Are We Listening?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve asked myself why more people don’t take advantage of public library services. After all, beyond paying taxes that form the base of our revenue stream, we’re free! Why would anyone buy a novel at the bookstore when they can have it free of charge from us? Why is Netflix dominating the DVD market when our customers could get those same movies from us without a subscription fee?

I think the answer to the questions I’ve asked are related to the economic concept of consumer surplus. St. Louis Public Library’s library benefits valuation study describes consumer surplus as measuring the value that consumers place on a good or a service beyond what they have to pay for it. Essentially, a given service exhibits a high level of consumer surplus if there is significant cost to the consumer to obtain that service beyond what the monetary cost of purchasing the service.

Think about it. For $9 a month, Netflix offers unlimited DVD’s shipped for free directly to and from the customer’s house with no late fees. They even have streaming video now, too. So, Netflix costs a fair amount more than free DVD’s at the library but the ease of use of Netflix compared to that of most public libraries makes Netflix a no-brainer for millions of people. We librarians stand back, scratch our heads, and wonder why anyone would choose to pay for things we can give them for free. The problem is, we fail to take into account the costs associated with:

• using a catalog that is not as easy as finding what you want at Netflix
• finding a library location that isn’t too far from home and that’s open when you want it to be
• interacting with library staff who may or may not understand the concept of excellent customer service
• worrying about overdue fees
• having to deliver the item back to the library eating up valuable time and transportation costs.

Even buying the latest bestseller at the local Border’s is much more palatable to many people than waiting four weeks on a request list.

So what am I saying? That public libraries need to remake themselves in the image of Netflix or the local bookstore? I am not. We couldn’t manage that if we tried. I recently heard Joe Janes say, “don’t go chasing what you can’t catch”. In other words, it’s a fool’s errand to think libraries can compete with Netflix or Amazon. We just don’t have the resources (and, frankly, we don't have the same mission). That doesn’t mean we’re doomed, though. We aren’t, in fact; I’m sure of it. Libraries are beloved institutions in this country.

But! We still have to acknowledge the idea of consumer surplus if we expect to see even greater use by our customers (even after the economy turns around). What can we change about our libraries that will lower those “hidden” costs of using the library? Here are a few of my thoughts.

• We need responsive collections
• We need better systems for finding an item in the collection
• We need to consistently provide the kind of service that keeps folks coming back
• We need physical spaces that are useful, comfortable, and attractive
  
• We need to save their time.

Most important, though, we need to stop acting like we have all the answers. We need to ask the public what they want from us much more often than we do. Providing the mechanisms by which our users can tell us what they want from the library will allow us, if we use that information wisely, to dramatically reduce our consumer surplus relative to those companies that represent our competition.

Two formal methods (there are lots of less formal ways of listening to our customers) for collecting that information are customer needs assessments and library valuation studies. Both needs assessments and valuation studies, in different ways, will tell us exactly what we're doing right and what we're not relative to providing services our customers value. I'll be writing more about both approaches soon.

Don't Compromise Your Values

In a recent post, I wrote about the variety of complex skills that most good supervisors have incorporated into their own professional development. Shortly after hitting the “publish” button on that post, I realized that I had left out a biggie: conflict management. Whether a supervisor is mediating a conflict between a customer and a staff member, two (or more) staff members, or even between herself and either one of the aforementioned, this is a skill that cannot be underrated in terms of predicting success in the workplace.

Mary Parker Follett, a management theorist far ahead of her time (she died in 1933), wrote at length about what she called constructive conflict. Follett urges us not to treat the concept of conflict as inherently negative. After all, as we know, conflict in life is unavoidable; as Follett says, then, “instead of condemning it, we should set it to work for us”. Using some nice metaphor, Follett compares the friction in conflict to the friction used by the violinist’s bow to create something beautiful. Makes sense, doesn’t it? It also sounds a little unrealistic, you’re thinking, I’m sure.But wait. Follett explains that there are essentially three ways of resolving conflict:

• Domination

• Compromise

• Integration

Domination is exactly what it sounds like and nobody wants to feel dominated. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about managing people, it’s that everyone wants to believe they’ve got a voice. Compromise, even though it’s the most common method of resolving conflict isn’t too much better. The thing is, when we compromise, the immediate problem is smoothed over; however, we agree to give up something of value so long as our counter does, too. Thus, while the immediate problem might be swept under the rug, it’s entirely possible that resentment continues to smolder.

Follett’s third approach to conflict management is integration. In short, the integrative approach to conflict management is one in which the participants bring their differences and, importantly, the underlying values behind the differences in opinion, to the discussion. If those situations where time permits (not at the circulation desk with an irate customer, perhaps, but in a meeting or closed door session with angry co-workers, definitely), lay out what is actually important to each conflict participant and allow them to discuss a solution where neither party has actually had to give up anything. This approach is more successful than compromise at completely resolving conflict because the source of the conflict is dissolved.

Library Instruction on Your Phone? You Bet!

After discovering just how easy QR codes are to create and to use, I've been thinking a lot about how we might make good and creative use of this technology in our libraries. One idea that seems to hold a lot of promise is using the QR code to link to videos for users to watch on their phones.

One such application might be related to library instruction. Say, for example, I wanted to put together a 30 second video about how to place a hold on library materials using our catalog. I could post that video to YouTube, create a QR code from the permalink, and include the printed code on a bookmark along with codes for several other "how to"-type videos. The user then has hand-held audio instruction about how to do any number of tasks that many of our users tend to find difficult. To see how this works, just use your QR reader to read the code at the top of this blog. It's a promotional video about the library, not instructional, but this shows how effective this idea could be!

Or how about posting a QR code next to your library building's dedication plaque? It could link to a video that provides some historical information about the building or even a Flickr slideshow of historical photos of the building! Sacramento Public Library's Central Library is an old Carnegie building and there are some staff here who are very knowledgable about the history of the library. With a video camera and an Internet connection, we could be up and running by the end of the day!

What else can you think of that would be a cool applicaiton of QR codes in libraries?

Scanning Your Library

What is that barcode thingy? Bear with me; I'll explain. This morning started out, like most mornings for me, with a cup of coffee and my feed reader. One of the items that dropped into my reader this morning was iLibrarian's 7 Things You Should Know About QR Codes. You guessed it; that barcode thingy is a QR code. And it really is a kind of barcode. The QR code (QR stands for "quick response") contains information, in this case, a URL and, when you use your phone's camera to look at the code, you can jump right to the webpage where the URL points.

If you don't believe me, try it. It is too easy. All you need is a QR reader on your web-enabled phone. On my phone, I went to www.i-nigma.mobi and my phone automatically downloaded the app. It's free and took about 10 seconds. There are lots of other readers out there, too. Once you've downloaded the reader to your phone, just open the program and point your camera at the QR code above and you'll be directed to the URL that's encoded.

QR codes are already heavily in use in Japan and some European countries for marketing purposes and are making some inroads in the States, too. As far as I can tell, Brooklyn Public Library is the only U.S. public library making use of QR codes (if I'm wrong, please let me know!) but it seems as though there ought to be all kinds of useful applications for this technology in libraries.

Some obvious uses include QR codes on printed handouts that lead to basic information such as upcoming events or maps to physical locations. How about QR codes posted in your New Books area to add yourself to the wait list for the latest bestseller? Other ideas that could make our services more accessible to our users from anywhere?

Developing Supvisory Skills - That's Hard Work

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!

The Irrational Workplace

I have a confession to make: my mind wandered during a meeting this morning. It’s true and I do feel badly but long discussions about library custodial cleaning schedules just doesn’t keep my attention for long. Strangely, though, my mind didn’t wander too far away but instead to a book I’ve recently read: Administrative Behavior. Written in 1947 by Public Administration scholar and Nobel Laureate in Economics Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior revolutionized organizational analysis theory by arguing that an organization’s decision-making practices are a much more useful predictor of organizational success than the nebulous concept of “efficiency” that had been the focus of earlier Public Administration scholars.

Above all, Simon was interested in the development of a true science of administration. His focus was on rational decision-making; that is, while Simon’s predecessors developed their theories through normative philosophy (what should be), Simon believed that administrators really needed to establish the use of empirical data as the basis of decision making. While Simon’s logical positivist school of Public Administration fell out of favor in the 1960’s due to the notion that there exists a “fact-value dichotomy” in government administration (most of us, I think, would refute the idea that we can make sound decisions without considering both “hard” data and the philosophical values underlying our opinions), Simon’s work laid the foundation for the kind of output and outcome-based decision-making that is now the dominant approach to organizational planning in government management today.

So what does any of this have to do with librarianship? Well, as my mind wandered away from this morning’s meeting, I began to think about how decisions are made at the library where I work. We are just not very rational as an organization. We have no formal strategic plan in place (I do understand that not everyone believes in the efficacy of strategic planning in general but having one is better than not, in my opinion); as a manager, I find myself just taking on whatever project happens to come up in this meeting or that or, even, lighting on something in which I’m interested and making it happen. What it really seems to come down to is that the projects getting accomplished are those that have support from someone in the organization who knows how to influence the other decision-makers here. Certainly, the recent internal assessment we’ve put together as a group is a step in the right direction; the Library has now identified specific needs and ways to address those needs. However, with 302 assessment items to be addressed, it feels like a shotgun approach to planning when what we really need is some thorough reflection, priority-setting, and detailed planning.

I wonder how managers in other libraries see their own organizations in terms of decision-making practices…