Comments on: Mastering The Art Of Adaptation http://acrlog.org/2008/01/21/mastering-the-art-of-adaptation/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mark K. http://acrlog.org/2008/01/21/mastering-the-art-of-adaptation/comment-page-1/#comment-62245 Mark K. Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:55:53 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2008/01/21/mastering-the-art-of-adaptation/#comment-62245 <i>But it was also clear that those adaptive employees needed a topnotch administrator - an executive director - to motivate and influence them to share in the leadership so that the organization could transform and move into the future.</i> I think the more supportable argument is that organizations that have an executive director need that position to be occupied by someone who is good at that job. (My own administrative experience makes me allergic to the words "motivate" and "influence," as I've seen them used in practice too often to mean "coerce people without the unseemly appearance of coercion," but I'm not going to hold the bad practice of others against your statement of principle). <i>I suggest that in our future conversations we not debate where true leadership emanates from in the academic library, the administrator or the front-line worker, but that we focus instead on how the two can share leadership in a way that puts the mission and cause of the organization ahead of anyone’s ego.</i> I agree with the basic idea that, given a certain organizational structure, it doesn't make sense to argue about who "really matters" in it--every position serves (or should serve) an important function. But stated this way, it seems like you are suggesting that discussions about organizational structure per se should be out of bounds. I don't think that's a fruitful approach to take, especially given the recent discussion about librarians and professors and tenure and what it means to be faculty or not. But it was also clear that those adaptive employees needed a topnotch administrator – an executive director – to motivate and influence them to share in the leadership so that the organization could transform and move into the future.

I think the more supportable argument is that organizations that have an executive director need that position to be occupied by someone who is good at that job.

(My own administrative experience makes me allergic to the words “motivate” and “influence,” as I’ve seen them used in practice too often to mean “coerce people without the unseemly appearance of coercion,” but I’m not going to hold the bad practice of others against your statement of principle).

I suggest that in our future conversations we not debate where true leadership emanates from in the academic library, the administrator or the front-line worker, but that we focus instead on how the two can share leadership in a way that puts the mission and cause of the organization ahead of anyone’s ego.

I agree with the basic idea that, given a certain organizational structure, it doesn’t make sense to argue about who “really matters” in it–every position serves (or should serve) an important function. But stated this way, it seems like you are suggesting that discussions about organizational structure per se should be out of bounds. I don’t think that’s a fruitful approach to take, especially given the recent discussion about librarians and professors and tenure and what it means to be faculty or not.

]]>