Being a manager in a large public library system, my work is a good bit more specialized than it would be were I a manager in a much smaller system where just a few people have wider ranging responsbilities. That isn't to say that, as a Branch Services Manager (think "regional manager"), I don't particpate in a pretty diverse range of activities; see here. But, primarily, I'm a manager of people as opposed to programs. That means that when I have to address a problem that has cropped up somewhere, it often is, at it's root, one related to job performance.
I am a strong believer in the value of skillful supervision as a means for either quickly ameliorating, or avoiding altogether, performance problems in the workplace. I also understand, though, the vast difference between being highly skilled in one's technical job-related tasks (e.g. knowledge of an ILS circulation module, how to conduct a reference interview, how to catalog, how to put on a great teen program, etc.) and being a good supervisor. Unfortunately, my library, just like so many other organizations, libraries or otherwise, often grab the folks who shine at the technical aspects of the job and promote them into supervisory positions without acknowledging that there really isn't any correlation between the two requisite but distinct skill sets. Katherine Gould explained this dichotomy as "domain knowledge" versus "process knowledge" where the technical aspects of the job comprise domain knowledge and the process knowledge set of skills are those more nebulous but very important things like interpersonal, communication, and leadership abilities. Gould's point was that, in her job as a library director, the process knowledge is just as important as the domain knowledge.
My contention is that Gould's position is true of all supervisory positions in the library where I work. The primary responsibility of a circulation supervisor, for example, is not her mastery of the ILS; she certainly needs that knowledge as she works with the public as well as in complementing her capacity to engender credibility among those she supervises. However, the most important expecation I place on those supervisors is that they get the best work possible out of each member of the team. This requires that the supervisor is a motivator, a leader, a listener, a role model, that this person has the ability to evaluate what the team is lacking in order to do great work and how to provide that missing element, that this person understands how each member of the team requires a different "touch" and has the ability to adapt to each employees unique needs. Wow. That's quite a load in addition to being technically competent!
So that brings me to my point. How does management put the structure in place that helps to develop this vital process knowledge in employees before they become supervisors? I don't really believe the concept that process knowledge is something innate; these skills can be taught and they can be learned. But how do we do that? At my library, there is a pretty high level of demand for professional development related to technical skill development whether it's training in Excel or library budgeting. And we try to support those demands. Professional development of all stripes is vital to a competent, productive, engaged, and happy staff. One way we're hoping to begin developing some of the non-technical, process knowledge is through a newly developed job rotation program where staff in one location can swap positions with someone at another branch or in another department for a couple of weeks. Sure, the work will still be the same work in most cases, but experiencing the job in a fresh location, surrounded by different personalities should provide for fresh perspectives on the profession, the library system, and, most importantly, on dealing with people successfully. I realize this isn't nearly enough and would love to hear about programs for supervisory skill development for non-supervisors that have worked in other organizations!
Friday, February 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

0 comments:
Post a Comment