. You can be the superstar of the century and not get the job simply because they were not looking for that particular fantastic skill. Also, the super skills you have in one job, may mean absolutely nothing in another job.

Also, in Seth's Blog:Who You Should Hire, he talks about the ability to get things done. Too often we fall into the trap of one versus the other. We want people that get things done, but can work in a team. Teamwork can get the job done, but too often it ends up stifling creativity. Even when the superstar is hired, they are not one for long.

"Most fast-growing organizations are looking for people who can get stuff done.

There is a fundamental shift in rules from manual-based work (where you follow instructions and an increase in productivity means doing the steps faster) to project-based work (where the instructions are unknown, and visualizing outcomes and then getting things done is what counts.)

And yet, we're still trying to hire people who have shown an ability to follow instructions.

I'm almost done with my (sold out) book tour, and the biggest pleasure of the project was working with people who totally understand what it is to get things done. "

END SNIP

After reading these, it reminded me of the post from A Wandering Eyre:On Managing Anxiety, Work, Life, and all Things in Between

"Karen’s post talks about what we do to our motivated leaders. We overburden them. We steal their shiny with promises that never come. I am sorry to say that this has happened to me gradually over the past year. I am still an optimist, often annoyingly so, and I still love my profession, but this past semester made we rethink what my job and my life was and where the lines needed to be drawn. I needed more lines."

I hope that many of the superstars do not get burned out by organizations that want them to comply.

The line "steal their shiny" resonated with me the most. That is a very dangerous thing an organization can do, and sad for the new breed of librarians.



 

Libraries: Good, Cheap, but not Fast

There is a saying that often adorns many business desks:
Services can be good, cheap, or fast, pick two:
If good and fast, it cannot be cheap.
If fast and cheap, it cannot be good.
If good and cheap, it cannot be fast

The latter is a model most libraries have chosen. However, it's interesting to note how often I hear patrons would be willing to pay for better services. This sentiment is often not shown through taxes. They seem to want to pay more, but when the time comes, that support doesn't materialize.

Often libraries will attempt to offer the fast service for a price. This decision must be weighed carefully as the attempt can lead to the fast and cheap model, losing the good. This is a major reason decisions and service levels change more slowly, again better to be good than fast.

Interestingly enough, this request for fast service, or convenience, comes from non-users. This makes the decision even more difficult as one risks losing the existing users to go after non-users. Nothing miffs patrons more than the dismantling of an existing and popular service. This is magnified if the dismantling comes at the behest of a perceived "progress". I ran into this when I made the decision between more space for computers, and less space for paperbacks. (Read more here or here.) I was successful, but I ran into a great deal of resistance. However, I was justified because I had more demand on computers than I did not paperback books.

Furthermore, it may be no amount of trying will satisfy anyone, let alone create new users. The question of "Why Try?" comes all to easy.

I do often get frustrated reading librarian bloggers lament about how their local libraries should do A, B, and C. This complaint often goes out on his or her blog instead of trying to create the change locally. I am a big believer of "Think Globally, Act Locally", so when I see a blog post about it, my first thought is, what did this person do to try to create that change. This is very frustrating for someone like me. I would rather you told me, "THIS SUCKS", than complain to the world about how much I suck. This is more directed at the library patron.

Many libraries do what they do according to a strategic plan. (If your library doesn't have one, or doesn't do it, that really needs to change, nothing inspires the public as much as having a say in how their library should serve them.) If you are looking to create change in your local library, this is something to review to see if you and the library are on the same wavelength.

However, you are at a disadvantage if you are just starting to use the local public library. Existing patrons beat you. They have already made the library their own. If you haven't been using us already, you are in the minority. In my community, we have 38,000 people, 24,000 have library cards. It can take a few months before services can begin to shifted towards what you want. If the public wants more mysteries or Christian fiction, and you like Science Fiction, it will take a while to push us to get more science fiction, but you need to ask. Not only that, you need to ask and USE IT! Nothing is more annoying than a patron who comes in to demand a service or a book, then when we do it, no one shows up to the program and no one checks out the book (the patron just thought we should have it). Libraries don't have endless resources, they need the constant push to get them to do what you want AND you have to use it. Otherwise, we look like we are wasting our time.

For librarians trying to create change, if your idea gets shot down, you can't give up on it as fast as the administration did. You have to keep trying, changing, repacking, and pushing. It's knowing what to do in what situation in order to get what you want. One of my favorite all-time shows was the Prisoner (aired before my time, but watched the whole thing on the Sci-Fi channel hosted by Harlan Ellison, one of my all-time favorite authors). This show has some of my favorite quotes:

“He has revolted. Resisted. Fought. Held fast. Maintained. Destroyed resistance. Overcome coercion. The right to be a person, someone or individual. We applaud his private war, and concede that despite materialistic efforts, he has survived intact and secure!”

Fight for change, listen for change, keep the conversation going, keep the brain working, and it keeps you ready to move forward. One needs to push, one needs to listen, one needs to implement. Expect the process to be slow, but it will be better.

Management is broken?

It seems that the end of the year has brought several management is broken posts. Librarian in Black, Meredith Farkas at Information Wants to Be Free, and Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights all have some good tips about library management and how we can generally improve library services. I particularly liked Walt's comments as it aptly identified most managers problems. You can't do everything:

"What Do Patrons Want?
That question comes up repeatedly in blogs and elsewhere. There are no easy answers, given the basic confounding factors:
Ø The patrons of each community are unique.
Ø Very few patron communities are homogeneous; different patrons have different wants and needs.
Ø Patron desires and needs change over time, and those needs they believe the library should fulfill are influenced by previous experience with this library and other libraries.
Ø There are no ways to gain complete pictures of patron wants and needs. Feedback mechanisms providing more than anecdotal evidence are expensive and clumsy—and they need to be continual, since the makeup of the community and tools available to the library continue to change.
None of these says it’s hopeless or that librarians shouldn't keep as much in touch with patrons as possible. They do, I believe, argue against knee-jerk “whatever patrons want” reactions."

Knee-jerk reactions are plenty. I once had someone suggest we go back to stamping due dates on books. "We have a receipt for that", "Yes, but I always lose my receipt, stamping the book is so much easier." "You should have a magazine rack for the magazines that are discarded." "Where can we put it, there isn't the space?" "Well, I am not leaving here until you do it!" and my recent favorite "You should have a light box for artist hanging out in the library making sketches" "These are quite expensive and not really where we want to spend our money."

I find myself waffling on decisions between how I can improve library services, but without causing too much strain on staff. Just because a patron wants it, doesn't mean we should do it.

However, going too far one way or another is bad. Let's look at Walmart, their model is to totally focus on the customer. Provide the lowest prices, even a $1 cheaper and you will make more money. They can slash their prices at the cost of their employees to point of people who work there hate it. If I try to create great services for patrons, the strain on staff can result in losing good staff. Sure Meebo is great, it is easy, it is simple, who will man it? If I add an extra piece that looks great, but its fluff, staff are not exactly happy.

If I go too far on the other end with staff saying no drinks, no cell phones, no this, no that, services suffer. As in Meredith Farkas' post:

"The second time, I dragged my husband there. We browsed the stacks for a little while and found again that there really was not much for us there (and I have pretty diverse tastes in reading). Then my cell phone rang and I got shot a nasty look from one of the women at the desk (and I don’t even have a loud annoying ring tone — mine just rings). So I sprinted out of the library and that was the last time I’ve been in there. It’s rare that I go into a library feeling like a little kid in a store full of glass figurines, who doesn’t belong there and is afraid of doing something wrong, but some libraries still do that to me. And geez, if they do that to a librarian, imagine how members of the community feel."

No cell phones, no this no that signs are unwelcoming to patrons. However, the signs are there because someone made a reason for it. How many times have you been in a library where there was an annoying cell phone ring, or someone who shouted their inappropriate conversations? A recent Unshelved cartoon (with a full discussion on LiveJournal demonstrates a definite annoyance at that. It is difficult to manage a group of people with different tastes, opinions, and perceptions of how a library should be.

Libraries try to provide the best service to a unique group of people. Patrons' opinions are just as abundant as staff members' opinions. Who is correct, and what is the best choice is the difference between good managers and bad managers. There are a million great ideas, but only a few will be really effective for your community. We can create a bookstore model with great displays and effect no change in circulation or usage, it just looks nice. We can complain to our budgetary authority that we can make no more changes unless we get more funding, which is usually a guarantee that you won't get your funding.

Sometimes, no one is happy, which is why I have a Fix-it Friday section, and sometimes everyone is happy, which is why I have a Successful Saturdays section. You will never really know if you are a successful manager or not since everyone has a new great idea that you are not doing. I always think the fable of The Stonecutter It is easier to be the person chipping away at the mountain of administration to get what you want rather than to be the mountain that is chipped away at.

I think the top reason people start blogs is to find an outlet to complain about the world around them. Most of the library blogs I read talk about how this or that can be improved. That is great, but I wonder how much of that is going to the right people. If that was channeled into changing the thing you wanted to change, such as at your library, it might be better to go that direction than to post it on a blog.

It is also best if you don't like something to tell administration about it or effect the change you want to see in your library or in your own organization. You don't have to be in administration to make the changes you want to see. If something is broken, anyone can fix it if they take the time and have the will to do it.