REFLECTING ON

LEADERSHIP

Karin Wittenborg, Chris Ferguson, Michael A. Keller

December 2003
REFLECTING ON LEADERSHIP Karin Wittenborg, Chris Ferguson, Michael A. Keller
 Reflecting
on

Leadership

by
Karin Wittenborg
Chris Ferguson
Michael A. Keller

December 2003

Council on Library and Information Resources

About the Authors
Chris Ferguson is dean for information resources at Pacific Lu-
theran University. Previous positions include executive director for
public services of an integrated library-computing organization at
the University of Southern California and director of USC’s Leavey
Library, which created the nation’s first information commons.

Michael A. Keller is the Ida M. Green University Librarian, director

of academic information resources at Stanford University, publisher
of HighWire Press, and publisher of the Stanford University Press.
Before coming to Stanford, Mr. Keller was associate university li-
brarian and director of collection development at Yale University.
He has also served as music librarian at the University of California,
Berkeley, and at Cornell University.

Karin Wittenborg has been university librarian at the University

of Virginia since September 1993. She came to Virginia after eight
years as associate university librarian for collection development
at University of California, Los Angeles. Before then, she held a
variety of positions in the Stanford University Libraries. She spent
1980–1981 at the M.I.T. Library as a Council on Library Resources
academic management intern.

ISBN 1-932326-06-5

Published by:

Council on Library and Information Resources

1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Web site at http://www.clir.org

Additional copies are available for $15 per copy.

Orders must be placed through CLIR’s Web site.

Copyright 2003 by the Council on Library and Information Resources. No part of

this publication may be reproduced or transcribed in any form without permission
of the publisher. Requests for reproduction should be submitted to the Director of
Communications at the Council on Library and Information Resources.
 Contents

Introduction
by Deanna B. Marcum..............................................................v
Rocking the Boat
by Karin Wittenborg.................................................................1
Whose Vision? Whose Values? On Leading Information
Services in an Era of Persistent Change
by Chris Ferguson...................................................................16
Scattered Leaves: Reflections on Leadership
by Michael A. Keller ...............................................................33

iii
Introduction

I
n one study and report after another, we learn that leadership
is needed in the library profession. Yet in our many discus-
sions of the need for better, more effective, or new-style lead-
ership, it becomes clear that the term is not commonly defined.
We all know what leadership is when we see it (or better yet,
experience it), but it is terribly difficult to define.
Over the past several years, the Council on Library and Infor-
mation Resources (CLIR) has tackled some aspects of leadership
development. In so doing, we have called attention to the need for
a greater awareness of trends and directions in higher education
and scholarly communication. We have also emphasized the need
to identify individuals prepared to work with the contributors to
the academic enterprise to create a new system that allows schol-
ars to create knowledge more efficiently and effectively and that
enables students and other researchers to make maximum use of
that knowledge.
The Frye Leadership Institute and the Scholarly Communica-
tion Institute––both successful and important programs––are de-
signed to foster leadership development; even at these sessions,

v
however, the personal qualities that produce leadership have
been little discussed. This set of essays by three leaders in librari-
anship was commissioned to delve more deeply into the personal
qualities of the leader.
Certainly, different individuals have vastly different styles
of leading––and what they accomplish depends upon the fit of
their particular skills with the needs of the institution in which
they work. We asked the authors to write candidly and person-
ally about how they developed an understanding of their own
strengths and styles, what they believe leadership is, and how
they apply that self-understanding to their daily responsibilities.
Selecting authors for this publication was extremely difficult,
for our profession today has many outstanding leaders. Rather
than attempt to identify the “best” leaders, we simply asked in-
dividuals whom we believed would be willing to help us think
through the issue of leadership in truly personal terms. Each of
the authors has taken a distinctly different path in fulfilling his or
her leadership mandates, and all three are recognized for bringing
new visions of librarianship to their work.
I am deeply grateful to these authors for their willingness to
reveal themselves in this way. I believe that there is much to be
learned in examining how each of them understands the role of
the librarian in an institution of higher education. My hope is that
these essays will result in greater self-reflection for all of us.

Deanna B. Marcum

vi
Karin Wittenborg

Rocking the Boat

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct,

or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction
of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those
who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in
those who may do well under the new.
—Machiavelli, The Prince, 1532

W
riting an essay on change and leadership seemed like
an irresistible opportunity. I was sure it would be fun,
not to mention easy. I accepted immediately, without
thinking too far ahead or sorting out all the implications. In fact,
this sort of spontaneous commitment has been a characteristic of
my career, and it has brought about great opportunities as well as
disquieting moments.
It turns out the writing wasn’t so easy,1 but it has given me an
excuse to step back and reflect on the core qualities of leaders, on
the advantage of an institutional culture that is open to change,

1
I am indebted to Charlotte Morford, director of communications at the
University of Virginia Library, who improved this essay by offering kind yet
rigorous criticism as it was in progress.

1
 KARIN WITTENBORG

and on how personal traits and prior experience have shaped the
way I lead change at the University of Virginia (UVa). In articulat-
ing some of the challenges, issues, and rewards associated with
institutional change, I am reminded that the rewards far outweigh
the difficulties.
The leaders I most admire are visionaries, risk takers, good
collaborators and communicators, mentors, and people with un-
common passion and persistence. They have personal integrity,
they are assertive and ambitious for their organizations, they are
optimists even in bad times, they think broadly and keep learn-
ing, and they build relationships and communities. They bring
energy and a sense of fun to their work, they are opportunistic
and flexible, and they are not easily deterred.
Leaders want to change the status quo. They do not seek
change for its own sake, but rather to improve or create some-
thing. Leaders continually evaluate and assess their organizations
with an eye toward improving them. While many administrators
advance their organizations by tweaking a few things here and
there, leaders aim for substantive change that introduces some-
thing entirely new or vastly improves a service or product. In
short, leaders are dissatisfied with the current situation and are
motivated to change it. What differentiates a leader from a mal-
content is that the leader has learned and honed skills that allow
him or her to move from dissatisfaction to effective action.
Achieving significant change also means rocking the boat,
and this inevitably creates some degree of turmoil. Occasional
or one-time leaders may be very effective in achieving change,
but find the upheaval too uncomfortable or personally draining
to sustain an ongoing climate of change. Institutional or personal
reasons may also discourage such individuals from repeatedly
initiating change. Persistent innovators accept that disruption is
inevitable, have a notion about how to reduce the turmoil, and
generally have strong support networks. They also had better
have thick skin. In my experience, they are most likely to thrive in
institutions that are entrepreneurial and flexible.

2
 ROCKING THE BOAT

When I came to UVa in 1993, I found an institution open to

new ideas. The staff—both in the library and beyond—was su-
perb. Thomas Jefferson’s presence obviously still lingers at the
institution he founded. UVa is a place where entrepreneurs can
flourish, where innovation is valued, and where radical change
can take place. It is an institution that is traditional yet inventive.
It’s often said that you cannot give a talk at UVa without
quoting Mr. Jefferson. I quickly learned that it is also quite use-
ful to invoke Mr. Jefferson when introducing significant change
or seeking financial support. Fortunately, he was a prolific writer,
providing innumerable quotations to support nearly any en-
deavor. For example, in 1810, Mr. Jefferson must certainly have
been imagining the library’s digital initiatives when he wrote, “I
am not afraid of new inventions or improvements, nor bigoted
to the practices of our forefathers. . . . Where a new invention is
supported by well-known principles, and promises to be useful,
it ought to be tried.”2
Jefferson’s love of books and libraries is well documented
and is shared by many at the university today. Best of all, UVa
President John Casteen is a humanities scholar with an unusual
understanding and appreciation of libraries. So, in many ways,
the institutional stars were well aligned for change when I arrived
in 1993.
I did not set out to be a library director, but I have always
wanted things to be better. From the beginning of my career, I
have tackled the things that dissatisfy me most and tried to change
them. Sometimes I have been successful, sometimes not. Some-
times my contributions were appreciated, and sometimes not. I
learned gradually how to ensure that the successes outnumbered
the failures. My early professional experiences shaped my think-
ing and behavior in significant ways. In my first library position,
as an assistant to the director and deputy director of a research li-

2
Letter to Robert Fulton, 1810. From The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley,
editor, 1900. Available at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/
foley/. See entry 4042, at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/
JefCycl.html.

3
 KARIN WITTENBORG

brary, I had an opportunity to observe the library administration,

gain an understanding of the issues they were facing internally
and externally, and observe the formal and informal leadership
in the organization. Many entry-level jobs narrow your horizons
rather than expand them, but this one imprinted on me a broad
view of the library. It also stimulated my interest in the rest of the
university and in higher education in general.
Several years later, after I had moved to another institution,
my boss became a role model and a mentor. I learned from her to
be ambitious for the department and for the library as a whole.
She thought creatively and on a grand scale, never constrained
by lack of resources. Instead of being inhibited by what might be
possible, she asked for what she really wanted—and often got it.
She was passionately committed to her work and wanted to have
fun along the way, and she made a difference at the institution.
She was not a champion of the status quo.
These early experiences also convinced me of the value of
collaboration. I once introduced two researchers from different
disciplines who were using the same set of machine-readable
data, thinking they might find common ground. They were de-
lighted to meet, decided to collaborate, and gave me an inordinate
amount of credit for bringing them together. I was immediately
hooked on facilitating collaboration.
When desktop computers were still rare in libraries, I was
able to secure a number of workstations for my department. In
truth, I had no idea what I was going to do with them, and some
of the staff were less than sanguine about the opportunities that
this equipment would provide. I did have the insight to know that
I wanted to share the risk and to increase the chances of success,
so I divvied up the equipment with another department head. It
was risk management, rather than generosity, that motivated me,
but it was abundantly clear that more and better ideas came from
sharing the wealth. At that point, I became a true believer in col-
laboration.
Having a broad vision, the guts to go after what I want, and an

4
 ROCKING THE BOAT

understanding of the power of collaboration has served me well,

but this is only part of the story. As the university librarian I may
be a catalyst for change, but it is the leadership at various levels of
the organization that makes change happen. When I interviewed
for my current position, I had been impressed by the knowledge
and dedication of the library’s professional and paraprofessional
staff. By and large, they seemed to be open to new ideas and new
ways of doing things. The personnel structure was also flexible,
allowing for easy and timely restructuring when needed.
Within a week of my arrival, I realized that I had an ex-
traordinary colleague in Kendon Stubbs, the deputy university
librarian.3 He is brilliant and analytical, innovative and inven-
tive, knowledgeable about academia, and committed to ensuring
that the UVa Library is a leader in supporting the scholarly com-
munity. Knowing that we had an opportunity to transform the
library, he and I recruited our superb human resources director
to the senior management team as associate university librarian
(AUL) for organizational development. Over the next few years,
we recruited two other AULs, building a team that has been enor-
mously influential. We have a common vision for the library, but
we bring different perspectives and strengths to our work.
One of the most valuable things our senior management team
does is to rigorously examine and critique ideas, plans, and op-
portunities. We all have a bias for action. We have spirited and
3
Kendon Stubbs had been at UVa since 1961. He started the EText Center
and also Library Express On-Grounds, the free delivery of texts (print and
digital) to faculty offices. He is also the founder of the Japanese Text Initia-
tive (a collaborative effort with the University of Pittsburgh). In 1998, he
received the Thomas Jefferson Award, the highest honor given by the Uni-
versity of Virginia. Other members of the library administration include Gail
Oltmanns, who played a pivotal part as associate university librarian (AUL)
for organizational development; Diane Parr Walker, formerly director of
the Music Library, who is now AUL for user services and the new deputy
university librarian; and Martha Blodgett, AUL for production and tech-
nology, who came to us from UVa’s Information Technology department.
In 2003, Kendon Stubbs and Gail Oltmanns retired. In an administrative
reorganization, Hoke Perkins, AUL for philanthropy and director of the Mary
and David Harrison Institute, and Charlotte Morford, director of communi-
cations, joined our team. Jeanne Hammer (currently director of facilities and
capital projects) served as the library’s first director of development and was
instrumental in raising $37 million in the last fund-raising campaign.

5
 KARIN WITTENBORG

sometimes uncomfortable discussions. We agree that leadership

exists throughout the organization, including among the stu-
dents. Good ideas come from everywhere, and one of our most
important roles is to facilitate implementation of the ones that
will have the most positive impact at UVa and on the scholarly
community.
We can generally judge the impact because we have been
seeking as much information as possible from our core audiences:
faculty, students, and staff. For the past 10 years, we have been
strategically collecting and analyzing data through surveys, in-
terviews, and structured research. The data have been invaluable
in guiding us toward what we must do and suggesting what we
might stop doing.
We stop short, however, of letting data drive all our decisions
and ideas. Some of our greatest successes have come from an-
ticipating what might be needed or wanted, even though we had
no data to support the new venture. We explore things together,
even if we disagree. The library’s collaborative efforts with other
departments at UVa and with other entities have produced better
ideas, more expertise, a broader base of support, and sometimes
even more resources than would have been possible had we de-
cided to go it alone.
But perhaps that statement needs to be qualified. Sometimes
you get more resources, but you can’t count on it, especially in
higher education. The UVa Library has had a history of scarce
resources. We have been underfunded and understaffed and have
inadequate space, but we were used to that and found ways to
work around it.
For example, when Kendon Stubbs started the EText Center
(Electronic Text Center for Humanities) in 1992, he consolidated
two collections to clear a modest room. He reallocated a single
professional position, bolstered by student staff. The equipment
was rudimentary. No one was demanding electronic texts in those
days, but Stubbs was sure that a demand would surface when the
transformational potential for scholarship became clear.

6
 ROCKING THE BOAT

The EText Center soon garnered international attention, and

we were able to secure greater institutional support along with
much-needed foundation funding. Virtually all our other initia-
tives were started in the same way, that is, by reallocating funds
and staff internally. While the library’s budget is now growing, it
is still modest compared to our operations and aspirations. For us,
the vision and the will are far more important than the resources.
When the library started its digital initiatives in 1992, many
faculty and staff, and some university administrators, questioned
the investment of resources in what they perceived as a question-
able venture. Fortunately, we had allies. By 1993, a number of
highly regarded faculty, who were either already experimenting
with digital information or could recognize its potential impact
on scholarly communication, lent support and credibility to our
efforts. As one of the founders of the Institute for Advanced Tech-
nology in the Humanities (IATH), an independent research center
reporting to the university administration, Stubbs made sure that
the institute was housed in the library. The library thus became
the initial center for digital activity, and we created a community
of people who shared ideas and expertise.
Now that our digital initiatives have been recognized, often
imitated, and have attracted external funding, most faculty be-
lieve that we have gone in the right direction. Some remain op-
posed, while a few at the other end of the spectrum believe we
should abandon our traditional activities.
We had, and still have, some skeptics among the library staff.
At first, few people paid much attention to the digital activities
that seemed to be occurring at the margins of library life. We en-
couraged interested staff from other areas of the libraries to volun-
teer a percentage of their time to work in the EText Center. There
they learned about the new initiatives, acquired new skills, and
augmented the center’s staffing. Word started to spread among
the staff and others about the digital initiatives, especially as they
began to draw the attention of the press. The usual mixed feelings
surfaced: pride in being considered a leader, concern about being

7
 KARIN WITTENBORG

passed by or becoming obsolete, excitement about new opportu-

nities, and fear about competition for scarce resources.
We developed the concept of the Library of Tomorrow, or
LofT, to bring together all of our activities, digital and nondigital,
under one umbrella. We wanted to emphasize the integration of
traditional and digital formats and services and to communicate
to staff that change would be continuous.
LofT succeeded in some ways and failed miserably in others.
The LofT concept appealed to alumni and many donors, espe-
cially those interested in technology. Like the staff, some were en-
ergized by the notion and eager to help advance the LofT vision
in any way possible. Some of our staff, however, wanted no part
of it and opted out through finding other jobs or retirement. Still
others lingered in limbo. Then the state’s budget crisis forced us
to look hard at what we were proposing to invest in LofT and to
resolve how staff were (or were not) going to be motivated by it.
Budget cuts and hiring freezes, though unwelcome, some-
times have a salutary effect. Priorities come under closer scrutiny
and conflicts rise more readily to the surface when resources are
in short supply. I realized that many staff did not share the admin-
istration’s view of LofT as an integrated enterprise. Instead, they
saw our digital and traditional collections and services as being
on two separate and competing tracks. Some believed we should
focus our reduced resources solely on our traditional mission;
others believed we should focus them on the future.
This was unsettling news for me, but it was also critically im-
portant. It meant that I had not effectively communicated the plan
for how we were going to get from today’s library to tomorrow’s,
and that many staff did not understand how priorities were set.
While I remain convinced that we are heading in the right direc-
tion, the LofT experience taught me that our planning process is
not achieving everything we want it to, and that our communica-
tions program, which had been directed externally, needs a stron-
ger internal focus. Clearly we have work to do, and improving
communication will be an ever-present goal.

8
 ROCKING THE BOAT

The LofT experience also crystallized for me what is perhaps

the greatest leadership challenge: helping people thrive in an
environment of constant change. This challenge is particularly
acute in today’s research library environment. Our staff are resil-
ient, but many find it disconcerting to discover on a regular basis
that their carefully acquired expertise has become irrelevant or is
about to become obsolete.
People who thrive during periods of rapid, ongoing change
tend to seek and enjoy learning. They are oriented to what the
customer needs rather than to what they themselves know. Their
identity is not too closely tied to a static base of knowledge and
abilities. They get significant satisfaction from learning new
things and delivering collections and services in new ways, but
they also need compensation, recognition, and support.
As a public institution in the throes of financial cutbacks and
hiring freezes, UVa has not been able to offer raises to its staff in
the last three years. This can have a detrimental effect on staff mo-
tivation. Retention and recruitment of the best staff are critical to
our success. Since the economic malaise has affected almost every
university, as well as the commercial sector, we have been fortu-
nate in keeping most of our staff. But we are focusing increasingly
on creating an environment that will attract new staff members
and encourage the best ones to stay. Such an environment offers,
in addition to a competitive salary, training and educational op-
portunities, potential for growth and advancement, autonomy,
and recognition of accomplishments. Most of our staff take ad-
vantage of our existing training programs, which draw on local,
regional, and national or international experts. But we need to
make significant additional investment in training and staff de-
velopment.
A number of internal issues have surfaced, sometimes repeat-
edly, as we have implemented change. These issues include com-
pensation, consensus, culture, control, and criticism.
First, compensation. As we have increased the number of staff
with sophisticated technical skills, we have simultaneously cre-

9
 KARIN WITTENBORG

ated a wider gap in our salary structure. Many staff complain that
traditional skills are not as well compensated as technical skills
are, and they do not accept that this is a market-driven disparity.
The problem is compounded by a tendency to confuse value with
salary. People who are paid less often feel their work is underval-
ued as well. Comparing the salary of the dean of the College of
Arts and Sciences with that of the football coach is the best way
I have found to put this issue in context, but it does not always
help.
I am often frustrated by conversations about consensus. Some
librarians here and elsewhere believe that the word “consensus”
means 100 percent agreement, rather than majority support. I
think that efforts to achieve complete consensus create a barrier to
change. Significant changes are controversial by nature, and they
are guaranteed to provoke opposition. Discussion is essential, lis-
tening to contrary views is essential, and modifying plans on the
basis of new information or perspectives is often wise. But I do not
believe you can achieve 100 percent agreement on anything truly
important. Having majority support is empowering and will often
accelerate change. Spending too much time trying to bring every-
one on board before starting, however, is a recipe for failure.
Like other libraries, UVa has experienced many culture clash-
es—far too many to enumerate. One common conflict is between
the good and the perfect. I think the quest for improvement is
essential, but it in no way implies a quest for perfection. In the
past, libraries may have had the luxury of fine-tuning a service or
product until it was (almost) perfect. The rate of change and the
changing technology no longer permit this approach. Perfection
is not only virtually unobtainable but often unnecessary. Settling
for “very good,” or even “good enough,” can win the day. Nev-
ertheless, many staff find it difficult to compromise their exacting
standards.
The pace of change in academic libraries has accelerated in
the last two decades and shows no sign of abating. For libraries
with ambitious agendas, the change is even faster and the terrain

10
 ROCKING THE BOAT

rougher. As our responsibilities grow, it is impossible to control, or

even know about, much that is happening in our bailiwicks. If we
have good staff who exercise initiative, we may frequently be sur-
prised by what they have achieved and how they have achieved
it. Leaders throughout the organization must learn to be comfort-
able with exercising less direct oversight; they must focus on the
goal rather than specify exactly how it is to be achieved. Chances
are that the people most closely involved in a project already have
a good idea of how to proceed toward the goal, even if the steps
are somewhat different from those envisioned by the leader.
Leaders of change learn to be comfortable with very tenuous
control, but even those who initiate change often find it stressful.
I am fond of a quote from Mario Andretti: “If you think you’re
always in control, then you’re not going fast enough.” Change
is exhilarating, but unsettling. I would rather surrender a great
degree of control than achieve only what is possible in a slow,
methodical manner.
Constructive criticism is invaluable when an initiative is un-
dertaken and at any time during its development when a direc-
tion can be modified. Open and timely expressions of concern,
suggestions, and alternative opinions have strengthened our op-
erations. The changes for which the UVa Library is known have
been shaped and guided by such criticism. Even when a project is
completed or an initiative has become established, reassessment
and criticism can strengthen an organization. Finding out what
could have been done better, or what may have impeded prog-
ress, helps inform future endeavors.
What is difficult is the criticism that is not constructive. We
are all familiar with the detractors who speak up only after a
change is made or who work covertly to undermine the organiza-
tion. As Winston Churchill said, “Criticism is easy, achievement is
difficult.” I don’t have much patience with individuals who stay
on the sidelines expressing a litany of complaints and critiques.
Inevitably, anything worth doing will have its detractors, and ev-
ery library has some disaffected staff. Our organizational devel-

11
 KARIN WITTENBORG

opment program has made great strides in keeping the detractors

and the disaffected to a minimum. Some people have revitalized
themselves by changing positions within the library, others have
chosen to work elsewhere. Still others have chosen not to move.
I must recognize that detractors and disaffected exist and find
ways for their concerns to be heard, yet not let them undermine
morale, waste too much time, or interfere with progress. I feel
regret when people who could make significant contributions
marginalize themselves instead.
Achieving something significant is almost always hard. En-
lightened optimism gives me the confidence and courage to go
forward, even in the face of opposition and obstacles. I don’t like
even to entertain the idea that I might fail, so I focus on how to
make something happen rather than on what can go wrong. And
when something does go wrong, I am eager to fix it or to inspire
other people to fix it. The problem solving becomes a challenge
and a game in which you must adopt a new perspective or a new
strategy to win. And who doesn’t like to win?
Optimism also makes me much more comfortable with taking
risks. Counting on success can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Opti-
mism is particularly helpful in troubled times. Even when budget
news is dire, I am convinced that the library can move forward,
and I look for ways to turn the worst of situations to our advan-
tage. I am always looking for victories, even small ones, that buoy
our spirits and suggest better times to come. When my own opti-
mism is shaken, I don’t let on.
I say this because I believe that fearlessness, or at least the
appearance of it, is another asset in achieving change. The same
spontaneous commitment that has sometimes made me take jobs
that were financially disadvantageous or did not have obvious ca-
reer paths has given me incredible freedom. For reasons not nec-
essarily rational, I have been only tangentially concerned with job
security and therefore have done some daring things that I might
not have if keeping my job was foremost in my priorities. That
lack of concern, along with geographic mobility, has also made it

12
 ROCKING THE BOAT

easy for me to move out of untenable or stifling situations.

Setting priorities necessarily means that some other things
do not get done. Most libraries are short staffed, and we all have
limited time. In choosing the things the organization will do,
some irksome problems go unaddressed or some exciting oppor-
tunities pass by. It is not always clear to staff why this happens. I
believe our evolving library planning process will strengthen staff
engagement in priority setting at every level and that it should
clarify what will and won’t get done. Of course, problems are
solved and new initiatives are undertaken all the time without my
involvement, but I feel some regret when those that might benefit
from my attention do not receive it because I deem the outcome
not to be worth the investment of time. We all make these choic-
es—the tricky part is not feeling guilty or inadequate as a result.
We make the same choices in balancing external professional
activities with institutional commitments. While I have been
moderately active in professional organizations in the past, I now
focus most of my energies on UVa. Because this is a place I feel
passionately about and a place that is open to change, I want to
accomplish the most I can. Retaining and recruiting the best and
most diverse staff, providing the best services and collections to
faculty and students, securing the library’s financial future, facili-
tating innovation, improving the student experience by building
and renovating libraries, and participating in pan-University
endeavors continually renew my energy and commitment. It is
immensely interesting and rewarding to have the opportunity to
influence university endeavors beyond the library and to collabo-
rate with other parts of the university.
I have mentioned that stress and discomfort accompany
change, even when you initiate it yourself. For me, both the
motivation and the rewards come from making a difference in
the university. For example, faculty regularly tell us that our free
delivery service LEO (Library Express On-Grounds) makes them
more productive in their scholarly work and is a powerful incen-
tive in recruiting new faculty. Our digital initiatives have brought

13
 KARIN WITTENBORG

many of the library staff into collegial collaborations with faculty

and graduate students. The staff are seen not merely as technical
experts but as essential partners in conceiving, designing, and
implementing a project. There is enormous satisfaction in mak-
ing it possible for faculty to create work that would have been
unimaginable 10 years ago, to share it with a wide audience, and
to ensure its preservation and availability.
Not all faculty, of course, are engaged in large-scale digital
research projects, and many of them are concerned about the com-
mitment of time that is needed to use technology. In collaboration
with UVa’s Information Technology department, the library has
been working on ways to also help neophyte faculty who want to
use technology in teaching. In their evaluations of the program,
some faculty participants told us that they had conversations
with graduate and students that would never have occurred in
their traditional classes; others have reported that the use of their
newfound skills would reshape their research. That’s pretty ad-
dictive stuff.
The library is now recognized as facilitating informal in-
teraction between the faculty and students. In 1998, when we
opened the Alderman Café inside the graduate humanities and
social sciences library, we had many skeptics and even a few staff
resignations. Fortunately, the Faculty Senate was an eager and
formidable ally, and the café quickly became a magnet for faculty
as well as for students. A number of faculty now hold office hours
there, and one even holds a seminar in the café. We have doubled
its size and plan to enlarge it again in 2004–2005, when we will
provide more seating and daily newspapers. We are working on
plans for an additional café for the renovated Science and Engi-
neering Library as well. What can be more satisfying than facili-
tating interaction between students and faculty and reaffirming
the library as a place for intellectual discourse? Loftier goals aside,
the library benefits from a percentage of the proceeds from the
highly profitable café.
Undergraduates are the heaviest users of the libraries as

14
 ROCKING THE BOAT

physical places, and the changes we have made on the basis of

data and feedback from our Student Advisory Council have de-
monstrably improved the student experience. Recently, the vice
president for student affairs told us that a consultant’s report
on student life had revealed that an overwhelming number of
students said that the libraries were the center of their academic
lives outside the classroom. It was gratifying to hear that offi-
cially, even though our students are generous in expressing their
appreciation throughout the year. That finding also prompted us
to collaborate on space planning with Student Affairs, and we
are exploring some radical ideas. The opportunities for positive
change are infinite.
Perhaps most rewarding of all is watching the library staff
develop and grow. They are smart, imaginative, energetic, and
service oriented. They generate extraordinary ideas, they are re-
sourceful even in tough times, and they are outwardly focused.
Their relationships within the university and elsewhere keep us
better informed, more nimble in responding to needs, and more
visible to the academic community. They are exercising leader-
ship now, and they will shape the future.
The past decade at the University of Virginia has been the
most engaging and satisfying time of my career. In the end, it
is all about the people. I found here a university administration
that was supportive and gave me a high degree of autonomy; an
accomplished faculty and student body who are a pleasure to
serve; a library staff whose knowledge, intellectual curiosity, and
dedication are extraordinary; and colleagues in the library pro-
fession and elsewhere who inspire me. There is still much to be
done. Scholarly communication will continue to change in ways
we cannot yet imagine. True collaboration with other universities,
especially in digital matters, is not only possible but necessary.
And while budget shortfalls have prompted us to be more experi-
mental and creative, the next capital campaign will allow me to
raise funds sufficient to support our current agenda and reduce
our dependency on state funds. It is one of the most significant
things I can do for the library and the university.
15
Chris Ferguson

Whose Vision? Whose Values?

On Leading Information Services
in an Era of Persistent Change

I
n the waning days of World War II, after years of physical
deprivation and psychological terror, Viktor Frankl walked
away from the daily prospect of death in a concentration
camp. Later, he wrote compellingly of those horrors, laying the
foundation for a new school of psychoanalysis and offering to
us a framework for assessing our relationship with the world
(Frankl 1963). We cannot dictate the broad outlines of our lives,
Frankl writes—when and where we are born, or the elements of
family, community, nation, and historical circumstance. But we
can choose the character with which we live our lives, the moral
choices and tone with which we conduct ourselves, and what we
see as the purposes and goals for our lives. In the end, Frankl tells
us, we are responsible for the content, if not the context, of our
lives, and within this we must understand what we can and can-
not change.
Leadership is about discerning what should and should not
be changed. It is about understanding the interplay of self and
others, and perceiving the interconnectedness of personal and
organizational values. It is about self-awareness and making

16
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

choices. Key to any leadership model is the mechanism for deci-

sion making—how participation is balanced with leadership, how
individual vision is reconciled with other visions, how multiple
decision-making processes can be reconciled within the same in-
stitution. In the end, leadership is about realization of self through
service to others and the fulfillment of collective aspirations.
When Frankl walked away from his concentration camp, the
prevailing leadership model in nearly all sectors of American life
was that of a strong (usually male) autocrat. The 1950s and 1960s
are replete with examples of strong, purposeful leaders managing
largely through command-and-control methods. In the 1970s and
1980s, as government bureaucracies expanded exponentially, the
number and size of educational institutions mushroomed, and
corporations typically became too large to manage as personal
fiefdoms, a popular alternative archetype emerged of the chief ex-
ecutive officer (CEO) orchestrating a large, complex bureaucracy.
As we enter more fully into a transformative era in higher
education fueled by technology and characterized by the motto of
24/7, we require yet another kind of leader—one more relevant to
the emerging realities of discontinuity, ambiguity, and persistent
change and transition. Situations conducive to command-and-
control leadership models are becoming less common, and the
benevolent CEO model is becoming increasingly unwieldy. Mo-
bility, integration, perpetual flux, nonlinearity, and visceral dis-
trust of leaders and institutions are some of the hallmarks of the
emerging environment. Stewardship rather than personal stake,
calibration of multiple visions rather than imposition of one’s
own vision, high tolerance for ambiguity, ability to effect simplic-
ity on the surface of complexity, and commitment to supporting
both personal and organizational development are some of the
hallmarks of the emerging leader for our time.

A Personal Context
Leading organizational change for me has largely entailed help-
ing others think and act beyond prevailing definitions of library

17
 CHRIS FERGUSON

and librarianship, and to move toward organizational and op-

erational realms that transcend conventional boundaries by inte-
grating library, computing, and other academic support services
within a more amorphous, evolving, responsive agency. My no-
tions of leadership have been deeply affected by the disruption of
incorporating (i.e., clumsily assimilating) information technology
in libraries in the 1980s, making operational the nation’s first in-
formation commons in the mid-1990s, and, over the past decade,
offering leadership for the integration of library and computing
within two very different university settings.
Through these experiences I have come to believe that one
of the most promising leadership models for an era of persistent
change is “servant leadership,” as articulated by Robert Green-
leaf (Greenleaf 2002). Emphasizing connections between self and
organization, between listening and understanding, and between
language and imagination, servant leadership places the leader
at the nexus, rather than at the pinnacle, of change. It equips
the leader with tools that foster empowerment and enables par-
ticipants to live more comfortably and creatively with persistent
change. In an era when agile response to sudden change is at a
premium, servant leadership cultivates within organizations an
increased capacity for efficient teamwork that uses mission as
impelling force, values as cohering force, and vision as directing
force—in short, the tools for effective adaptation to the disconti-
nuities of our present environment.1
When I entered librarianship, I did not expect to become a
leader. After several years, I began advancing through the middle
reaches of organizations primarily because I was disappointed at

1
Robert Greenleaf was a Quaker with strong convictions on social justice
and service. His writings and many years in leadership positions with AT&T
speak to the effectiveness and relevance of his ideas within a large contem-
porary organization. The “servant leader” might thus also be seen as the
empowering leader in a learning organization. Additional attributes of the
servant leader include the ability to listen to self and to others, empathy for
others that reveals individual talents and insights, concern for personal and
professional growth that fosters a larger sense of community, recognition of
the role of steward over resources in trust from society at large, and capacity
for persuasion rather than coercion.

18
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

each successive level by what appeared to be organizational con-

straints that impeded meaningful change. Surely, I thought, the
next level will give me the wherewithal to make a difference. Only
after working at some length with insufficient self-awareness or
mentoring to be the kind of leader I thought I needed to be did I
realize I was making the same mistakes as most of my predeces-
sors had made. I was leading as I had been led. Only relatively re-
cently did I learn that change is more about people than it is about
organization charts and process analyses, and that to effect lasting
change, I must place myself at the nexus, rather than the pinnacle,
of change. To effect lasting change, I must cultivate, mentor, listen,
communicate, bring together, encourage, and let go.
Librarians in leadership roles often are positioned well to ap-
ply these principles in their intersections of faculty and student
service planes. We are at the crossroads of information, technol-
ogy, physical space, and electronic communication. We have the
traditions of personalized service, respect for individuals and
their needs, freedom of access, and privacy. Our heroes include
Green, Rothstein, Bunge, Battin, and Lynch. In the playing out
of these values for the increasingly digital library, whatever that
may be or yet become, we can make a difference in ourselves in
ways that perpetuate a dynamic cycle of personal and organiza-
tional enrichment.
Frankl assures us of our capacity to shape the character of our
lives and thereby to affect the course of our work. Greenleaf offers
us a leadership model that draws on the power of communities to
form and to act on integrated visions. Together, these two authors
transform the question of “Why me?” into “Why not me?” and
then into “Why not us?” Once we have posed these questions, we
begin to think very differently about who we are as professionals,
the connections between our personal and professional lives, and
what we will do with the resources that have been entrusted to us.

19
 CHRIS FERGUSON

Leader as Learner
I did not see it coming. Twenty-four years, ago I became a li-
brarian largely for altruistic reasons related to developing and
facilitating access to large print collections. At that time, research
libraries were formed around large physical print collections,
with such services as on-site gateways (some might say guarded
checkpoints) to information. A few years later, I thought I could
see the future of libraries with the advent of microcomputing and
a gradual transition to digital information resources within exist-
ing service frameworks. I was so wrong.
What I did not see coming was a massive and rapid shift (for
an academic-library ecology centuries in the making) from print
to digital information resources, from on-site services to virtual
services through the network, from an emphasis on our values
and visions to those of others—in short, from us to them.2 It has
become increasingly clear that there is no place in this brave new
world of largely digital information services for command-and-
control leadership that does not cultivate individual responsibil-
ity. The patrician CEO can at best sustain little more than a hold-
ing action when responses to external stimuli are controlled at the
executive level.
Perhaps the hardest lesson for leaders of organizations these
days may be that change is often far more about leading people
through a transition than about changing the operations and
structures around them. At some level, most of us know this
intuitively, but through both positive and negative experiences I
have learned that it has become necessary to take this principle to
another level of understanding and practice. One must honestly
listen to, draw from, and meld the values, ideals, wisdom, and
aspirations of both the organization and the larger parent institu-
tion. Moreover, in order to effect lasting systemic change (rather
than temporary changes that snap back into place at the first op-

2
Another way to characterize this shift is from a Ptolemaic, library-centered
view of the service universe to a Copernican, user-centered perspective
(Ferguson 2000, 302).

20
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

portunity), it is important to focus as much on the human aspects

of transition as on change outcomes.
The second-most-difficult lesson for an information services
leader in our transitional era may be to internalize the need to
shift the leadership perspective from one’s own thinking to that
of others—to calibrate one’s own vision with that of the organi-
zation, the institution, and key individuals beyond, and to see
through the eyes of external constituents as well as through the
eyes of employees. These seem to be simple tasks, but performing
them consistently requires a degree of deference, discernment,
and ideational humility that many leaders seem to lack. Call it
hubris, call it self-absorption, but what some know by instinct I
personally have learned with difficulty: Never assume you un-
derstand the vision of the next level, or that your ideas are more
powerful or better conceived than those of others. Be prepared at
all times to meld your vision and aspirations into those of others,
sometimes morphing your grand notions into lesser elements
within a larger canvas.
Three experiences with organizational development and
change have instilled in me a great appreciation for these prin-
ciples. Foremost was my involvement in bringing online the
nation’s first information commons—essentially a major com-
puter-user room recast in the heart of a library—in the University
of Southern California’s Leavey Library. Deploying a heavy con-
centration of computing within the heart of the library, enabling
on these computers a full range of productivity and network
navigation tools (at a time when access to e-mail was strongly dis-
couraged, if not banned outright, in most academic libraries), and
providing robust service support for the use of these resources
had not previously been undertaken on a large scale. The pres-
ence of this massive concentration of information technology in
the library demanded a reformulation of core library values.
Only by working in a highly collaborative fashion with tech-
nology-support agencies outside the library were we able to begin
experimenting with integrated technology and reference-service

21
 CHRIS FERGUSON

support. Only by empowering librarians and others within the

library to view our services from the perspective of our students,
with a great degree of freedom to shape programs accordingly,
were we able to find our way collectively into new service models
that integrated library and technology-support services. In this
manner, we began to transform the enduring library values of
personal service and equity of access into the new values of ho-
listic computing, core services through the network, and making
the technology work for everyone—framing principles that arose
only after the participating leaders placed themselves within the
nexus of change (Ferguson and Bunge 1997).
After two years awash in the adrenaline rush that came with
the Leavey experience,3 I entered into the least successful yet
most instructive phase of my career as a leader. I was invited to
participate first in a library-wide organization redesign and then
in a larger integration of library and computing within a single
administrative structure. Only in retrospect did I realize that
upon moving into this realm I was inhibited by my own tendency
in fluid, ill-defined situations to focus inordinately on tasks and
organization charts rather than on the needs of individuals and
groups. I also came to realize belatedly that the executive lead-
ership as a whole (of which I was a part) not only shared these
tendencies but also failed to understand one of the basic precepts
of organization transformation:
It isn’t the changes that do you in, it’s the transitions.
Change is not the same as transition. Change is situational;
the new site, the new boss, the new team roles, the new poli-
cy. Transition is the psychological process people go through

3
Leavey Library was the work of many hands and minds, so let me be clear
on my contribution to the enterprise. Charles Ritcheson, Peter Lyman, Joyce
Toscan, Lynn Sipe, and many others were instrumental in fund raising,
architectural design, construction oversight, and broad conceptualization
of the library and its central feature, the information commons. Appointed
inaugural director of Leavey several months before it opened in 1994, I was
charged to define positions, design services, recruit personnel, and provide
general leadership for the library during its early years of operation. For a
general account of Leavey after its first year of operation, see Holmes-Wong
et al. (1997).

22
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

to come to terms with the new situation. Change is external,

transition is internal (Bridges 1991, 3).
The leadership group made little effort to establish a sense of
urgency, create a guiding coalition, develop a vision or strategy,
or (arguably most important) communicate a change vision.4 A
fundamental error in the would-be integration of library and
computing was to develop a new organization chart at the execu-
tive level, announce the changes, then turn the new structure over
to the organization to make it work. In the absence of a transition
strategy, serious morale issues emerged, old resentments resur-
faced, and polarization among groups combined to allow only
superficial, begrudging changes to be made.
During these years, I lived the all-too-common experience of
bringing a set of values and a leadership style that had worked
well within a relatively contained environment into the much
larger and more complex setting of a university library system
and then of an ostensibly integrated organization of library and
computing. With considerably less internal support at either the
line or the executive level, an absence of clear internal or external
planning frameworks, and an inability unilaterally to reconcile
competing personal visions or to create an organization culture of
empowerment, the silos of library and computing prevailed more
or less as they were prior to the integration initiative.
The first seeds of doubt about my leadership style and some
of the practices of key people around me were sown with my
participation in the three-week UCLA Senior Fellows Leader-
ship Program for librarians in 1999. There I acquired a broader
view of my profession’s leadership traditions and models, greater
awareness of myself as a leader, and deeper understanding of the
need to look for external connections when developing vision
and direction for an organization. Another turning point in the

4
Eight steps for successful organization transformation are defined and
explored in the now-classic 1995 article by John Kotter: establish a sense of
urgency, form a powerful guiding coalition, create a vision, communicate
the vision, empower others to act on the vision, create short-term wins, con-
solidate and produce still more change, and institutionalize new approaches.

23
 CHRIS FERGUSON

development of my understanding of leadership occurred dur-

ing my participation in the inaugural Frye Leadership Institute
in 2000. The Frye Institute was developed by EDUCAUSE and
the Council on Library and Information Resources to cultivate the
next generation of information service leaders in higher educa-
tion. Participation in the institute enabled me to view information
services from broader institutional and national perspectives. I
began to look seriously at higher education in a holistic fashion
and to see myself as an information services leader beyond li-
brary and computing. Taken together, the Frye Institute and the
Senior Fellows program exposed me to professional values I later
found expressed in Frankl and Greeenleaf in ways that affect me
personally as well—principally, the values of choice, engagement,
service, and fulfillment.
Before moving from the idyll of Leavey to the challenges of
the larger, more entrenched, and only lightly charted territory of
integrating library and computing organizations, I should have
taken a Frankl moment to assess what could and could not be
changed within these systems. A Greenleaf litmus test to ascertain
what organizational tools and processes were already in place
would have been helpful as well, followed by an assessment of
the capacity for leadership and the organization to work collab-
oratively and humanely. Had I done so, I might well have realized
the extent of discontinuity among personal, leadership, and or-
ganizational values and foreseen the likelihood of accomplishing
relatively little meaningful change. Having realized this, my next
steps, both professionally and personally, likely would have been
very different.
My experience as a leader at Pacific Lutheran University
(PLU) has been quite different, but certainly not without sub-
stantial opportunities for both professional and personal growth.
Leading organizational change in a smaller university has in
some respects been easier, because fewer people were involved
and the union of library and computing had been in place under
the same administrative umbrella for several years. On the other

24
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

hand, there is a much greater expectation at PLU for communica-

tion and attention to individual and community needs from both
inside and outside the organization. My principal challenges have
been to begin operational integration, to revitalize the library as
a presence within PLU’s academic culture, and to enhance the
university’s capacity for teaching and learning with technology,
and to do so in ways that connect with community values and
aspirations.
Among my first steps at PLU was to form a leadership group
representative of the entire organization. Information Resources
at this institution comprises administrative computing, network-
ing, and systems; academic user support; telecommunications;
television and audio services; Web development and services; and
multimedia and classroom technology support, in addition to the
usual array of functions and units associated with academic li-
braries. I believed it was vital to begin a process of familiarization
that would mitigate the operational and space boundaries that re-
mained between library and computing, even though they were
federated through the same dean and for the most part were lo-
cated within the same building. Our leadership group now meets
weekly to share operational highlights and to address matters of
overarching interest to the organization. A planning process be-
gan in this forum, as have initial discussions on space issues (as
we explore moving the main computer lab into the center of the
library), a variety of fiscal challenges, and, more recently, a series
of technology and renovation projects. Finding common ground
within the middle reaches of an organization and understanding
how similar the challenges are is a meaningful step along a con-
tinuum that we hope will lead to a deeper level of integration.
After spending several months listening to and learning
from many voices throughout the university, the leadership
group and I began an Information Resources planning process
with a series of focused discussions, department meetings, pub-
lic forums, and a leadership group retreat. In this process we
paid close attention to the classic steps of organizational trans-

25
 CHRIS FERGUSON

formation (Kotter 1995) by articulating a sense of urgency for the

need to change, maintaining a guiding coalition, and developing
a vision to direct the change effort. Parallel to this, we developed
the habit of communicating regularly, both in messages and open
forums, and of allowing leaders to articulate and to implement
these changes in ways they felt most effective.
Several months after launching this planning effort we
produced a set of four documents for public review and discus-
sion—a general plan and decision-making framework for under-
taking leading initiatives plus three implementing documents
that recognize the importance of sustaining momentum through
specific action steps (Information Resources 2002). We accom-
plished this work largely through a broad-based recognition of
our purpose (i.e., mission as impelling force), an understanding of
common values both institutionally and operationally (i.e., values
as cohesive force), and a strong sense for the need to articulate a
framework for future action and decision making (i.e., vision as
directing force). The chief benefits of this process have been to cre-
ate a stronger sense of common purpose and direction throughout
the organization, to add substance to the ideal of an integrated
leadership group, to describe and accomplish a significant real-
location of human and material resources toward teaching and
learning with technology, and to lay the foundation for the next
phase of operational and organizational integration.
A new provost arrived just as our campus-wide strategic-
planning process was moving into high gear. The arrival of the
provost, coupled with the planning activity, presented the oppor-
tunity to connect Information Resources efforts more closely with
other efforts around campus. In vetting Information Resources
plans with the new provost, the concept of an information com-
mons became more closely linked with campus-wide planning
and melded with the provost’s emerging vision of a student
academic support center. This combination of a solid planning
process within Information Resources and a campus-wide con-
nection that associates it with several related programs has be-

26
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

come the basis of an innovative concept for a Mortvedt (Library)

Commons that will feature integrated library, technology, and
academic support service elements.
An important dimension of leadership in a rapidly chang-
ing environment is the capacity to view organizational change
and movement toward a vision as a train careening down tracks
that are being placed only moments before the train speeds onto
them—and to alternate frequently between the roles of train engi-
neer and rail-slapper. The lesson here is that you sometimes don’t
know exactly where the train is going, when your role is that of
engineer or layer of rails, or just what kind of terrain lies over
the next horizon; however, by sharing a mission and vision with
people at all levels you can affect (if not steer) the overall course.
The challenge for the contemporary leader in an environ-
ment of rapid and continual change, then, is truly to give herself
or himself up to the vision, as well as to relinquish any effort to
have direct control over the means of accomplishing it, once it has
been placed into motion. At PLU, in order to form a viable vision
that speaks to all constituencies, I have had to surrender the no-
tion of an information commons as the centerpiece in a redesign
of the library, along with a personal emotional attachment to a
Camelot I had created around my experiences with the Leavey Li-
brary information commons nearly a decade ago. This has made
it more difficult to determine precisely when I should be working
as an engineer or as a rail-slapper, but it has brought with it the
enormous satisfaction of witnessing the emergence of a still more
powerful and galvanizing idea laden with yet more opportunities
for achievement and growth by the participants. Essential to this
metamorphosis in my thinking and acting has been the realiza-
tion that change is about people rather than things and that I must
view myself as being at the nexus rather than pinnacle of change,
and the awareness that if I act on these two realizations I can find
effective balance between my own views and those of others.

27
 CHRIS FERGUSON

The Value of Values

We have been hearing for some time about the coming transfor-
mation of higher education. In recent years, many of us within
information services have begun to create viable frameworks
for the transition from largely print to largely digital scholarly
communication and teaching-and-learning environments. But
relatively few of us truly understand just how massive the com-
ing shakeout in higher education will be or the true extent and
character of the restructuring that likely will occur over the next
decade or so. Globalization, return to massive federal deficits,
further withdrawal of federal and state funding from higher edu-
cation, continuing malaise in philanthropic investing, preoccupa-
tion with national security, the ongoing struggle over matters of
privacy and security, increasing demands for accountability with
emphasis on assessment—all conspire to accelerate dramatically
our transformation into a system of higher education restructured
largely by technology, mission, accountability, and values.
Values for this new order are by no means clear. It is certain
only that the values are changing and that demand is increasing
for leaders who can clarify them for institutions, organizations,
and even themselves. If the workplace is demanding less com-
mand and control and more inspired organizational change, if
leadership now requires more personal affect than direct control,
if organizational effectiveness increasingly requires movement
from low-trust/high-control to high-trust/low-control models,
then transparent, values-based, egoless leadership is becoming all
the more important.
As leaders, we have the capacity—indeed, the responsibil-
ity—to foster creation of the values needed in our organizations.
Often the most effective way of doing so is simply to get out of the
way and allow the collective wisdom of the persons to whom you
have entrusted these services to bring them forward. An infor-
mation commons by definition possesses a hybrid, transforming
character that engenders discontinuities and ambiguities. Con-
ventional service silos and multiple service points are no longer

28
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

viable, professional roles and responsibilities are considerably

more ambiguous, and the convergence of information services
and technologies erodes organizational boundaries. For more
than a century, librarians have refined and sustained the values
of personal service and equity of access, yet our new service en-
vironments demand even more. Now we must reinterpret our
enduring values and formulate new ones for the next genera-
tion of information services. Finding our way to framing values
in Leavey required that librarians have a considerable degree of
freedom to search for new responses to new service demands.
Service providers had to be empowered to do so, and leadership
had to let go of direct control over that process.
A final point: Fostering change in a true spirit of discovery
and receptivity to new directions can lead to unexpected results.
Proliferation of the information commons concept throughout
academe is both a manifestation of and an accelerant for conver-
gence of technologies and the services that support them. The
Leavey experience early on convinced me of the inevitability of
the convergence of library and computing, both operationally
and organizationally. Since then, integration of these agencies has
been a prominent element in the professional values I espouse
and an underpinning for all the organizational visioning in which
I participate. It has even become a major consideration in choos-
ing the institution with which I affiliate. The seemingly innocuous
exercise of openly exploring new values for a new service arena
turned out to be only the beginning of an odyssey that has led
into the realm of reconceiving how organizations can be shaped
to better serve the interests of the communities whose interests
they serve.

Leader as Leader
Much of the latter portion of my career has been based on the
premise that an effective leader enables an organization to go
somewhere (presumably a good place) to which it otherwise
would not have gone. The organization that has such a leader

29
 CHRIS FERGUSON

moves forward willingly and with a sense of fulfillment, having

been fully engaged and appropriately inspired to become more
than it was. It is not by coincidence that I have focused on the
merging of library and computing as the chief arena in which
to play out these values. I have done so because it is a largely
unmapped frontier that readily captures the imagination and
because we must find ways to populate this new world as one
element in a broader-based restructuring of higher education now
under way.
Frankl and Greenleaf encourage us to make choices, to serve
the best interests of all, and to cultivate values that enable both
individuals and organizations to realize their full potential. Tak-
ing oneself from a hierarchical role to the nexus of change entails
considerable mentoring, cultivation of trust, listening, mediation,
and encouragement. It requires one to see service as a transpar-
ent interface between internal and external interests. Inherent in
this dimension of contemporary leadership is responsibility for
the personal and professional development of individuals and, in
these extraordinary times, the responsibility to explore new ways
of meeting information needs for the general good of both our lo-
cal and national communities.
One of my chief joys in this journey has been to witness first-
hand the fruits of computing-library integration in the creation of
more flexible organizations for the transition from a largely print
to a largely digital world, especially the collaboration of librarians
and technologists in developing networked resources, under-
standing user needs in holistic ways, developing new modes of
assistance, and jointly instructing faculty and students. Involve-
ment in these and similar enterprises has affected me personally
through an interplay of organizational values and visioning, a life
of writing and speaking, and an evolution of personal values that
feed back into my professional life.
While this speaks to an intimate connectedness within the
leader’s professional life of values and involvement, a substantial
degree of transcendence is required to lead transformation of an

30
 WHOSE VISION? WHOSE VALUES?

organization when no clear road map is available. In the case of

the integration of library and computing, the leader cannot af-
ford to be viewed primarily as either librarian or technologist.
The leader must instead find a third way—one that relies on col-
lective wisdom and the deep knowledge and expertise of others
while managing still to foster a cohering vision (Ferguson and
Metz 2003). This might seem contrary to some of the points made
earlier in this essay, but this is precisely the paradox of leadership
in the contemporary organization—the leader leads yet follows,
engages yet transcends, and teaches while learning.
In this era of persistent change and transition, leadership
must be experienced as striving, a tension between opposites,
growth through both negative and positive experiences, and ful-
fillment of both organizational and personal potential. Effective
leaders have a sense of calling, a vocation from which framing
values are derived. The essence of an authentic leader is the feel-
ing that she or he can make a difference and is willing to try. The
effective postmodern leader thus repeatedly asks, “Why and for
whom am I doing this?” As Viktor Frankl urges, we must intui-
tively understand what is circumstance that cannot or should not
be changed and what is incumbent on us to try to change. And as
Robert Greenleaf instructs, it is possible to shape our personal and
professional worlds in ways that connect and enhance each other
in service to the best interests of all.

References
Bridges, William. 1991. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of
Change. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Books.

Ferguson, Chris D. 2000. ‘Shaking the Conceptual Foundations,’

Too: Integrating Research and Technology Support for the Next
Generation of Information Service. College & Research Libraries
61(4): 302.

31
 CHRIS FERGUSON

Ferguson, Chris D., and Charles Bunge. 1997. The Shape of Ser-
vices to Come: Values-Based Reference Service for the Largely
Digital Library. College & Research Libraries 58(3): 252–265.

Ferguson, Chris D., and Terry Metz. 2003. Finding the Third
Space: On Leadership Issues Related to the Integration of Library
and Computing. In C. Regenstein and B. Dewey, eds. Leader-
ship, Higher Education, and the Information Age. New York: Neal-
Schuman Publishers.

Frankl, Viktor E. 1963. Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to

Logotherapy. Translated by I. Lasch. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Greenleaf, Robert K. 2002. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the

Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. 25th anniversary edition.
Edited by Larry C. Spears. New York: Paulist Press.

Holmes-Wong, Deborah, et al. 1997. If You Build It, They Will

Come: Space, Values, and Services in the Digital Era. Library Ad-
ministration & Management 11(2): 81–82.

Information Resources, Pacific Lutheran University. 2002. Infor-

mation Resources as Strategic Assets: Library and Computing
for PLU 2010 and the Next Level of Distinction. Available at http:
//www.library.plu.edu/infores/news.cfm. Accessed September
2003.

Kotter, John P. 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts

Fail. Harvard Business Review 73(2): 59–67.

32
Michael A. Keller

Scattered Leaves:
Reflections on Leadership

L
ike dry leaves in an autumn wind—some whole, some
torn and in fragments, some still stem to twig, some bright,
some dim—thoughts about people and experiences influ-
encing one’s performance and principles as a leader need some
raking, some ordering, if they are to have any interest or use to
others. Perhaps, like autumn leaves, those thoughts will find a
place in a compost pit, getting purposefully recycled. Or, they
might just lie moldering on the forest floor, inexorably losing their
predetermined shape, surrendering constituent nutrients and fi-
ber in the underbrush.
My thoughts on leadership are not affected by systematic
study of the enormous general literature on this subject and only
mildly by writings about leadership in libraries. Rather, this is an
attempt to order my own thoughts about working with people,
my own and their performances, and principles of leadership in
research libraries. Because this assignment came from Deanna
Marcum, an enormously positive influence on my own career
and on the careers of many other leaders, I have concluded that
there are two basic tracks or reasons one becomes a leader, both

33
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

heavily qualified and conditioned by choices and luck during the

course of one’s professional life. One track is that determined by
nature and nurture, the fortuitous combination of a predisposition
to get to the front of the herd, almost always accomplished with
support from others at the front of the herd in getting there. The
other track, not one that I have experienced and thus will leave to
others to write about, is having a leadership role thrust upon one.
In this case, I suspect, mentors most often appear as well to assist,
to inform, to guide.

Introduction
If one were to poll faculty, librarians, library staff, alumni, deans,
provosts, presidents, and other senior officers in the great research
universities in the United States, university librarians would ap-
pear to be many different creatures. Executive, operating officer,
master practitioner, busywork minder, advocate, task master,
talking head, fundraiser, judge, middle manager, protector, con-
fessor, key figure in the humanities community, teacher, fiscal
officer, strategist, mediator, conspirator, representative, traveler,
community affairs officer, deal maker, risk taker, mentor, entre-
preneur, steward: all these terms, and more like them, would ap-
pear on the list of descriptors resulting from our hypothetical poll.
For a few, the term leader would be listed as well, but those who
mention that word would most likely be library middle managers
and associates of the university librarian. For most presidents and
provosts, university librarians are middle managers, responsible
for a function thought important by some faculty while ignored
by others, and for a staff revered for the immediate services it
provides, not necessarily for its many and continual imaginative
contributions to the processes of teaching and research. As senior
officers in complex, perhaps even chaotic, academic organiza-
tions, university librarians need to be adept at taking the measure
of and dancing to the tunes of deference and authority. Many fac-
ulty members have little or no comprehension of what tasks must
be accomplished in research libraries to ensure that their work as

34
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

teachers and scholars can be done.

With many images of what a university librarian is and does,
in addition to the general lack of understanding and limited ap-
preciation of how the great research libraries operate, the role of
the university librarian as leader is little appreciated and under-
stood. Yet the vigorous prosecution of varied leadership roles is
precisely what defines success for research libraries in this period
of genuine, pervasive, and dramatic change in the missions and
methods of these invaluable institutions. And those vigorous
leaders of university libraries are having a lot of fun and getting a
lot of satisfaction from their multiple roles.
Some context setting is necessary. As we begin the second
decade of the Age of Information, so dramatically started by the
general availability of the Internet in the developed economies, it
is apparent that a large overlay of new information sources and
methods for information seeking and distribution supplement the
traditional ones. While the Internet grew logarithmically, tradi-
tional modes and methods of publishing continued and continue
yet to pump out hundreds of thousands of new titles annually. Re-
search libraries continue to collect those traditional materials even
while devising the means to deliver and support the use of digital
resources. Thus, from the beginning, the “both/and” conundrum
has been an apt phrase to describe the dilemma facing research
libraries. That dilemma stems in part from libraries’ unfunded
mandate to comprehend and cope with both the traditional and
the digital information arenas. It also stems from the need for li-
brary leaders to demand and foster the invention, adoption, and
adaptation of new tools, methods, and mental sets that incorpo-
rate digital resources with traditional collections and services.
And since there is promise—or, for some, a threat—that the digital
trend might overturn the nature of libraries, there is much confu-
sion about whether the research library of the future will be some
magnificent virtual collection of sources and services, owned by
no one but vital to all of humankind, whether the Information
Age and the Internet will dissolve the traditional hierarchy of

35
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

significance based on the size and sophistication of libraries, or

whether both of these transformations will be effected.
At some level, all libraries are research libraries. However,
the great research libraries differ from other libraries in terms of
complexity, size, services, staffing, and even intention. This es-
say is written from the context of an unusual university library,
Stanford, that has for 15 years combined research library func-
tions and organization with academic computing functions and
organization. This merged organization is known as the Stanford
University Libraries and Academic Information Resources (SUL/
AIR). Its leader, who reports to the provost, has generated some
new units and acquired others because SUL/AIR and its leader-
ship had credibility and a reputation for good stewardship of
Stanford’s assets. The original merger in the early 1990s brought
the entire information technology apparat together with the uni-
versity libraries. The newly merged organization presaged the
efflorescence of the Internet and the increasing interdependence
of library and academic computing services to meet the demands
of a community of leading-edge scholars and their students. In
1994, the administrative computing units were split off so that
they could concentrate on acquiring and implementing new
administrative applications based on client-server architecture.
That group, Information Technology Systems and Services (ITSS),
reporting to the chief financial officer, has responsibility, in addi-
tion to administrative applications for the network infrastructure,
for the 24/7 server room, and for desktop support of nonacademic
applications. ITSS and SUL/AIR’s leaders work closely together to
ensure mutually supporting services to the Stanford community.
HighWire Press is the most public of the results of merging
academic computing with university libraries at Stanford. The
reengineering of library technical processes, however, preceded
it, with the notable effects of speeding the delivery of newly ac-
quired publications to readers while redeploying a couple dozen
staff positions to Academic Computing. Four organizations have
been added to the administrative oversight of Stanford’s univer-

36
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

sity librarian in the past decade. They are Residential Computing;

Media Solutions, a Web site design enterprise; Stanford Profes-
sional Publishing Course, a 30-year-old continuing education
enterprise; and the Stanford University Press. The latter two or-
ganizations are not integrated fully into SUL/AIR, but through
projects and the sharing of resources are becoming so.
As the Information Age unfolds, what will be the changes to
the appetites of research libraries for selecting materials and in-
formation for their collections? How will we provide intellectual
access to collections, interpret those collections, and guide readers
through the information chaos? How will we distribute informa-
tion to scholars and students and provide the means to analyze,
manipulate, and present information? How can we preserve col-
lections and information for the next 10, 100, or even 1,000 years?
And how might university librarians exploit the “both/and”
dilemma to improve the possibilities for learning, teaching, and
research? What is the nature of leadership in research libraries in
this period of rapid change? Does it differ from that expressed in
earlier times? These questions have only partial answers, none of
them completely right and fixed, all of them contextual.
The following reflections on roles and principles of leadership
in research libraries, a few of many leaves scattered over a long ca-
reer at several excellent university libraries, derive from my own
experience and observations since 1993 as leader of SUL/AIR, a
new sort of organization with responsibilities in academic com-
puting, libraries, and scholarly communication and publishing.
The reader should remember that my use of the term university
library refers to an organization that is involved in all of these ac-
tivities, as well as in more traditional library components.

Role: Master Practitioner

Most often, one is selected to become a university librarian, a
leader, in part because of demonstrated mastery of aspects or
specialties in research librarianship, often as a department head
or head of a subject library. In my own case, I was a music li-

37
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

brarian and head of two prominent music libraries, at Cornell

and Berkeley, before assuming the role of associate university
librarian for collection development at Yale. Music librarians deal
with an unusually large cluster of tricky problems in all areas of
librarianship and with a wide range of media types. In addition,
and much to the credit of the disciplines served, music librarians
are generally regarded as colleagues in practically every sense by
musicologists, music theoreticians, and practicing musicians; this
builds confidence and helps ensure close working relationships in
solving problems and exploiting assets.
Others become master practitioners by education and experi-
ence in other subject specialties as selectors, reference librarians,
or both; as catalogers; as conservators; or as one of many other
technical specialists. One characteristic of master practitioners is
their ability to understand the context not only of their own work
but also that of other specialists. Because of that depth of profes-
sional perspective, master practitioners are often in demand local-
ly and beyond to work on committees. In my experience, master
practitioners very well know and gain satisfaction from their roles
in research and teaching. Research librarianship, in practically all
specialties, is a profession that advances the work of others, of-
ten in anonymity, often displaced in time from the many points
of engagement of students and researchers with collections and
services. Master practitioners of research librarianship are almost
always good organization people. They know how their work
contributes to the academy, at large and locally, and they know
how to put their organizations to work in support of the some-
times idiosyncratic needs or work habits of their clientele.
In my own development trajectory from music librarian to
university librarian, I could not have had a better training ground
than Yale as an associate university librarian for collection de-
velopment. The gaggle of wonderful colleagues there included
bibliographers and curators, heads of specialty libraries, other
associates, and Millicent D. Abell, university librarian. Perhaps
the most difficult role to fill in a university library is that in the

38
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

penultimate layer of the hierarchy, but as an associate librarian

at Yale, I developed, then polished, some essential skills and was
treated to some formative experiences that eased the way into my
present role at Stanford. Penny Abell was a terrific mentor, allow-
ing plenty of scope, offering sage advice, promoting colleagues’
careers, and teaching some important lessons along the way.
Penny helped me develop the capacity to digest and compact
complex arguments to shorter expressions in order to capture
and keep the attention of provosts at key decision points. She also
taught her subordinates the importance of bringing to her atten-
tion, or to that of those who reported directly to her, practically
any difficulty—procedural, political, or personal. I remember well
Penny’s remark that if a university librarian and his or her associ-
ates cannot see a problem and understand it in common terms,
that problem cannot be solved.
Some university librarians are appointed from faculty ranks
and thus cannot be considered master practitioners. These people
have to learn quickly and, at some basic level, must depend on
what they are told by their immediate associates and other infor-
mants. Certainly, faculty members serving as university librarians
are expected to represent their faculty colleagues and to protect
their interests. Often they are good advocates in the offices of
presidents and provosts, a circumstance always sorely needed
in the history of any university library. With few exceptions, the
reigns of faculty “retreads” are followed by appointments of pro-
fessional librarians.
One of the truisms of leadership in the great research libraries
is that there is no median or average experience. Whether one be-
came a university librarian as a master practitioner or a converted
faculty member, learning to serve in the many roles listed in the
introduction takes some time, perhaps years. Because each situ-
ation is remarkably different, even a sitting university librarian
moving to another university will take a year or so to learn about
the vagaries of the new post. Some professional associations offer
opportunities to meet colleagues and share experiences. Others

39
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

focus on the new and developing realms of research librarianship.

Some new university librarians find the former comfortable and
the latter challenging.
It was illuminating, while developing my own skills as a li-
brarian, to observe some poor examples of library leadership. At
one institution early in my career, I noted the wreckage caused by
senior library leadership whose intimates were permitted to work
out their peculiar needs for dominance over subordinate staff. At
another institution, the chief librarian routinely lied in private to
subordinates on key matters, then reversed himself in public, prob-
ably because he could face no individual on any difficult matter.
By refusing to make a key decision in the first months of his tenure,
he lost all credibility as a leader with superiors and subordinates.
He twisted in the breeze for years while well-qualified librarians
left for better places. The judgment of the two individuals I allude
to here was in each case substantially flawed. As a result of—or
perhaps concomitant to—that poor judgment, their interpersonal
relationships were not good, certainly not satisfying. I wonder
whether others have had similar experiences. It seems to me that
one should always be honest as a university librarian, but that one
need not always say everything that one knows in all situations.
Discretion is enormously important. Discretion gives parties to is-
sues, whether easy or difficult, the psychological space to express
themselves. Not saying everything at once or in full about one’s
knowledge or feelings about a matter allows others to contribute
and to change their own positions. Discretion contributes to the
ripening, the maturing, of people and issues.
Having credibility and experience as a master practitioner
is a huge asset. Another significant asset is scholarly experience
in a discipline, especially one that is heavily reliant on recorded
information sources or bibliography. Yet another asset is signifi-
cant experience in applying information technology to research
or teaching, and, best of all, experience in developing those ap-
plications. The most important aspects of the master practitioner
role in leadership are those of personal engagement and the wit to

40
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

generalize from experience, then compare or contrast one’s expe-

riences with those of others to devise new concepts, methods, or
approaches to research library functions.
It was marvelous to behold the polished and determined ef-
forts of master practitioners such as Joe Rosenthal and Dorothy
Gregor at UC/Berkeley and Penny Abell at Yale in dealing with
enormous strategic problems in complex, often hostile, political
environments. None of us is perfect, and we all have our foibles
spotlighted constantly. Nonetheless, Penny, Joe, and Dorothy con-
sistently applied their creativity and persistence across the full
range of duties and situations. I continue to marvel at how they
achieved so many superb accomplishments. I have tried to emu-
late their example in modeling and insisting upon professional
performance. We in the lead positions ought to show our staff
how to “play through,” regardless of conditions. Our presidents,
provosts, and search committees did not recruit and hire us to
serve only in the easy, flush times. Nor were we hired to manage
the status quo. (In any case, there is no status quo any more.) The
rate of change is so great that failing to apply the highest level of
professional behavior and expertise to the dramatic opportunities
and problems facing us would be a terrific waste of the talents of
our colleagues and of the other assets entrusted to us.

Role: Advocate
Advocacy in research libraries assumes many guises. Leaders are
advocates for their own programs and decisions internally. Staff
assess their leaders partly on the basis of the strength, logic, and
credibility of their plans, projects, and programs. Leaders are
advocates within the campus community—or perhaps better,
communities. Leaders are advocates in the upper reaches of the
university administration, and it is in this sector that the best and
the worst advocacy takes place. Some strive for a series of suc-
cessful “big hits,” the sorts of advances in funding or program
development that warrant a press release. Others strive to avoid
trouble and feel best when their operations and responsibilities

41
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

remain below horizons of interest; indeed, some are directed spe-

cifically to cause no trouble. A few others understand themselves
as campus citizens, and as such, part of larger programmatic and
budgetary processes, taking initiatives where appropriate and
contributing to others when possible.
Advocacy also involves, perhaps requires, promoting and
protecting the assets and values of academic institutions, some-
times in the face of competing academic and other interests. This
sort of advocacy is occasioned by the never-ending ebb and flow
of new program development, e.g., when a dean builds a teaching
and research capacity in an entirely new field without considering
the new professors’ needs for library collections and services or
academic computing support. Responsible advocacy also requires
elevating awareness of the serials crisis to the faculty and the ad-
ministration with the intention of fomenting effective action.
“Confuse ‘em or convince ‘em” was the motto of one re-
spected library leader. He was referring to the pleasant duty of
speaking to alumni and friends of the university about libraries,
academic computing, and scholarly publishing. It can be extraor-
dinarily difficult to present the salient features of our complicated
academic information realms to a well-educated, but nonaca-
demic, audience. And yet, if one can do this well—concisely and
without jargon—both the larger institution and the library benefit.
There are many audiences for library advocacy, some less obvious
than others. One characteristic of the great leaders of university
libraries is the ability to communicate succinctly and clearly to
members of the public, as well as to their subordinates and supe-
riors. The ability to speak to numerous groups of varying degrees
of understanding about what goes on in research libraries and to
gather one’s thoughts instantly for impromptu interactions, as
well as to develop carefully considered presentations, is another
aspect of raking together quite scattered leaves.

42
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

Role: Steward
Stewardship is an active role requiring ongoing consideration of
how to invest one’s institutional assets to best effect. Those assets
include staff, money, facilities, time, one’s own attention, insti-
tutional reputation and credibility, collections, and physical as-
sets—facilities, information technology equipment, vehicles, and
so forth. Stewardship, particularly in the great research libraries,
should include engagement with the major institutional issues of
the time. Currently among the great stewardship issues are those
of exploiting the capabilities of information technology to im-
prove scholarship and teaching. Also, and more sinister, is the is-
sue of overspending on scientific, technical, and medical journals,
which imbalances the range and depth of library collecting and
library services. Perennial stewardship issues are those of:
• collecting, i.e., bringing in the information resources needed
now, while also serving as cultural custodians;
• providing intellectual access, not just with traditional cata-
loging and indexing, but considering new approaches and
technologies;
• deploying and fostering new information resources and aca-
demic computing applications, and the means of using them;
• distributing information; and
• preserving for future generations the information and sources
we collect and apply.

Library stewardship is most effective when exercised by staff

at all levels. Rather than allowing every staff member to see her-
self or himself as owner of a particular facet of work, we should
encourage all staff to understand themselves to be contributing to
the larger missions of the organization and the university. If that
sort of broad ownership of the institutional mission is accepted,
then adopting and adapting new methods is much easier. It also
leads to greater creativity among staff members. As the strictures
of our traditional guild mentality are released and staff have the
satisfaction of engaging personally in the question of “How can

43
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

we improve?”, they begin to internalize reengineering and to

think of it as the measure of success. Publicly rewarding creativ-
ity and stewardship by individuals and groups is a necessary and
joyous stewardship responsibility of the senior-most leader.
Some acts of stewardship, such as stewardship of one’s staff,
require tremendous patience and forbearance. If one hires and
promotes well, then one owes staff the space to achieve and de-
velop. University librarians, like many other library staff, come by
information about other people that demands extreme discretion.
One learns to overlook certain behaviors, to hold closely some of
what one sees and hears, and not to base policies on individual
issues or prejudices—one’s own or those of others. The times that
I have failed in this regard have given me anguished moments
and memories. On the other hand, the pleasure and the experi-
ence of the collective mastery of leading wonderfully complicated
and constantly evolving organizations is deeply satisfying. In
observing the expertise and subtlety expressed constantly and in
so many different ways by my Stanford associates, I take pride in
the fact that I appointed and promoted them. That same pride, as
well as similar gratification, applies to the entire SUL/AIR staff at
Stanford. They truly are an army of generals. Assembling, coach-
ing, and leading a staff of such accomplished people is a special
skill. One does not undertake leadership to make staff happy
as a first principle, but when one finds a happy staff—happy in
their work and in their collective accomplishments—one has also
found an effective, if not necessarily highly visible, leader.
Library leaders who ignore stewardship—or regard it only
superficially—fail to measure the costs and benefits of their
commitments, never seize the nettle of change, and are thereby
condemned to irrelevance. There is a kind of herd mentality in
certain circles of library leadership, in which self-congratulation
for half-measures in addressing huge problems and opportuni-
ties is common. An easy way to spot this behavior is to watch for
press releases announcing unrealized programs and progress not
yet actually made or made in tiny steps. A characteristic of this

44
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

collective unconsciousness is the failure to analyze and review

investments, programs, and failures, and the lack of assessment
of costs and benefits.

Role: Judge and Power Broker

The daily decisions of university librarians shape, as ripples in
a pond or puddle, the activities of the staff and, through them,
services to the readers. University librarians concerned about
making the best use of and conserving their own energy and time
wisely delegate authority to the lowest-possible level appropriate
for that power to be applied. And, for me, one most important
principle is to make individuals responsible for functions, units,
programs, and projects. Part of that delegation of authority is to
consult as needed with experts and affected parties. The use of the
hierarchy of authority to efficiently apply judgment and oversight
is important, too. While many berate their superiors for adhering
to any hierarchy and some libraries employ “first-among-equals”
fantasies of management, research libraries with efficient and
clearly known tables of organization that accurately reflect power
relationships generally have productive and happy staffs. Part of
the effective delegation of authority and resources is making sure
that those putting those assets to good work receive public and
private praise. They, not the university librarian, should get their
names in the campus paper.
In many university libraries, but not at Stanford as I experi-
ence it, staff time and expertise are heavily invested in ongoing
and tedious consultative processes. Consultation among experts
and managers is almost always useful in operations, especially
as new projects, programs, and opportunities appear. However,
the pervasive use of committees cutting across hierarchies in
libraries—to masticate everything from the minute to the monu-
mental—is wasteful of time and reputation. The leader must take
responsibility for judgment and the exercise of proper authority;
to pretend (or worse, to behave) otherwise through universal dis-
cussion is evidence either of cowardice or deception.

45
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

Certain judgments, especially those of recruiting, retaining,

training, and mentoring high-quality professional staff, should
be made with the advice and concurrence of carefully constituted
search committees and immediate supervisors and directors.
However, for that advice to be most useful, I insist on meeting al-
most all candidates for professional positions in my organization
before receiving advice on approving an appointment. One needs
to know, at least at some superficial level, the person about whom
the advice is offered.
Another important requirement for a good leader in a uni-
versity library is that of insisting that responsible managers raise,
discuss, and resolve their differences directly as often as possible.
This requirement demands communication, often face-to-face,
determined coordination, and professional cooperation. Encour-
aging the surfacing of issues, while requiring maturity from staff
in dealing with disagreement, is a key behavioral characteristic
of successful university librarians, ones who motivate staff to im-
prove constantly as well as always to enjoy their work.
Delegation of responsibility should be accompanied by the
delegation of authority and assets to accomplish the assigned and
accepted tasks. Librarians have not always been especially suc-
cessful in honoring this principle. All librarians and information
technologists are managers of assets. Given scope, power, and
assets, each can accomplish worlds more with the trust implicit
in such delegation than he or she will when delegation is incom-
plete, fitful, or limited.

Role: Mentor and Colleague

Among the many pleasurable roles of a leader is that of recruiting
and hiring good people and then helping them achieve their own
career goals as well as institutional goals. This is a sort of rak-
ing together scattered leaves too. It is one of the most important
roles of a university librarian, because the work of the university
libraries is done by others: professionals, paraprofessionals, and
students. I see the work of a university librarian as very similar

46
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

to that of an orchestra conductor who is a master of one, or per-

haps a few, instruments, but not of the entire complement of the
symphonic ensemble. In the most accomplished orchestras, the
conductor does not need to tune individual instruments and does
not have to instruct a player how to produce a particular note. In-
stead, the conductor focuses on making music, shaping phrases,
and integrating the efforts of the various sections to realize the
composer’s intentions. As one who has been lucky to work in four
university libraries with superb staffs—say, the equivalent of the
members of the San Francisco Symphony—I have experienced
the incredible, if slow-moving, power of communities of special-
ists working together not only to serve their academic colleagues
very well but also to create new opportunities for scholarship and
teaching. This has been especially true at Stanford, where much
of my effort has been focused on coordinating and encouraging,
rather than directing.
One shapes the staff of large and advanced research librar-
ies over time. Thoughtfully rewarding outstanding efforts and
attainments is as important as is careful and patient counseling
and remediation. Letting colleagues try new methods, develop
collections and services according to their own best judgments,
and take responsibility for internal and external relationships
has proved repeatedly to pay off. Suggesting, gently shaping,
and urging independence within context is the role of the leader
in what I like to refer to as an “army of generals.” As noted ear-
lier, selecting, mentoring, and promoting key staff are among a
leader’s most important functions. It is essential, therefore, that
the university librarian be directly involved in interviews and that
he or she approve every hiring and promotion recommendation.
It is equally important that the university librarian review and
lead others to review errors in hiring and promotion. Over time,
a couple of fundamental truths emerge. First, no one is perfect.
Second, in an organization that values mentoring and collegial-
ity, most colleagues are sufficiently forgiving of mistakes that the
web of relationships necessary to provide services in large and

47
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

complex research libraries is rarely torn.

It is failure that burns, despite the lessons each failure teaches.
How can an entire interviewing team, the recommending officer,
and I have missed the obduracy in someone’s character that
precluded her ability to adapt, to grow, and to learn profession-
ally? Did one make successive errors in accepting the rosy-hued
estimates of performance from an immediate subordinate about a
staff member further down in the hierarchy, thus allowing others
in the organization to lose hope for change and improvement?
What are the techniques of provoking thought and consulta-
tion that might bring disputing parties to the point not just of
accommodating one another on a particular matter but also of
valuing their differences and perspectives? No one fails alone in
an organization such as a research library, but the leader needs
to understand how people fail and how to help them succeed.
However, when failure is profound and not susceptible to reme-
diation, then a good leader uses the tools available to remove a
poorly performing staff member. Confronting poor performance
and working on it, including dismissal, if necessary, reinforces the
enormous contribution made to research library operations by the
vast majority of their staff. Outstanding performers know when
a coworker is not performing adequately, and they appreciate the
leader who identifies, then works quickly to correct, poor perfor-
mance or, if this is not correctable, removes the poor performer.
Success in leadership is usually, perhaps always, the product of
successful mentoring. This may be the real benchmark, the real
legacy, of the library leader: the quality, integrity, and success of
the colleagues whose own careers as leaders were influenced for
the better through a mentoring relationship.

Role: Strategist, Risk Taker, and Innovator

The role of strategist or strategy developer is often uniquely that
of the university librarian. All subordinate to that position are
involved in specific operational responsibilities, including man-
aging others. Some issues, such as building or refurbishing facili-

48
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

ties or acquiring special collections, require 50- or 100-year time

horizons. Others, such as adopting new technologies, have much
shorter horizons, perhaps five years or fewer. Some issues de-
mand leaps of faith. For instance, in digitizing books or archives,
one can estimate whether the digital versions will be of immedi-
ate utility for academic purposes, but one must also imagine that
there will be techniques available within a few years to migrate the
digital versions from one format to another and to store them in
a securely operated digital repository. Equally, one must evaluate
strategically experiments and accomplishments made elsewhere.
What is supportable? What is scalable? What company or line of
products and services is likely to stay in business long enough for
the library’s purposes? What investments of Stanford’s assets—its
staff, one’s own time, money, facilities, or good name—will pay
off for Stanford? Tending the strategic, while meddling only when
necessary in the tactical, the essential day-to-day work of the uni-
versity libraries’ staff, is a key responsibility of the leader.
Fortunate is the university librarian who has the encour-
agement and expectation of the president and provost to take
risks, to exploit according to his or her own best judgments the
Internet and information technology in general, and thereby to
serve imaginatively the campus community. All faculty members
appropriately regard themselves as independent entities, suns
in their own solar systems, devising ever-better courses and lec-
tures and conducting research. In this context, the librarian’s key
responsibility is to constantly balance and rebalance library and
academic computing resources so reliable and consistent services
are offered. To do so, he or she must take risks to experiment and
make use of the new technologies so that the information and ser-
vices underpinning research and teaching at institutions of higher
education of all sizes constantly advance and improve.
One question that we ask ourselves repeatedly is how we
can make Stanford distinctive in the quality and extent of our
services and information resources. Because presidents Gerhard
Casper and John Hennessy, along with provosts Condoleezza

49
 MICHAEL A. KELLER

Rice and John Etchemendy, have expected and valued innova-

tion in Stanford’s libraries, devising and investing in a number of
risky propositions has been relatively easy. Among the risks taken
with their blessing over the past decade, those that realized huge
returns on initial investment were as follows:
• HighWire Press (http://highwire.stanford.edu)
• LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe), the software ap-
plication supporting the operation of local network caches of
e-journals and other genres (http://lockss.stanford.edu)
• Technical Services Re-engineering (http://library.stanford.
edu/depts/diroff/ts/redesign/redesign.html)
• Rehabilitating the Bing Wing of the Green Library for reader
and particularly networked services (http://library.stanford.
edu/depts/green/bingwing.html)
• Institute for 21st-Century Librarianship (http://institute21.
stanford.edu)
• Digitization of the Archive of the General Agreement on Tar-
iffs and Trade (http://gatt.stanford.edu)
• Academic Technology Specialists Program (http://acomp.
stanford.edu/atsp/)
• CourseWork, a course-management system

Major acquisitions involving risk included the Allen Ginsberg

Archive, the William Saroyan Archive, the Samson/Copenhagen
Judaica Collection, the Gustave Gimon Collection on French Politi-
cal Economy, the R. Buckminster Fuller Archive, the Southern Pa-
cific Railroad Archive, the papers of numerous luminary writers
and artists in the American avant-garde and the Mexican-Ameri-
can community, and many others.
Finally, we have undertaken activities such as the following:
• expanding the map and GIS services (http://gis.stanford.edu/)
• considering a joint venture with a commercial paper-preser-
vation company
• requiring the development of Web-based synthetic guides to
the literature and resources of numerous disciplines.

50
 SCATTERED LEAVES: REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP

Stanford’s examples of risks taken and investments returned

have required, in practically every case, some diversion of re-
sources from traditional programs and pursuits in the university
library. For any risk taken, some staff and faculty and might object
on the grounds that their favorite interest was not going to get as
much support as they believed it deserved. One of the functions
of leaders of university libraries is to take such risks and to expose
themselves and their decisions to criticism and rebuttal for the
sake of strategic developments.

Conclusion
The metaphor of raking scattered leaves is meant to suggest the
odd feeling I often have as Stanford’s university librarian—in
dealing with so many agenda items and so many positive de-
velopments, in weighing and selecting possibilities for attention
and investment, and, frankly, in confronting the 5 percent of this
work that is truly difficult and occasionally quite challenging on
a personal level—that this is the best work in the university, with
a bouquet of possibilities librarians have never had before. In se-
lecting only a few of the many roles university librarians play, I do
not mean that the other roles are not as important, but that these
are ones I find most meaningful at this stage of my own develop-
ment and at the present state of research librarianship as a profes-
sion, as a craft, as the practice of an art.
Key roles of the university library, part and parcel of the aca-
demic processes of the university itself, are to figure out how to
improve, to stay current, and to exploit new opportunities in each
of the library’s functions: collecting, describing, interpreting, dis-
seminating, and preserving. At the strategic level, this is the work
of library leaders. It is good work, socially useful work, and im-
mensely satisfying work. Those who do not awaken every morn-
ing eager to undertake this work need not apply.

51
 As digital technology transforms the information landscape,
libraries must chart their course in an increasingly fluid,
complex environment. How is this new environment redefin-
ing leadership in the information professions? What are the
personal qualities that produce effective information leaders?
CLIR invited three leaders in librarianship to write personally
and candidly about what they believe leadership is, how they
developed an understanding of their own leadership styles,
and how they apply that self-understanding to their daily re-
sponsibilities.

Chris Ferguson is dean for information resources at Pacific

Lutheran University.

Michael A. Keller is the Ida M. Green University Librarian,

director of academic information resources at Stanford
University, publisher of HighWire Press, and publisher of
Stanford University Press.

Karin Wittenborg is university librarian at the University of

Virginia.

COUNCIL ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES

1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036-2124
Tel: 202.939.4750 • Fax: 202.939.4765 • E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.clir.org