ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 360 / C&RL News E valu atin g th e library director By Mike Simons Reference Librarian The University o f Nevada, Reno and Anne Amaral Monograph Cataloger The University o f Nevada, Reno A survey instrum ent that allows fo r a fo rm a l review. H o w does the staff of an academic library evalu­ ate the perform ance of its director? Collegial gov­ ernance calls for periodic review of the library ad ­ m inistration by library faculty, b u t there is little in the literature th a t describes how this should be done.1 Ideally, the process should provide a formal line of communication th at allows library staff to give feedback to the director and provide positive reinforcement and constructive criticism. A num ­ ber of library directors see periodic formal review as a way to provide themselves w ith genuine help and a healthy exchange of ideas. Such reviews re­ quire a director who is personally and profession­ ally secure, and a process th at allows openness but protects both staff and director from acrimonious exchanges. W hat follows is one library’s approach to the evaluation of the director. At the University of Nevada-Reno, library by­ laws require library faculty to evaluate the director at least once every four years. They specify th a t the evaluation shall be of the individual perform ance of the director, not of the perform ance of the li­ brary as a unit. O ur bylaws establish tw o elected committees, a four-member Personnel Committee and a three-m em ber Budget and Planning Com­ m ittee, who are charged w ith various duties in­ cluding conducting an evaluation of the director in 1The most useful work we found was in Associa­ tion of Research Libraries, Office of Management S tudies, E x e cu tive R e v iew in A R L L ibraries, SPEC Kit #72 (W ashington, D .C .: ARL/OMS, 1981). Also published as an ERIC document (ED 214 532). consultation w ith the library faculty. Despite the bylaws, the last such evaluation took place in 1976. For one reason or another, the committees had continually postponed doing another. Two years ago, our library committees decided th a t the main reason evaluations had not been done was because no established evaluation procedure had been de­ veloped. Every year new committees were faced w ith w h a t seem ed an o v e rw h e lm in g , tim e- consuming task. W e decided to devote a num ber of months to developing the evaluation process and do the actual evaluation the next year. O ur first step was to develop a survey instrum ent th a t would enable staff to rate and give their w rit­ ten opinions of the director’s leadership, com m uni­ cation and professional development. The rating w ould be confidential; no one would be required to sign the survey questionnaire. Also it would survey only professional library faculty opinion, which would be consistent w ith collegial review. W e de­ cided to follow the survey w ith interviews of all professional staff who wished to participate be­ cause we felt m any busy staff members w ouldn’t take the tim e to w rite a critique, but would re­ spond in a one-to-one interview (survey and inter­ view questions are given at the end of this article). O ur staff had only 23 professionals at th a t time, so each of the seven committee members would have to interview only three or four staff members. In an interview situation it w ould be possible to ask follow-up questions and to probe for explanations and examples of specific perceptions. D uring an in­ terview it would also be possible to gauge the inten­ sity of someone’s position on a specific m atter. May 1989 / 361 The interview response could not, obviously, be completely confidential, but the interviewers were asked not to attach names to the responses they gathered. W e hoped th a t through the w ritten sur­ vey and the interviews we would accumulate can­ did opinion from a diverse group of librarians. W e felt, however, that it would be unfair to simply de­ posit the responses on the director’s desk. T h a t would be like presenting him w ith 23 anonymous letters. W e decided instead to synthesize the fac­ ulty responses into a summary statement which the committee members would sign. W e hoped in this w ay to encourage a wide response but still produce an evaluation for which nam ed persons would be accountable. The evaluation report would consist of an overall rating based on the last question of the w ritten survey, a summary of the responses from the questionnaire and the interviews, and a statisti­ cal summary of the rating scale survey. The question of w hether the final evaluation should be confidential or public information was considered. After discussion w ith the university faculty senate chairm an and the university presi­ dent, we decided to follow university and general personnel practice and consider the evaluation to be a confidential document. The actual evaluation began in the fall of 1987 an d was completed in June 1988. Tw enty staff members returned the w ritten questionnaire and 18 took p art in the interviews. Copies of the evalua­ tion w ent to the library director and the university president as required in our library bylaws; all other copies were destroyed. Copies of the survey instrum ent and the interview questions were sent to library archives to be preserved. How do we rate our evaluation process? W e be­ lieve it was successful. The w ritten survey was valuable in eliciting library faculty input. In some areas there was a wide diversity of opinion th a t was impossible to summarize, but there were also a num ber of areas in which a majority of responders agreed. The wide diversity of opinion may have been caused by the different relationships between various staff and the director; th at is, those work­ ing directly under the director had a different per­ spective th an those who reported to departm ent su­ p e rv iso rs. T he survey in s tru m e n t m ig h t be improved by asking responders to indicate if they are supervisors. The oral interviews were valuable in eliciting comments, but incorporating them into the evalu­ ation summary posed a bit of a problem. It was im ­ possible in most cases to use direct quotes and still m aintain the confidentiality of the person being quoted. Abstracting the quotes into a summary, however, caused much of the immediacy and in­ tensity of the comments to be lost. The committees o pted for confidentiality b u t w ere not to tally happy w ith the result. One of the most difficult aspects of the evalua­ tion was to include criticism that could be per­ ceived as constructive. The praises and accolades were easy, even fun, to write, but the criticisms re­ quired many rewrites. W e persevered, however, because we all felt th a t making something positive out of criticism should be one of the outcomes of collegial governance. Overall, we believe the process worked. It al­ lowed the staff to applaud the director’s strengths and offer constructive criticism where they felt it was needed, and working relationships have not been impaired by the process. Library director evaluation survey Please give your opinion of the director’s activi­ ties by circling the num ber which is most appropri­ ate. Use the following num bering system: (1) none of the time, 0-20 % (2) some of the time, 21-40 % (3) half of the tim e, 41-60 % (4) most of the time, 61-80 % (5) all of the time, 81-100 % (N) do not know or have no opinion. Please explain your ratings wherever possible w ith exam ples of th e d ire c to r’s decisions and actions th at have led to your opinion. W rite com­ ments in the space provided after each question. Use additional sheets if necessary. Leadership in library operations The director: 1. Sees th at library work is delegated to appro­ priate departm ent heads. 2. Supports supervisors in the administration of their departments. 3. Requires th at supervisors be fair and equitable in the administration of their departments. (Give examples of support or lack of support.) 4. Regularly checks with supervisors and staff to see th at library work is progressing smoothly. 5. Provides recognition for outstanding individ­ ual accomplishments. 6. Provides constructive criticism w hen and where appropriate. 7. Acknowledges exemplary performance of li­ brary units. 8. Respects Library Faculty Bylaws and encour­ ages collegiality in the operations of the library. 9. Performs duties in a timely manner. 10. Acts quickly and decisively in resolving prob­ lems. 11. Sees that funds are fairly distributed and wisely spent. 12. W orks to a c q u ire a d d itio n a l fu n d in g through gifts, grants, etc. 13. Makes good decisions in the selection of new library faculty. 14. Successfully mediates conflicts and disputes w ithin the library. 15. Sees th a t library disciplinary m atters are handled fairly. 16. Handles merit raises fairly and equitably. 362 / C&RL News 17. Handles promotion and tenure fairly and equitably. 18. Promotes staff development. 19. Commands respect and confidence of the li­ brary staff. Communication The director: 1. Maintains an environment in which faculty and staff are encouraged to make suggestions for improving library operations. 2. Is available and cooperative w hen faculty have questions or problems to discuss. 3. Promotes candor and openness which allows free exchange of ideas (philosophy, professional is­ sues, etc.) w ithin the library. 4. Clearly delineates areas of responsibility to departm ent heads. 5. Insures th at existing channels of communica­ tion are used to transm it inform ation from the ad­ ministrative levels to library staff. 6. Insures th at existing channels of communica­ tion are used to transm it information from library staff to appropriate adm inistrative levels. 7. Insures th a t channels exist for sharing infor­ mation between various library units. Leadership in identifying and achieving strategic goals The director: 1. Is successful in m aintaining a staff and budget proportionate in size to the library’s mission. 2. Produces and im plem ents coherent plans which make the most efficient use of the library’s personnel and material resources. 3. Effectively represents the needs, concerns and interests of the University Libraries to the UNR ad ­ ministration and other organizations th at influ­ ence the library’s development. 4. Has effectively involved library faculty com­ mittees in the strategic planning process. 5. Has successfully directed the planning and de­ velopment of the University Libraries to meet the challenges of growing enrollm ent and an increased university emphasis on research. Professional development The director: 1. C ontributes to th e g row th of know ledge through publication, professional papers or other accepted vehicles. 2. Demonstrates awareness and understanding of current developments in librarianship and li­ brary management. 3. Is appropriately active in university and com­ munity service. 4. Is appropriately active in statewide library ac­ tivities. Given your responses to the questions above and any other considerations you m ay wish to make (please specify below or on additional sheets of p a­ per if necessary), w hat is your overall evaluation of the director? Use the rating system delineated in the Library Bylaws. Circle one: Unsatisfactory: The library director does not meet the demands of the position effectively or does not perform satisfactorily. Satisfactory: The library director meets the de­ mands of the position effectively and performs sat­ isfactorily. Commendable: The library director meets the objectives of the position in a m anner which ex­ ceeds normal accomplishment and regularly pro­ duces good results. Excellent: The library director consistently per­ forms all aspects of the job in a clearly distin­ guished way, and consistently accomplishes out­ standing results. Interview questions The Library Budget and Planning Committee and the Personnel Committee are conducting in­ terviews w ith library faculty as the final step in the evaluation of the library director. All library faculty are encouraged to take p art in the interviews, but anyone may refuse to be inter­ viewed if they so desire. The interviews will: a) Take 30 minutes or less. b) Be confidential. Participants will not be iden­ tified by name. c) Not be tape recorded. Notes will be taken of the interview session. At the end of the interview, the interviewer will summarize w hat was said, and the interview ee may, at this point, am end the statements. 1. W ould you like to make any comments about any of the questions presented in the w ritten sur- Reference materials awards The National Endow m ent for the H um ani­ ties Reference M aterials program supports projects th a t organize essential resources for scholarship and improve access to information and collections. Awards are made in tw o cate­ gories: tools and access. Dictionaries, historical o r linguistic atlases, encyclopedias, concor­ dances, catalogues raisonnés, linguistic gram ­ mars, descriptive catalogs, and databases are eligible in the tools category. Archival arrange­ m ent and description projects, bibliographies, bibliographical databases, records surveys, cat­ aloging projects, indexes, and guides to docu­ m entation are eligible in the access category. The new deadline for both categories is Septem­ ber 1, 1989, for projects beginning after July 1, 1990. For more inform ation, contact Reference Materials, NEH, Room 318, W ashington, DC 20506. May 1989 / 363 vey? Most people did not w rite any comments when they did the survey, and it would be helpful to have comments th at explain why you rated the director as you did. 2. Please comment on areas of strength, accom­ plishments or on other positive aspects of the direc­ tor’s performance. 3. Please comment on areas in which you feel the director needs to improve. ■ ■ A cad em ic library postcard s, part II By Billy R. Wilkinson Director, Albin O. Kuhn Library ir Gallery University o f Maryland, Baltimore County Interior views o f notable libraries. E ditor’s Note: In November 1988 w e published the author ’s article on postcards w ith exterior views o f academic libraries. He regaled us w ith a discus­ sion o f his and others’ collections o f cards ranging fro m pioneer cards to the contemporary. In this is­ sue Billy W ilkinson, back by popular dem and, holds fo rth on interior views. His fu tu re plans in­ clude an article on foreign library postcards, par­ ticularly if he is successful in obtaining a grant to study interiors o f libraries in England. He is also peddling a bim onthly column to the media entitled “M y Favorite Library Postcard. ” Scarce, rare, even precious, might be the words to describe library postcards w ith views of interiors of academic libraries. In the author’s November 1988 article in C&R.L News (pp. 646-651; please see for a general background on library postcards and those who collect them ), a count of individual cards in two leading collections revealed th at the largest num ber of cards of an academic library was 57 for the Low L ibrary at Columbia University, in the author’s collection of 5,205 library postcards. The Judith E. Holliday Collection had 38 Low Li­ brary cards. These are in contrast to the 158 New York Public Library and 156 Boston Public Library cards gathered by the author and 48 NYPL and 75 Boston Public ones held by H olliday. In even greater contrast, both the Holliday and Wilkinson Collections have no interior views of th at magnifi­ cent McKim, Mead and W hite building, the Low Library. How strange th at the glorious marble- columned Low R otunda is missing in Postcard Land? Not even the Columbiana Room now in the Low Library has an interior card. Does anyone have a postcard w ith the Low Rotunda? Cornell and Yale Libraries W hat about interior views of the other academic libraries th at are most numerous in the Holliday and Wilkinson Collections? The exterior of the 1890 Cornell University Library w ith its distinctive clock tower numbered 16 in the Holliday Collec­ tion and 41 in the Wilkinson Collection. There are no interiors in either collection! Not even of the triple-tiered Andrew Dickson W hite Historical Li­ brary, the scene of one of the murders in th at de­ lightful mystery, The W idening Stain, by W. Bo- lingbroke Johnson (pseudonym of Morris Bishop), which is set in the Cornell Library. Surely someone out there has a postal of the W hite Library? Marjorie Markoff has a wonderful postcard of the m ain reading room of the Cornell L ibrary showing readers at long tables w ith bentwood