Libraries as dysfunctional organizations and workplaces 9781003159155

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Figures
Tables
Contributors
1 An Introduction to Dysfunction in the Library Workplace
Introduction: Why this Book and Who Is this Book For?
What Is Workplace Dysfunction?
Explanations for Workplace Dysfunction
Psychological
Organizational and Social
Workplace Dysfunction in Libraries
Four Topics in Library Dysfunction
Low Morale, Burnout, and Turnover
Problematic Recruitment, Retention, and Hiring Practices
Discrimination and Lack of Workplace Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Incivility, Harassment, and Bullying
Contents of this Book
Dysfunctional Libraries: A Western Or Global Problem?
Conclusion
References
2 The Dysfunctional Library and Academic Librarian Turnover
Introduction
Dysfunctional and Toxic Work Environments
Workplace Bullying
Inequitable Treatment
Morale
Burnout
Leadership
Recommendations for Addressing Turnover
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
3 Improving Dysfunctional Recruitment and Retention in Academic Libraries By Honoring the Whole Person
Introduction
Dysfunction in Library Recruitment
Hiring for “Fit”
Assumed Understanding of the Recruitment Process
Requisite Experience
Critical Analysis of Job Descriptions
Critical Analysis of the Interview
Interview Questions
Interview Schedule
Critical Analysis of Evaluation Measures
Search Committees
Rubrics
Letters of Recommendation
Retention of Successful Candidates
Demystifying and Adjusting Promotion and Appraisal
Professional Development Support
Work-life Balance
Mentorship Programs and Community Networks
Library Spaces
Conclusion
References
4 Precarity Doesn’t Care: Precarious Employment as a Dysfunctional Practice in Libraries
Introduction
Effects of Precarious Employment
Factors Maintaining Precarious Employment in Libraries
Resisting Precarity
Addressing Attitudes and Values
Conclusion
References
5 Discrimination as Dysfunction: Why Do Libraries Have a Problem With Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?
Introduction
History of Discrimination in Libraries
Racism
Sexism and LGBTQ+ Discrimination
Ableism
Contemporary Discrimination in Libraries
Contemporary Racism in Libraries
Contemporary Sexism, Gender Discrimination, and LGBTQ+ Workers in Libraries
Contemporary Ableism in Libraries
Marginalized Groups, Recruitment, and Retention
Recruitment
Onboarding
Mentorship
Continued Professional Development
Conclusion
References
6 Workplace Dysfunction and Intellectual Freedom in Public Libraries
Introduction
Literature Review
Workplace Culture
Training and Resources
Policies and Procedures
Methods
Results and Discussion
General Survey Results
Workplace Culture of Intellectual Freedom
Training and Resources
Policies and Procedures
Additional Themes
Conclusion
References
7 The Saboteur in the Academic Library
Introduction
Sabotage: Not Just a Beastie Boys Song
Why We Sabotage
Librarians Sabotage Initiatives to Preserve Status Or Increase Power
Librarians Sabotage New Projects to Preserve Past Work
Librarians Undermine and Refuse Requests in Order to Keep Jobs Manageable
Librarians Sabotage to Protect Themselves and Their Patrons
Costs of Sabotage
How Sabotage Contributes to Power Structures
Sabotage as Structural and Racialized Violence
On Helpful Saboteurs: The Race-Class-Gender Nexus of Workplace Expectations
A Framework for Addressing Sabotage: The Dohe Role-Mission Framework
Role: Job Candidates and New Hires
Open-source Intelligence
Human Intelligence
Role: Library Staff and Librarians
Extract Your Allies—and Yourself—from a Hot Zone
Role: Team Leads and Managers
The Middle Manager as Double Agent
Role: Library Administrators and Leaders
Conclusion
References
8 “Put the Fucking Salary in the Job Ad!”: An Analysis of an Anonymous Corpus of Tweets
Introduction
The Library Workplace and Anonymity
Corpus Generation and VADER
Facets of Investigation
Engagement Score
Grief Index
Initial Impressions of the Corpus
Closer Examinations of the Corpus
Hashtag Tweets
Swear Word Tweets
Tweets With Media
Question-asking Tweets
Summary: Engagement Scores
Grief Index: A Closer Investigation
Conclusion
Note
References
9 You Are Seen: An Analysis of Library Dysfunction Found in Online Memes
Introduction
Why Memes?
Methods
Data Collecting
Defining Library Dysfunction
Coding Guide
Results and Discussion
Work Environment
Dynamics With Patrons
Transformative Librarianship
Extraordinary Events
MLIS/MLS and the Job Market
Reflections and Conclusion
Note
References
10 A Descriptive Study of Workplace Bullying in U.S. Libraries During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Introduction
Workplace Bullying in Libraries
Methods
Results and Discussion
What Can Libraries Do About Workplace Bullying?
Conclusion
References
11 Work Alienation in Academic Libraries: A Marxist Analysis of Library Dysfunction
Introduction
Marx and Work Alienation: A Theoretical Framework
Seeman’s Five Aspects of Work Alienation
Powerlessness
Normlessness
Meaninglessness
Self-Estrangement
Isolation
Organizational Library Dysfunction and Work Alienation: Convergent Phenomena
Incivility and Work Alienation
Toxic Behavior and Work Alienation
Organizational Deviance and Work Alienation
Workplace Politics and Work Alienation
Poor Communication and Work Alienation
Dysfunctional Libraries and Work Alienation: Redux
Administrators
Paraprofessionals Vs. Librarians
Conclusion
References
12 Bamboo Ceiling Reframed: Exclusion Through Social Practices and Structures in Libraries
Introduction
The Bourdieusian Framework
Methods
Results
Discussion
Illusio and Habitus
Capital and Misrecognition
Symbolic Legitimation and Racism
Further Research
Conclusion
References
13 Combating Destruction: Organizational Power and Conflict in Academic Libraries
Introduction
Group Behavior, Status, and Conflict
Social Identity Theory
Status Characteristics Theory
Social Learning Theory
Toward Solutions
Role of Library Leadership
Role of Tenure in Library Workplace Incivility
Future Research and Conclusion
References
14 Dysfunction By (Dis)organization: The Academic Library Within University Structure and Organization
Introduction
Hierarchy in Higher Education
Organizational Structure: Where Do Libraries Fit?
IT and the Library
Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

LIBRARIES AS DYSFUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND WORKPLACES

Libraries as Dysfunctional Organizations and Workplaces expands the “dysfunctional” concept in the professional and academic LIS discourse by exposing the internal problematics of libraries, especially at social and organizational levels. Including contributions written by LIS professionals and scholars, the book demonstrates that although many libraries do well at attending to users and managing external information, they often fail at taking care of their own employees and addressing internal workplace issues. Acadia and the contributing authors explore the problem of dysfunctional libraries so that the LIS profession can come to terms with the systemic dysfunction in their institutions and begin solution-​ oriented progress toward new and sustainable functionality. The book analyzes the dysfunctional nature of modern libraries, while simultaneously proposing solutions to reduce and alleviate dysfunction. Through theory and application, it takes an explicit practice-​based approach with the intent to inform and explain dysfunction as experienced in the library workplace at individual and structural levels and perspectives. Libraries as Dysfunctional Organizations and Workplaces brings the dysfunction discourse to the attention of LIS academics and scholars so that further theoretical and empirical research can proceed from and subsequently be addressed in library and information schools. The book will also be essential reading for librarians and LIS students currently working or preparing to work in public, college, and university libraries. Spencer Acadia is an assistant professor in the Research Methods and Information Science department at the University of Denver, U.S.A.

LIBRARIES AS DYSFUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND WORKPLACES Edited by Spencer Acadia

Cover image: @Melissa Wiederrecht (Shutterstock) First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Spencer Acadia; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Spencer Acadia to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​74710-​7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​74709-​1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​15915-​5 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003159155 Typeset in Bembo by Newgen Publishing UK

For all readers who have ever worked in, or currently work in, a dysfunctional library.

CONTENTS

List of figures  List of tables  Contributors  1 An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt 2 The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  Amanda Foster Kaufman, Amy F. Fyn, Millicent Weber, and Christina Heady

ix xii xv 1 51

3 Improving dysfunctional recruitment and retention in academic libraries by honoring the whole person  Erica Lopez

72

4 Precarity doesn’t care: Precarious employment as a dysfunctional practice in libraries  Adena Brons, Chloe Riley, Ean Henninger, and Crystal Yin

95

5 Discrimination as dysfunction: Why do libraries have a problem with diversity, equity, and inclusion?  Briana Zaragoza and T. Gonzalez

109

viii Contents

6 Workplace dysfunction and intellectual freedom in public libraries  Miranda Doran-​Myers and Crystal Schimpf 7 The saboteur in the academic library  Kate Dohe, Celia Emmelhainz, Maura Seale, and Erin Pappas

132 149

8 “Put the fucking salary in the job ad!”: An analysis of an anonymous corpus of tweets  Tim Ribaric

167

9 You are seen: An analysis of library dysfunction found in online memes  Éthel Gamache and Spencer Acadia

193

10 A descriptive study of workplace bullying in U.S. libraries during the COVID-​19 pandemic  Carol Anne Geary and Spencer Acadia

211

11 Work alienation in academic libraries: A Marxist analysis of library dysfunction  Zorian M. Sasyk

240

12 Bamboo ceiling reframed: Exclusion through social practices and structures in libraries  Silvia Vong

254

13 Combating destruction: Organizational power and conflict in academic libraries  Sara Parme and Amy Pajewski

269

14 Dysfunction by (dis)organization: The academic library within university structure and organization  Jasmine Hoover

283

Index 

292

FIGURES

6.1 Level of agreement among respondents (N =​342) from suburban, urban, and rural libraries for the survey question “My coworkers would support me if I spoke up about an intellectual freedom concern”   6.2 Level of agreement among respondents (N =​342) from suburban, urban, and rural libraries for the survey question “My library’s management would support me if I spoke up about an intellectual freedom concern”  6.3 Level of agreement among respondents (N =​342) who have an MLIS degree or are currently enrolled in an MLIS program and those who do not have an MLIS degree on a survey question regarding work time spent considering intellectual freedom issues  6.4 Percentage of survey respondents (N =​342) who report working at libraries with intellectual freedom policies  6.5 Percentage of survey respondents (N =​342) who report working at libraries with written intellectual freedom procedures  8.1 Boxplot showing the two components of engagement score (ES) (i.e., favorite count and retweet count) and their distribution over the full corpus of tweets  8.2 Histogram showing the distribution of engagement score (ES) across the full corpus of tweets. The y-​axis is logarithmic here to ensure outliers are detectable  8.3 Line chart of grief index (GI) as it varies each month over the five years of the full corpus of tweets. The straight line represents the overall average GI score, while the fluctuating line shows the pattern of monthly scores across the entire five-​year period 

139

140

142 143 144

172

173

174

x  List of figures

8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8

8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18

8.19

8.20 8.21 8.22

Pie chart showing the ratio of submissions to the bot that were posted versus those that were not posted  Word cloud rendered using all text from the full corpus of tweets  Word cloud rendered similarly as in Figure 8.5, but with all forms of libra* words removed  Frequency distribution graph showing the top 20 words occurring in the full corpus of tweets  Lexical dispersion plot of the four most common words in the full corpus of tweets. Plot shows each time the individual word appears if all tweets are ordered chronologically  Pie chart showing the ratio of sentiment for the full corpus of tweets  Pie chart showing the ratio of sentiment for tweets with an average engagement score (ES)  Histogram showing the distribution of engagement score (ES) for tweets with hashtags  Histogram showing the distribution of engagement score (ES) for tweets with swear words  Pie chart showing the ratio of sentiment for tweets with swear words  Histogram showing the distribution of engagement score (ES) for tweets with embedded media  Example of a media-​embedded tweet. This tweet is an extreme outlier according to its engagement score (ES =​202)  Histogram showing the distribution of engagement score (ES) for tweets containing questions  Pie chart showing the ratio of sentiment for tweets containing questions  Boxplot showing a comparison of engagement scores (ES) of tweets for the categories of all tweets, tweets containing questions, tweets with embedded media, tweets with swear words, and tweets with hashtags  Similar boxplot as Figure 8.18 but with two changes: (1) the “all tweets” category is replaced with the category of tweets with engagement by users, and (2) outliers according to engagement score (ES) are shown  Pie chart showing the ratio of sentiment for tweets where the grief index (GI) is higher than the accumulated GI average  Pie chart showing the ratio of sentiment for tweets where the grief index (GI) is lower than the accumulated GI average  The one tweet from the full corpus of tweets with the single highest engagement score (ES =​737), over 50 standard deviations above the ES average 

174 175 176 177

178 179 179 180 182 183 184 184 185 185

187

188 188 189

191

List of fgures  xi

10.1 Line graph of experienced and witnessed workplace bullying as reported in the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) and Zogby surveys from 2007, 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2021  10.2 Bar chart of respondents affected by workplace bullying as reported in the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) and Zogby surveys from 2007, 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2021. “Affected by” is determined by combining those who experienced and witnessed workplace bullying  10.3 Bar chart showing percentages of the seven highest reported health outcomes from workplace bullying as self-​reported by survey respondents (n =​257) 

213

214

226

TABLES

4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1

6.2 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3

Job classifications from most secure to most precarious  U.S. population estimates by race and Hispanic origin, 2021  Canadian population estimates by visible minority, 2016  LIS occupation by employed, women, and race/​ethnicity in the United States, 2021  LIS occupation by sex in Canada, 2016  Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) degrees awarded by race/​ethnicity in the United States, 2017–​2019  Postsecondary library science enrollments by year and sex in Canada, 2016–​2020  Population declaring library science as their field of study by visible minority status in Canada, 2016  Comments from survey respondents who mention struggles with the balance of anti-​censorship ideals and weeding racist and/​or inaccurate library materials  Comments from survey respondents who mention the intellectual freedom rights of library workers  Selected advice for the organizational saboteur from the Simple Sabotage Field Manual  The Dohe Role-​Mission Framework for addressing sabotage  Five-​year summary of quantitative data, including engagement score, on the full corpus of tweets (N =​4,436)  Five highest scoring tweets that contain ellipses according to engagement score  Frequency of hashtags that occur more than once in the corpus of tweets 

96 114 115 116 116 117 117 118

146 147 150 157 172 177 180

List of tables  xiii

8.4 Five highest scoring tweets that contain hashtags according to engagement score  8.5 Five highest scoring tweets that contain swear words according to engagement score  8.6 Five highest scoring tweets that contain questions according to engagement score  8.7 Five highest scoring tweets during August 2018 (GI =​18.75) according to engagement score  8.8 Five highest scoring tweets during June 2018 (GI =​43.64) according to engagement score  8.9 Five highest scoring tweets during July 2020 (GI =​20.34) according to engagement score  10.1 Sex of respondents (n =​549)  10.2 Age of respondents (n =​547)  10.3 Highest level of education of respondents (n =​552)  10.4 Library type in which respondents worked (n =​551)  10.5 Number of years respondents worked at current library (n =​550)  10.6 Current job position of respondents (n =​551)  10.7 Responses to question: “Have you experienced workplace bullying in your current or previous library position?” (n =​551)  10.8 Responses to the question: “What has been the duration of your bullying experience?” (n =​382*)  10.9 Responses to the question: “What is the position of the person who committed the bullying?” (n =​383*)  10.10 Responses to the question: “Are you currently still working in this library workplace [where you were bullied]?” (n =​401*)  10.11 Responses to question: “If you are no longer working in this library workplace, why did you leave?” (n =​112*)  10.12 Responses to the question: “Do you feel that workplace bullying contributed to why you are not currently in this workplace [where you were bullied]?” (n =​129*)  10.13 Responses to the question: “Has bullying in the workplace affected your health?” (n =​370*)  10.14 Responses to the question: “Whether you have experienced workplace bullying directly or not, have you witnessed workplace bullying targeted at others in your library environment?” (n =​537)  10.15 Responses to the question: “Did this bullying behavior begin since the onset of the COVID-​19 pandemic or before?” (n =​382*)  10.16 Responses to the question: “How has the COVID-​19 pandemic impacted your experience with workplace bullying?” (n =​381*) 

181 182 186 189 190 190 222 222 222 222 223 223 223 224 224 225 225

225 226

227

228

228

xiv  List of tables

10.17 Responses to the question: “During the past year in the COVID-​19 pandemic, what has been your work environment?” (n =​405)  10.18 Selected open-​ended responses regarding COVID-​19 effects on workplace bullying  12.1 Social factors that negatively influence leadership advancement in respondents’ library career  12.2 Organizational factors that negatively influence leadership advancement in respondents’ library career  12.3 Respondents’ leadership and/​or management education 

228 230 259 260 260

CONTRIBUTORS

Spencer Acadia holds a PhD in sociology, an MA in psychology, and an MLS.

Spencer is an assistant professor in the Research Methods and Information Science department at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado. Spencer teaches social science research methods to library school students, as well as courses in library management, collection development, and international library research and practice. A part of Spencer’s ongoing research investigates LIS dysfunction, including library workplaces, education, and the profession. Prior to becoming a full-​time professor, Spencer worked in academic libraries for over ten years. Find Spencer on Twitter at @s_​acadia. Adena Brons holds both an MLIS and MAS from the University of British

Columbia. Adena works as the education librarian at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Adena’s research interests involve labor issues and equity, diversity, and inclusion in library and information studies. Additionally, Adena is a member of the Precarity in LIS research group, whose first paper “Perceptions and Experiences of Precarious Employment in Canadian Libraries: An Exploratory Study” won the Partnership Article Award in 2019. Kate Dohe holds an MLISc from the University of Hawai’i and works as manager

of the Digital Programs and Initiatives department at the University of Maryland Libraries. Kate’s team oversees day-​to-​day activities related to digital repository management, digital preservation, research data services, and electronic publishing. Selected publications of Kate’s include “Care, Code, and Digital Libraries: Embracing Critical Practice in Digital Library Communities” in the e-​journal In the Library with the Lead Pipe, and “Linked Data, Unlinked Communities” in the independent magazine Lady Science.

xvi Contributors

Miranda Doran-​Myers holds an MLIS from Florida State University and works as

a librarian in Denver, Colorado. Miranda’s interests include free and equitable access to information and creating supportive and safe workplace conditions for library workers. Miranda has served as the chair of the Colorado Association of Libraries intellectual freedom committee since 2018. Celia Emmelhainz holds an MA in anthropology and an MLIS with a focus in

social sciences information-​seeking behavior. Celia currently works as the anthropology and qualitative research librarian at University of California Berkeley and held previous academic librarian positions in the U.S. state of Maine and the country of Kazakhstan. Celia’s research interests involve organizational dynamics, professionalization and career choice, and information access. Additionally, Celia is a qualitative research consultant and has completed ethnographic fieldwork in Mongolia and Kazakhstan. Amy F. Fyn holds an MA from Boston College and an MLIS from Wayne State

University. Amy works as the business librarian at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Amy’s research interests include academic librarian retention, librarian use of ACRL’s information literacy framework, and both peer and group mentoring in academia. Éthel Gamache holds a master’s degree in humanities from Université du Québec

à Montréal and an MIS from École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information at Université de Montréal. Éthel works as a humanities and social sciences librarian at Concordia University in Montréal, Québec. Éthel’s interests involve justice, democracy, life-​long learning, and well-​being. Additionally, Éthel is French editor for the journal Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. Carol Anne Geary holds an MLS from Southern Connecticut State University and

works as a youth services librarian at Saratoga Springs Public Library in Saratoga Springs, New York. Carol has presented research and spoken at numerous library conferences on the topic of workplace bullying in libraries. T. Gonzalez lives in the southwestern United States and is currently pursuing an

MLIS degree while working in public librarianship.T.’s main interest is social justice, particularly studying and fighting against systemic discrimination and colonization inherent in librarianship. Christina Heady holds an MLIS from the University of Michigan. Christina is

currently the head of instruction and research services at Wright State University’s library in Dayton, Ohio and has worked in academic libraries for over ten years. Christina’s research interests include instructional design at both course and

Contributors  xvii

programmatic levels, the impact of library instruction on student success, and organizational psychology. Ean Henninger (he/​him) holds an MLIS from the University of British Columbia.

Ean works as the undergraduate liaison librarian at University Canada West in Vancouver, British Columbia on unceded xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam Indian Band), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish Nation), and sə̓lílwətaʔɬ (Tsleil-​Waututh Nation) lands. Previously, Ean worked in various public and academic libraries, precariously employed for more than four years after receiving the MLIS. Ean’s research interests include applied linguistics and precarious work as they each apply to library employees and users. Jasmine Hoover holds an MLIS and currently works as the scholarly communi­

cations and science librarian at Cape Breton University in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Jasmine’s interests include the functions of academic libraries within universities’ organizational structures and how the placement of those libraries within the larger structure impacts library services and success. Amanda Foster Kaufman holds an MLIS from the University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill and is currently an MEd candidate at Wake Forest University. Amanda works as an associate librarian at Wake Forest in Winston-​Salem, North Carolina. Amanda’s research interests include credit-​bearing information literacy instruction, critical information literacy, and librarian retention. Erica Lopez holds an MS in environmental science and an MLS. Erica works as a

teaching and learning librarian at the University of Houston Libraries in Houston, Texas. Previously, Erica was a chemical and biological sciences librarian and has worked in academic libraries providing science expertise for over ten years. Erica’s interests involve exploring the challenges and benefits of honoring one’s core values of personal identity in the workplace. Additionally, Erica is most proud of her role as a working single mother to three children and has published and presented about the “baby penalty” in academic librarianship. Amy Pajewski holds an MSLS from Clarion University and currently works as

assistant professor and student success librarian at the West Chester University of Pennsylvania. Amy leads a team of teaching librarians focused on enriching first-​ and second-​year student experience through information literacy. As liaison to non-​ traditional departments, Amy collaborates with student success initiatives across campus, including the summer Academic Success Program and West Chester’s First-​Gen Initiative. Amy’s research interests include cultivating communities of practice, general education information literacy instruction, and library impact on student success and retention.

xviii Contributors

Erin Pappas holds degrees in Russian literature and anthropology from Reed

College, in anthropology from the University of Chicago, and in library science from the University of Kentucky. Erin works as a humanities research librarian at the University of Virginia. Erin’s research interests include emotional labor, early-​ career mentoring, international digital libraries and digital humanities, and improvisation. Additionally, Erin is the co-​editor of the #DLFTeach Library Cookbook. Sara Parme holds both MBA and MLIS degrees and is currently a PhD candi-

date in administration and leadership studies. Sara is currently the project director of Open Appalachia, the Appalachian College Association’s open resources initiative and has worked as a librarian for over ten years. Tim Ribaric holds an MSc in computer science from Brock University, an MLIS

from University of Western Ontario, and is currently pursuing a PhD in educational studies also at Brock. Recently attaining the rank of Librarian IV, Tim works as the digital scholarship librarian at Brock in Southern Ontario. Tim has published on library labor issues, technology in libraries, and computational notebooks. Tim is also the creator of LIS Grievances and can be found on Twitter at @elibronic. Chloe Riley (she/​ her) works as the library communications officer at Simon

Fraser University Library in Burnaby, British Columbia. Previously, Chloe worked precariously in libraries for ten years as a shelver, library assistant, and librarian. Chloe’s research interests include equity and labor in libraries, social media, and all things queer. Zorian M. Sasyk holds an MA in sociology from Minnesota State University

Mankato and an MS in library science from Wayne State University. Zorian currently works at EBSCO Information Services and has worked in various library electronic resource management roles for over seven years. Zorian’s interests include open access resources in discovery, collection analysis, the sociology of librarianship, and electronic resource management advocacy. Additionally, Zorian is active in MNPALS, Minnesota State System’s library consortium, and the ELUNA/​IGELU content working group. Crystal Schimpf holds an MLIS from San Jose State University and cur-

rently works as director of the Tracy Memorial Library in New London, New Hampshire. Previously, Crystal worked as a consultant for the Colorado State Library, Public Library Association, Infopeople, International City/​ County Managers Association, and TechSoup for Libraries. Crystal’s interests involve policy development, library boards, patron privacy, digital literacy, outcome measurement, and organizational learning. Crystal is an active member of the

Contributors  xix

American Library Association, Public Library Association, and Association of Rural and Small Libraries. Maura Seale holds an MSI from the University of Michigan, an MA in American

studies from the University of Minnesota, and a graduate certificate in digital public humanities from George Mason University. Maura works as a history librarian at the University of Michigan. Maura’s research focuses on critical librarianship, library pedagogy, political economy and labor in libraries, and race and gender in libraries. Maura co-​edited the book Politics of Theory in the Practice of Critical Librarianship (2018) and is currently co-​editing the forthcoming book Creating Space for All Learners: Exploring Equitable and Inclusive Pedagogies. Maura can be found online at www.mau​rase​ale.org Kyndal Vogt holds an MLIS from the University of Denver and currently works as

a private archivist. Kyndal’s research interests include decolonization of archives and libraries through conscientious stewardship of Indigenous property and knowledge, promoting Indigenous epistemology and linguistic representation in information storage and retrieval, and rematriation of Indigenous artifacts. In addition, Kyndal cares about promoting mentorship opportunities between young professionals and established leaders. Silvia Vong holds both an MEd and MLIS and is a PhD candidate at the Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. Silvia currently works as the associate chief librarian of scholarly, research, and creative activities at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson University). Silvia’s research interests include critical reflective practice, critical management studies, and the impact of new public management practices on anti-​racism work at Canadian universities. Millicent Weber holds an MA in applied psychology from Southern Illinois

University Carbondale and is currently a doctoral candidate in applied psychology at the same institution. Millicent’s research interests include various topics within industrial-​organizational psychology, including workplace stress, counterproductive work behavior, burnout, job crafting, and human resource management. Crystal Yin holds an MLIS from the University of British Columbia and a BA in

Art History from the University of Victoria. After being precariously employed at different institutions in British Columbia for almost six years, Crystal is currently employed at the Justice Institute of British Columbia as the electronic resources and systems librarian. Crystal’s current research interests include labor and precarity issues in libraries, accessibilities and discoverabilities of electronic resources, and multicultural services in libraries.

newgenprepdf

xx Contributors

Briana Zaragoza holds an MLIS from the University of Denver and works as an

education librarian at California State University Sacramento (Sac State). Briana’s teaching and research interests include interdisciplinary topics in education as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion in librarianship. Briana is a member of the American Library Association and the California Academic and Research Libraries Association, as well as Sac State Library’s diversity, equity, and inclusion committee.

1 AN INTRODUCTION TO DYSFUNCTION IN THE LIBRARY WORKPLACE Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Introduction: Why this book and who is this book for? Although the terms “dysfunctional library” and “library dysfunction” are not yet widely used in existing library and information sciences (LIS) literature, these terms must become popularized in LIS professional and academic discourse. Emerging widespread evidence suggests that library workers in the United States and Canada are unhappy and dissatisfied with the libraries within which they are employed. In December 2017, the American Library Association (ALA) published a book called The Dysfunctional Library: Challenges and Solutions to Workplace Relationships by Henry et al. In that book, the authors use the term “dysfunctional” to describe the current state of U.S. libraries based on data of over 4,000 survey responses. A little over 50% of those surveyed perceive their libraries as dysfunctional (Henry et al., 2017; 2018; 2020). Moreover, 91% of respondents from different types of libraries report experiencing some form of incivility at work and, of those, almost half deal with it on a weekly basis while almost 75% on a monthly basis (Henry et al., 2017; 2018). Henry et al. conclude that libraries are dysfunctional mostly because, first, good communication throughout library workplaces is lacking, and, second, library leadership is weak and ineffectual. Henry et al.’s book is a major work for two main reasons: First, their book is among the only ones to intentionally and actively describe libraries as internally broken organizations by specifically using the “dysfunctional” designation. Second, the goal of their book, which is also a shared goal of this one, is to call out dysfunction by recognizing and acknowledging it (Henry et al., 2017). In addition, Henry et al.’s (2018) work is noteworthy because it provides both quantitative and qualitative generalizable evidence that libraries and their employees—​at least in the United States—​are hurting from many dysfunctional issues. Not all individual U.S. libraries are dysfunctional, but, based on Henry et al.’s pioneering DOI: 10.4324/9781003159155-1

2  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

work, enough of them are—​statistically speaking—​to warrant careful attention by current and future libraries, their employees, and the entire LIS profession. Given the evidence presented by Henry et al.’s work alongside other scholars’ published work and as discussed in this book, the generalization of library dysfunction in the North American instance is needed both conceptually and analytically to open and advance dialogue about the widespread problem of dysfunction in and of libraries. Although libraries may do well at attending to and managing external information and helping library users, they largely fail at taking care of themselves internally. That is, much LIS literature is externally focused on topics related to fundamental core values, ethical considerations for practice, and social concepts (e.g., access to information, community service, democratic process, intellectual freedom, knowledge society, lifelong learning, etc.) (ALA, 2019; IFLA, 2018), as well as assisting users by providing resources to them and meeting their information needs. Even when LIS publications are concerned with internal issues, they concentrate mostly on operational themes (e.g., acquisitions, budgets, cataloging, buildings, collections, spaces, etc.) Thus, the point of this book is threefold: (1) to look critically and introspectively at the internal problematics of libraries themselves as dysfunctional organizations and workplaces; (2) to begin examination of dysfunction at the socio-​ organizational level that complements the more common individualistic, psychological perspectives found in much existing generalist and LIS literature; and (3) to provide practical suggestions on how to address dysfunction in library workplaces. Topics mentioned in this chapter and examined in this book are offered as evidence that libraries do indeed suffer internally from dysfunctional states, but they need not remain that way.This book does not aim to unfairly problematize libraries or suggest that libraries have lost all hope, but rather to advance a critical examination and discourse about the dysfunction found in them. Although this book might be viewed as pessimistic and controversial insofar as it intentionally draws attention to the current internal problematic and dysfunctional condition of libraries, its purpose is fundamentally positive; the book is borne out of the optimistic desire to constructively tackle the overarching concern of bad library workplaces by way of recognizing and acknowledging them. The book does not intend to imply that libraries are the only organizations that experience dysfunction in the workplace; in fact, dysfunction occurs in all types of workplaces and organizations. The book’s intention, however, is to underscore the importance of identifying dysfunction in library workplaces and understanding the ways in which libraries remain stuck in its repeating cycles; these intentions are necessary if the problems of dysfunction are to be addressed and remedied.Workplace dysfunction does not occur in a meaningless vacuum; rather, it happens in meaningful, real-​life situations, settings, and contexts involving individual actors and socio-​organizational structures. Although existing literature on workplace dysfunction in non-​library settings is abundant, not much has been published in the LIS literature using the “dysfunctional” term specifically in, for, and about libraries despite growing evidence and concern among library employees. As such, the exploration of workplace dysfunction occurring within libraries as a unique institutional backdrop is warranted.

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  3

This book is crafted with two audiences in mind. First, the book aims to bring the discourse of dysfunction to LIS academics and scholars so that further theoretical and empirical research can proceed from and subsequently be addressed by the larger LIS discipline. Apart from a few, LIS professors and researchers are not actively publishing in this area and, therefore, do not seem interested in the ongoing job dissatisfaction of the librarians they are producing nor the dysfunctional environments within which their graduates work. Thus, further academic inquiry into library dysfunction can lead to both new theoretical inquiry and practical outcomes toward improving the current state of librarianship. Secondly, the book is intended for both managerial and non-​managerial library employees and LIS students working or preparing to work in any type of North American library. The book is intentional in its inclusion of both theoretical and applied efforts with the intent to best inform and explain dysfunction in the library workplace. This chapter begins with an overview of dysfunction in both general (i.e., non-​library) and library workplaces to lay a conceptual and practical groundwork upon which the rest of the chapter and book is built. Psychological and socio-​organizational explanations for dysfunction in the workplace are discussed with further arguments that greater attention to those social and organizational aspects is needed. Next, the chapter provides a brief discussion on four common ways library dysfunction can be observed: (1) low morale, burnout, and turnover; (2) problematic recruitment, retention, and hiring practices; (3) discrimination and lack of workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (4) incivility, harassment, and bullying. Then, short overviews of the other 13 chapters of this book are presented. The chapter concludes by questioning whether the observation of library dysfunction is a uniquely North American or Western problem or, instead, if it might be considered an endemic global dilemma. Due to space constraints, not all possible outcomes of and reasons why dysfunction exists in Canadian and U.S. libraries could be included in this chapter and book, but those that do appear here are presented to readers as evidence of and for further discussion about the dysfunctional library phenomenon.

What is workplace dysfunction? Pertaining to the workplace, dysfunction is defined broadly as “anything that disturbs the normal functional operations of an organization. It is also used more widely to mean a way of doing things that doesn’t work” (Statt, 1999, p. 48). Other definitions of the term as used in the social and behavioral sciences are similar, all indicating absent or decreased functionality, impairment, disruption, disturbance, and deficiency (Calhoun, 2002; Colman, 2015; Corsini, 2016; Scott, 2015; Sullivan, 2009). Dysfunctional behavior in the workplace is defined by Griffin et al. (1998, p. 67) and Griffin and Lopez (2005, p. 1000) as “motivated behavior by an employee or group of employees that is intended to have negative consequences for another individual and/​or group and/​or the organization itself.”

4  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

That internal dysfunction exists within organizations and workplaces is not new. A wide-​ranging and interdisciplinary body of literature from psychology, sociology, management, and organizational studies explores dysfunctional behavior and institutions. According to this large swath of literature over several decades, some characteristics of workplaces fraught with dysfunction—​even if that term is not used—​commonly include environments that are uncivil, harmful, destructive, abusive, toxic, unsafe, deviant, violent, and counterproductive caused by and resulting in disrespect toward and disregard for others, lack of courtesy and empathy, cynicism, scheming against others, feelings of bitterness and hostility, discrimination and prejudice against marginalized coworkers, aggressive and passive-​ aggressive behavior, declining morale, and other damaging traits (Allcorn & Stein, 2015; Cohen, 2018; Fox & Lituchy, 2012; Fox & Spector, 2005; Furnham  & Taylor, 2004; Griffin & O’Leary-​Kelly, 2004; Langan-​Fox et al., 2007; Lipinski & Crothers, 2014; Lutgen-​Sandvik & Sypher, 2009; Roter, 2017; 2019; Van Fleet & Van Fleet, 2022; Wilde, 2016). Moreover, these characteristics manifest as identifiable individual behaviors such as being rude, annoying, condescending, insulting, argumentative, interruptive, vengeful, retaliative, tyrannical, or combative; not listening to and blaming others; using unprofessional body language; starting rumors about others and participating in gossip and slander; and engaging in physical aggression, often resulting in psychological and physiological discomfort for the persons at which the behavior is directed, as well as unfavorable institutional outcomes such as disempowerment of and lower productivity from workers; loss of resources such as money, labor, and talent; lack of successful long-​ term planning; litigation against the organization and its workers; poor organizational communication and leadership; and a contaminated work culture. Thus, workplace dysfunction might be based in individual behavior (e.g., harassment or bullying), as well as embedded into or an outcome of socio-​organizational structures in the workplace (e.g., burnout and turnover caused by low morale and a toxic environment). Based on previous scholarship, the position taken in this book is that a notable portion of U.S. and Canadian library workplaces experience dysfunction in high volume. Certainly, there exist situations where individual behavioral problems at work are due to factors outside of work (e.g., issues at home and in personal life, mental health concerns, etc.), and while this book does not underplay those factors, they also are not the primary focus of concern. Rather, the present intent is to, first, recognize and emphasize that library employees experience dysfunctional and unfavorable work conditions stemming from social and organizational (i.e., structural) problems alongside individual ones, and, second, to critically acknowledge that libraries and the LIS profession are mostly negligent in attempting to solve the overarching, systemic problem of dysfunction, not because they instinctively refuse to help, but because libraries and the profession do not know how to advance beyond their current dysfunctional states to meaningfully improve themselves.

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  5

Explanations for workplace dysfunction Psychological The vast majority of existing literature on dysfunction in the workplace centers on various intra-​and interpersonal psychological, social psychological, and psychoanalytic processes, mechanisms, traits, and behaviors of employees. Some studies, for example, attribute dysfunctional conduct such as incivility, harassment, and bullying to a perpetrator’s low self-​esteem and emotional and cognitive instability, as well as a recipient’s pessimistic attitude, learned helplessness, lack of self-​control, perceived vulnerability by the perpetrator, and substance abuse (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Harvey et al., 2006; LeBlanc & Barling, 2005). Other literature suggests that perpetrators who engage in dysfunctional behavior were exposed to it earlier in life (e.g., being bullied and otherwise abused as a child by another child or teacher at school or by a sibling or parent at home), have learned that behavior, and are mimicking it as an adult (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Fenclau et al., 2014; Harvey et al., 2006). Still other literature places a spotlight on an individual actor’s disposition, personality and related traits, type-​A behaviors, and temperament, sometimes co-​occurring with mental illness, psychopathy in particular (Berry et al., 2007; Boddy & Taplin, 2016; Harms & Spain, 2014; Spector & Fox, 2005b). However, dysfunctional workplace behaviors are unlikely to be a sole product of any one of these factors, but rather may surface in interaction with the work environment. Moreover, psychological factors such as these are difficult, if not impossible, to change and employers who try to do so as a way of addressing their employees’ dysfunctional behaviors are likely wasting their time and effort. In line with psychological perspectives, a sizeable body of literature places cause of workplace dysfunction on problematic leaders and leader behavior, explaining it either as a cyclical relationship—​that is, dysfunction in the workplace is a product of dysfunctional leadership, and dysfunctional leadership is a product of dysfunctional workplaces—​or as a situation where leaders themselves behave in evil or toxic ways, experience some form of mental illness, possess a personality that thrives on conflict, or all of the above (e.g., Allcorn & Stein, 2015; Boddy, 2015; Boddy & Taplin, 2016; Cohen, 2018; Furnham & Taylor, 2004; Goldman, 2006; 2009; Kaiser & Craig, 2014; Kaiser et al., 2015; Lutgen-​Sandvik & McDermott, 2011; Roter, 2017). In some cases, leaders themselves may be antagonistic and possess dysfunctional traits that, for example, create unfavorable work environments and impede their own abilities to lead and manage due to problems arising from the dark triad—​psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism—​along with mood, disposition, management style, etc. Additionally, leaders may knowingly engage in destructive behavior as a way to assert power and dominance over their employees which, in turn, can result in workers modeling this behavior in their interpersonal workplace relationships where a manager’s toxic style of leading “is strongly mirrored in inappropriate strategies, structures, organizational cultures, and patterns of decision making” (Goethals et al., 2004, p. 371). In other cases, the workplace itself may be dysfunctional due to

6  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

environmental factors (e.g., swift change, lack of resources, etc.) resulting in extreme psychological stress on leaders who are unable to effectively handle the pressure and express themselves in harmful ways. A glaring problem with much of this management and leadership literature is that it incorrectly assumes a 1:1 correspondence where every dysfunctional workplace has a dysfunctional leader or that all workplaces with a dysfunctional leader must also be dysfunctional. Defining dysfunctional workplaces in this way is inaccurate because it wrongly supposes, first, that the presence of a dysfunctional leader is a necessary condition for a workplace to be dysfunctional and, second, it places too much emphasis, again, on one or more individuals as the root cause of the dysfunction. The point here is not to discount the very real and negative effects that dysfunctional managers, department heads, directors, and those in other supervisory positions have on employees and organizations, but rather to clarify that pinning workplace dysfunction solely on dysfunctional leaders does not explain in total why dysfunction exists, how it manifests, and what causes it to occur; leaders may be part of the problem, but they are not always a required antecedent. Two major problems with much of the leadership and organizational literature, too, is that it, first, mistakenly assumes management always acts rationally, correctly, and has employees’ and organizations’ best interests in mind, and, secondly, insists on placing leaders on pedestals as untouchable frontrunners who can do no wrong. Such perspectives are nothing more than ideological and unrealistic presumptions of what is expected of administration because the behaviors and intentions of leaders are sometimes irrational, damaging, self-​interested, and of no benefit to their employees or organizations (Allcorn & Stein, 2015; Kaiser & Craig, 2014; Lemmergaard & Muhr, 2013). Moreover, although few leaders do indeed possess unique talents to effectively manage organizations and embody everything workers want them to be, “such leaders are mostly mythical creatures creating a corporate cultism around them” (Lemmergaard & Muhr, 2013, p. 8) to the point where incompetent leaders think far too highly—​and mistakenly—​of their own abilities while workers managed by them simply follow along without question. In addition, when it comes to decision making, managers do not always have the most complete, accurate information at-​hand and are forced to make inferences, even if the information they receive is skewed or incorrect. These inferences rely on attributional processes, not necessarily facts or evidence (Kluemper et al., 2019). The takeaway here is that leaders are not unassailable and employees should never assume they are. A final consideration is stated by Harvey et al. (2006, p. 9): “People, for social, environmental, and biological reasons, need to dominate others and the workplace provides them with a location.” This explanation assumes that humans have some innate, uncontrollable propensity to “act out” in the workplace. One major problem with this perspective is that it comes far too close at justifying and excusing bad behavior, suggesting that targets of such actions should just learn to tolerate it. No reasonable, respectable employee should endure dysfunctional behaviors on the naïve and simplistic argument that humans are somehow psychologically or

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  7

evolutionarily designed to dominate others and, therefore, should be able to carry out those predilections at work. Tolerating dysfunctional behaviors and ideologies in the workplace should never be an option.

Organizational and social Compared to psychological explanations, much less is published on organizational and social ones despite growing recognition that dysfunction in the workplace is heavily influenced by social and organizational settings and circumstances. The common preference for individualism is well captured by Hoel et al. (2003, p. 416) when proclaiming that “whilst contextual and situational factors will influence the behaviours of perpetrators (and targets), we must all take responsibility for our own behaviour” [emphasis added], and by Porath (2016, p. 179) when ending the final chapter of the book Mastering Civility: A Manifesto for the Workplace: “In each moment, we get to choose who we want to be. Who do you want to be?” [emphasis in original]. In a very basic sense, Hoel et al. and Porath are not entirely wrong: employees must, indeed, be accountable for their actions at work and make individual choices about those actions. Yet, placing so much misdirected emphasis on individual employees and their personal behaviors obscures the socio-​ organizational dynamisms of the workplace and the roles these play in shaping and prescribing that individual behavior on which many scholars seem to rely when describing workplace issues. Van Fleet and Griffin (2006, p. 699) are aware that much of the previous literature on workplace dysfunction tends to “ignore or downplay the role of organizational factors in instigating dysfunction behaviors.” Nonetheless, a few scholars over the years have notably pushed organizational attention forward. For instance, both Andersson and Pearson (1999) and Pearson et al. (2000) recognize that uncivil behaviors in the workplace are not static, individual-​level events, but rather involve multiple people (i.e., instigators, targets, and observers) that interact within social and organizational environments. In a 2010 study on workplace bullying, Namie and Lutgen-​Sandvik, conclude that the widespread metaphorical depictions of the “lone-​wolf ” bully and “one bad apple” fit less than a third of bullying cases. In most cases, workplace bullying is a social process embedded in workgroup and organizational communication networks … [and] … the notions that workplace bullying is an individual, psychological issue or set of interactions solely between the bully and target are myths [emphasis added]. pp. 356, 361 Spector and Fox (2005a), in the concluding chapter of an edited volume on counterproductive work behaviors, call for more attention to be placed on organizational—​ not solely individual—​aspects of workplace dysfunction, and Hershcovis and Reich (2013) urge future researchers to focus on the “social context” within which dysfunctional behaviors occur (p. 829) [emphasis added]. When writing about sexual

8  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

harassment in the workplace, Gibbons et al. (2014, p. 208) state that “the direct cause of harassment is a job and organizational climate that promotes it, not anything about the victim” [emphasis added]. Miner et al. (2019, p. 529) recognize that “the far-​reaching and deleterious consequences associated with workplace incivility suggest the need to identify aspects of organizations that may foster these negative behaviors” [emphasis added].With growing interest in understanding the social and organizational elements of workplace dysfunction, scholars point to four particular socio-​organizational explanations. First, since the turn of century work demands, pressures, strains, and stressors have drastically increased. These tensions include tight deadlines and lack of time for employees to complete work; lack of time for managers to address employee issues and concerns thoroughly and adequately; pressure to maximize productivity and “do more with less”; frequent organizational restructuring and technological changes resulting in a marked lack of stability; ineffective internal communication, workflows, and decision processes; work and information overload, including spending long hours at work and bringing work home; lack of employee autonomy to make decisions about their own work; ambiguity of job roles, as well as conflict within or between roles and role overload; lack of transparency about promotion, merit, incentive, and reward systems; and heightened globalization leading to climates of intense competition in a world with dwindling long-​term secure jobs, resources, and opportunities for advancement (Appelbaum et al., 2007; Blau & Andersson, 2005; Cooper et al., 2001; Jacobs & Scott, 2011; Harvey et al., 2006; Hoel & Salin, 2003; Miner et al., 2019; Pearson et al., 2000; 2005; Penney & Spector, 2005; Stohl et al., 2013). Exigencies such as these create increasingly complicated, stressful, and discouraging workplaces that lead employees to act in dysfunctional ways. Second, demographics of both employees and employers continue to change, yielding a much more diverse workplace in terms of race, ethnicity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, (dis)ability, religious beliefs and worldviews, political ideals, geography, and cultural values and traditions (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Jacobs & Scott, 2011; Harvey et al., 2006; Hoel & Salin, 2003; Stohl et al., 2013). Simply put, workers are now more dissimilar to each other than they were in the past, thanks to rising global migration, multinational institutions working across borders, outsourcing of labor, and ubiquitous long-​distance technology (e.g., phone calls, emails, texts, and online remote meetings). Central to this demographic and technological shift is the arrival of cultural multiplicity and introduction of new worldviews and knowledge resulting in modern workplace “melting pots” that are ripe for misunderstanding, stereotyping, and “othering.” Third, workplace culture is recognized as a key factor in how an organization and its existing and newly hired employees act (Van Fleet & Van Fleet, 2014). Yet, this concept is difficult to define and understand because the culture of a workplace is “rarely broken down into measurable factors” (O’Farrell & Nordstrom, 2013, p. 8). A dysfunctional workplace culture might be described as one in which norms are ill-​defined, unhealthy competition exists, rigid compliance is expected, peer

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  9

pressure is inescapable, negative attitudes and actions are enabled and normalized, and supervisors execute disciplinary action overzealously (Harvey et al., 2006; Hoel & Salin, 2003; Lutgen-​Sandvik & McDermott, 2011; Namie, 2007). Such a culture might be labelled as “chaotic,” a term used by O’Farrell and Nordstrom (2013, p. 9) that connotes low transparency (i.e., little to no visibility of actions), low accountability (i.e., little to no repercussions for behaviors and actions), and low capacity (i.e., little to no ability of organizations to control and motivate employees). Workplace culture at any organization that rewards problematic behavior, intentionally or unintentionally, while doing nothing or very little to correct the behavior is likely to remain mired in perpetual dysfunction (Griffin et al., 1998; Weber Shandwick et al., 2017; 2018). Fourth, and related to the previous three, is what Pearson et al. (2005, p. 181) refer to as “social contextual shifts” that may yield increased workplace dysfunction. Examples of this phenomenon include general lack of social courtesy and respect for others, lack of time for interpersonal workplace niceties, and changing expectations in psychological contracts between employer and employee. A psychological contract is an exchange relationship based on unwritten beliefs, assertions, obligations, and expectations. A basic tenet of these contracts might be, for example, that an employee promises to be loyal to an employer in exchange for long-​term, continued employment. However, Pearson et al. (2005) suggest that the influence of these contracts is waning as long-​ term organizational investment seems to be declining [and] these changes can be seen as shifts in loyalty, retention, entitlement, short-​term profitability, and informality. With minimal investment or trust in the long-​term, some employees will focus sharply on taking care of themselves, neglecting the needs and desires of colleagues. p. 181 Here, Pearson et al. seem to view the dissolution of psychological contracts in terms of how employees act; that is, employees are the ones who become disloyal, feel entitled, lose trust, and neglect coworkers and the employer. Although Pearson et al. may not be incorrect in saying that employees are breaking psychological contracts more readily and more frequently now than they have in the past, employers break psychological contracts, too, showing no loyalty to their employees, feeling entitled to and encroaching upon more and more of an employee’s time and labor, and neglecting employees’ needs. Thus, psychological contract decay might be better viewed as a two-​way process where both employees and employers share some responsibility, rather than simply a one-​sided event with only employees to blame. Mutually reinforced and beneficial psychological contracts between employees and employers are important because, as a leading researcher on the concept, Denise Rousseau (2008, p. 1328), states, “violation where an employer or worker believes that the psychological contract has been willfully breached by the other generates a long list of dysfunctional outcomes.”

10  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

These four socio-​organizational explanations are not meant to be inclusive of all organizational and social considerations relevant for development and continuance of dysfunction in the workplace. Nonetheless, these explanations reveal that modern, new workplaces and the dysfunction within them are complex, not mere compositions of individual, micro-​level human behaviors and qualities and, as such, further attention must be paid to socio-​organizational factors that impact, and are impacted by, workplace dysfunction.

Workplace dysfunction in libraries Emerging anecdotal evidence (e.g., via social media and blogs) as well as survey and interview data suggest that libraries today, especially academic and public ones throughout the United States and Canada, face an overwhelming problem of internal dysfunction. Not until recently has dysfunction in the library workplace been included as part of the larger LIS discourse using critical frameworks. In this emerging LIS literature, a substantial segment of library employees appears to be working in dysfunctional settings. Henry et al. (2017, pp. 20–​31; 2018, p. 140) define dysfunction ambiguously as “not operating normally or properly” and provide a list of ten major indicators: (1) poor communication; (2) overbearing bureaucracies and dictatorial leadership; (3) misplaced reward structures; (4) high turnover; (5) lack of collaboration and working in silos; (6) too much talk and no action; (7) high-​ stress environment; (8) micromanaging; (9) destructive office politics; and (10) lack of diversity. A total of 53% of those surveyed in Henry et al.’s (2017, p. 188; 2018, p. 140; 2020) study perceive their libraries as dysfunctional and, in addition to the indicators above, some mention that “general personality conflicts, lazy coworkers, lack of trust, [and] cronyism” are problematic as well. Based on survey responses, Henry et al. (2018) conclude that the first of their identified indicators—​poor communication—​is a primary culprit of library dysfunction, as are weak and dictatorial types of leadership. As discussed throughout this book, other LIS scholars, too, find that North American libraries are dysfunctional. Bartlett (2019, p. 1) recognizes that in library settings “the real problem occurs when organizational dysfunction is systemic, springing from the underlying culture of the organization. Common characteristics … include lack of established procedures, backstabbing, favoritism, gossiping, bullying, incessant turf wars, and so on.” Reinforcing this systemic dysfunction is the “we’ve always done it that way” refrain espoused by libraries and librarians; it is tantamount to resisting change due to outdated legacy thinking. Acadia (2020) conceptualizes this way of thinking in terms of a trap-​gap framework where libraries are trapped in the gap between comfortable, familiar legacy practices and newer, modern, more progressive models of practice and service. Freedman and Vreven (2016, p. 727), when studying academic libraries in particular, declare that “persistent workplace negativity is much higher in U.S. academic libraries than in the general workforce.” This comparison is important because it suggests that U.S., and

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  11

possibly Canadian, academic libraries may be among the most toxic environments in North American workplaces. The damaging philosophy of “do more with less” is now such a widespread, way-​ of-​ life mantra as library administration regurgitates it as a talking point about resource instability, especially of shrinking library budgets. In Baron and Neuman’s (1996) study, budget cuts, pay cuts, and freezes on hiring and raises are correlated with and predictors of experiencing and witnessing aggression in the workplace. More recently, Heady et al. (2020) found that close to one-​fifth of librarians left their jobs due to their libraries being understaffed and themselves overworked—​one of the most colloquially discussed stressors among library workers is unsustainable workload. These workers criticize their employers for overextending their labor such that they lack enough time in the workday to complete tasks; cutting back on funding, supplies, and other resources to perform their jobs; and not providing adequate continued training and education to improve their work experiences (Harwell, 2008). Retirements, terminations, resignations, and endless interim and temporary positions, combined with hiring freezes, equate to the same or more amounts and types of library work spread out between fewer people. These situations reduce worker autonomy as task volume rises, and tasks for which some employees are over-​and underqualified are increasingly delegated to them, leading to intense pressure, frustration, and resentment (Bunge, 1989; Farler & Broady-Preston, 2012). The problem of overworked employees cannot be overstated because “when half the people are now doing twice the work because of downsizing, or rightsizing, or whatever it is called, stress goes up, and behavior in the office becomes less than civil” (Johnson & Indvik, 2001, p. 464). When library employees’ workloads are increased with no commensurate boost in resources and compensation, they become discontent with their jobs and the profession as a whole. In these workplace situations, internal competition becomes detrimental to employee success as workers struggle for limited and dwindling resources (Freedman & Vreven, 2016). Libraries as dysfunctional organizations are currently, and have been historically, in a position where they cannot figure out how to effectively help themselves, much less their employees. Instead, libraries tend to take the “deal with it” approach as much LIS-​ based discussion insists on treating internal work problems with individualistic, micro-​, and employee-​level perspectives, usually offering advice, tips, tricks, and suggestions to librarians for buffering the negative effects of working in dysfunctional library workplaces and placing the responsibility of change in the hands of individuals while largely sidestepping the larger problematic socio-​organizational structures and across-​the-​board concerns that enable dysfunction to flourish. For example, Henry et al. (2017, pp. 1, 14) are unequivocal in the opening chapter of The Dysfunctional Library book by stating that “if librarians and administrative staff really hope to improve their respective libraries and the work that is done in them, it starts with improving themselves … Avoiding dysfunction in the library starts with the self ” [emphasis in original].

12  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Three years after their first book, ALA published Henry et al.’s (2020) follow-​up title Cultivating Civility: Practical Ways to Improve a Dysfunctional Library wherein all 18 chapters are mostly concerned with small-​scale, individual, employee-​based solutions to combat the effects of dysfunction, including self-​awareness, skill and professional development, self-​care, acting and communicating in a civil manner, hiring the “right” staff, more training, and other actions that situate responsibility for overcoming dysfunction and its impacts on the shoulders of employees. Unarguably, Henry et al.’s scholarship in 2017, 2018, and 2020 marks a monumental step in the exploration of dysfunctional workplaces in libraries, yet at the same time it habitually falls into the trap of erroneously positioning individual library employees—​rarely the organizational and social structures within which libraries operate—​as the originators of dysfunction who must take the onus of responsibility and with no or very little accountability expected of the library and greater LIS profession itself. Henry et al.’s pattern is not new in the published LIS literature. Many years earlier, Montgomery and Cook (2005) wrote a book titled Conflict Management for Libraries wherein the first chapter is titled “Bringing Personal Baggage to Work.” The chapter begins: Have you ever considered all that you bring to the workplace each day other than your briefcase and lunch bag? Every morning, each of us brings to work an incredible package of abilities, education, work and life experiences, physical attributes and shortcomings, agendas, motivations, patterns of behavior, and hopes and dreams. p. 7 While Montgomery and Cook are not wrong, they decidedly begin at the outset with an emphasis on the individual. In fact, very little of their 200-​page book even mentions institutional-​level concerns, instead choosing to address conflict as a problem between quarreling individuals, without any expressed consideration of possible dysfunctional socio-​organizational components that allow discord to swell among employees and completely overlook the institutional structures at a systemic level that might encourage the conflict to begin with. Later in the book (pp. 166–​167), the authors invoke a self-​empowerment approach, stating that “it is also essential to be able to recognize when a work situation is too dysfunctional and exceeds your ability to adapt or influence it. To abandon an unhealthy situation is actually a sign of personal wisdom and savvy career management.” Thus, much like Henry et al., Montgomery and Cook decide that sometimes dysfunction just exists and employees themselves must choose to either put up with it or leave. Unfortunately, the reality for many employees is that simply leaving their dysfunctional library is not possible due to a wide range of reasons, including the inability to relocate for another job and need for stable employment. Moreover, due

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  13

to the pervasiveness of dysfunction in libraries, advising library employees to leave one dysfunctional institution for another is hardly sound advice. The solutions of self-​care, professional development, and the like offered by Henry et al. and Montgomery and Cook may have their own merit, but the overall problem with their approach is that library institutions themselves and the ways they are structured, operated, and socially constructed are not questioned as possible facilitators of dysfunction. To be certain, many library employees would do well to, and often do, improve themselves throughout their careers via continuing education, accepting constructive criticism, developing interpersonal skills, maintaining positive mindsets, and so on. Also, at the same time, there exist librarians who always seem to be in a bad mood, engage in toxic and unpleasant behavior, and are mostly miserable to be around. Yet, placing the burden of accountability solely on library employees without accounting for institutionalized dysfunction that props up libraries and the LIS profession is tantamount to victim-​blaming. Library workers are told, indirectly and sometimes directly, that they, themselves as individuals, are the problem and that they alone are responsible for what happens in and how they feel about their workplaces. Approaching library dysfunction from a standpoint of individual characteristics and behaviors is limiting because doing so carelessly fails to concede that, perhaps, the dysfunctional issues endemic to libraries and the LIS profession are much larger than troublesome individuals. Addressing library dysfunction at the broader and wider scale, however, is challenging; it is much easier for a library to pin the duty to “deal with it” on individual library workers rather than accept any liability for its own complacency. Libraries make choices to deny that dysfunction occurs in and exists at their workplaces because it is always easier than addressing the problem. The standard response becomes: “Dysfunction does not exist here, but if it did, it would merely be an isolated incident, an anomaly, and often the cause of one or a few select problem employees who simply need to be ejected from our library.” In place of any genuine action on part of libraries and LIS professional organizations to make meaningful change, library employees are instead expected to uphold vocational awe, the idea that librarianship should be idolized and libraries are beyond reproach. Ettarh (2018, para. 3) defines this concept as a “set of ideas, values, and assumptions librarians have about themselves and the profession that result in beliefs that libraries as institutions are inherently good sacred, and therefore beyond critique.” Librarians with this exalted view of their work and profession, however, are primed for disappointment. After all, if the library as a revered ideology and librarianship as a calling are beyond critique, individuals working in libraries and the profession must be the ones to blame for any perceived dysfunction.Vocational awe is damaging because it guides new and already worn-​out librarians on relentless quests to discover some idealistic state of being that LIS’ self-​bestowed and grandiose hype tells them to seek but does not exist. As put by Ettarh: “in the face of grand missions of literacy and freedom, advocating for your full lunch break feels petty. And tasked with the responsibility of sustaining democracy and intellectual

14  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

freedom, taking a mental health day feels shameful” (para. 14), and by Hogarth (2017): holding on to high expectations “about the profession, the organization, and personal efficacy become a self-​placed demand that can contribute significantly to burnout” (p. 76). Compounding this reality is the notion of resilience, meaning, in the simplest way, “an individual’s capacity to overcome adversities that would otherwise be expected to have negative consequences” (Harker et al., 2016, p. 632). Almost in a self-​fulling sort of way due to its link with positive psychology, resilience is seemingly touted as a cure-​all solution for workplace ills. “Just be resilient!” is the message. To the credit of decades of workplace resilience research as presented in Hartmann et al.’s (2020) systematic literature review, the drive and spirit of overcoming hardship at work is surely noble and likely useful for keeping a resilient employee’s cynicism, frustration, job dissatisfaction, burnout, and intention to leave in check.Yet, the resilience narrative, as well intended as it may be, is often misused. Farkas (2017, p. 56), for example, notes that “resilience promotes the idea that library staffers can overcome anything and that those who cannot are at fault for their situation.” Moeller (2019) offers further insight: While learning to become more resilient might seem harmless at first, and even potentially beneficial, these conversations prove troublesome or harmful for those who are already trying to survive expectations that don’t fit their own reality and those who are experiencing systematic oppression and marginalization … When systems and inequities are causing harm, the burden of change should not be placed upon individuals. Instead, systematic change is necessary. pp. 460–​461 After all, if libraries themselves cannot be dysfunctional, the problems must lie with its workers and, therefore, it is their responsibility—​and theirs alone—​to alter their behaviors. This line of thinking gives rise within the LIS profession of pushing self-​ care and coping activities such as getting more exercise, taking scheduled breaks during the workday, going on nature walks, engaging in meditation and yoga, deep breathing, eating healthier diets, journaling, praying, and reading more ALA books and LIS blogs, in addition to practicing mindfulness, engaging in survival strategies, and seeking social support. One recommendation made by Henry et al. (2018) is for library employees to attend conferences to enhance social skills, as well as engage in personal and professional growth.Yet, to assume that LIS conferences are somehow inherently positive, without even considering that they, too, may be sites of dysfunction, is worrying. To be fair, individual actions such as these may have temporary beneficial effects in dealing with dysfunctional relationships and situations at work, but they are at best stop-​gap and interventive responses mismatched to long-​ term, ongoing, and socio-​organizational problems that short-​term arrangements are unable to solve. Notwithstanding the short-​range situational relief afforded by these tactics, they provide only bullet-​point solutions, quick fixes, and provisional

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  15

techniques for small-​scale acute difficulties, but offer no real respite from ongoing, chronic organizational problems. A few aspects of Henry et al.’s (2017, pp. 21, 28; 2018, p. 129) research do well to begin acknowledging that some dysfunctional library indicators are evidence of systemic, organizational issues by noting that several wholesale matters libraries deal with regularly do, in fact, aid in the proliferation of dysfunction where both external and internal entities pressure libraries and their employees to “work within limited budgets, cover numerous job responsibilities, constantly work towards proving the overall value of services and skills, and defend the sustainable future of libraries.” Yet, these ideas in Henry et al.’s research are never explored; instead, the authors (2018, p. 130) return to placing their emphasis on individuals: “improving social skills supports the philosophy that developing people who value and model civility creates actualized librarians who fulfill the most ideal tenets of librarianship.” Thus, it seems Henry et al. buy-​in to vocational awe by saying that to be an effective and socially skilled librarian means to individually assimilate into a symbolic culture of ideal librarianship instead of critically questioning the organizational elements that breed dysfunction. Henry et al. never mention what are these “ideal tenets of librarianship,” only that librarians must aspire to acclimate to them. More scholarship is needed to help elucidate and understand dysfunction in library workplaces without the relentless blaming and shaming of individuals.

Four topics in library dysfunction The following four topics are among the most prevalent in LIS scholarship on dysfunction, even though that term is not often used: (1) low morale, burnout, and turnover; (2) problematic recruitment, retention, and hiring practices; (3) discrimination and lack of workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (4) incivility, harassment, and bullying. These topics are by no means the only manifestations of library dysfunction, but they are among the most represented in existing LIS literature and, as such, a brief review of them is needed.

Low morale, burnout, and turnover In the general workplace literature, burnout and turnover are explored at length. This existing research shows that employees experience psychological and physiological exhaustion from work and think about leaving their jobs, and often do, based on both personal-​professional and socio-​organizational factors. Personal and professional aspects leading to turnover include decreased satisfaction with one’s job, career, and compensation; real or perceived threats of retaliation by peer coworkers and supervisors; job and role ambiguity; low or nonexistent promotional opportunities; and mental and emotional exhaustion or burnout, while turnover resulting from social and organizational aspects include workplace environments that are uncivil, abusive, aggressive, highly competitive, and ridden with conflict and harassment and where morale is low (Cortina & Magley, 2003; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986;

16  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Fox & Stallworth, 2009; Harvey et al., 2006; Keashly, 2001; Keashly et al., 1994; Kowalski et al, 2018; LeBlanc & Barling, 2005; Lim et al., 2008; Miner et al., 2019; Namie & Lutgen-​Sandvik, 2010; Pearson et al., 2000). Moreover, employees who are most committed to and perceive having support from their jobs, organizations, and professions are also those who are the most emotionally harmed by their toxic workplaces, resulting in an increase of turnover intention and follow-​through among those most dedicated workers (Allen et al., 2003; Kabat-​Farr et al., 2018). In fact, Lutgen-​Sandvik and Arsht (2014, p. 51) warn that “a high turnover rate is one of the most frequent consequences and is commonly a sign of toxic communication climates.” Preeminent psychologist Christina Maslach (1993, pp. 20, 28) defines burnout multidimensionally as “emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who work with other people … it is an individual stress experience embedded in a context of social relationships.” Cooper et al. (2001, pp. 84–​85) describe burnout as “an extreme state of psychological strain and depletion of energy resources arising from prolonged exposure to stressors that exceed the person’s resources to cope [and] the major component … is emotional exhaustion.” Thus, workplace stress leading to burnout does not solely occur from isolated, inward states nor exclusively from outward stimuli, but rather from the dynamic interaction between internal, individual and external, environmental elements (Cooper et al., 2001). When employees experience burnout, they may either exit the organization or use their voice to bring attention to workplace problems leading to their burnout and possible desire to leave, though the proportion of those who speak out remains low (Cortina & Magley, 2003). In addition, a consistent characteristic of burnout is disengagement from work (Halbesleben, 2010). Extant LIS research supports some of the same reasons why workers in other professions quit their jobs. For example, a qualitative study by Kendrick (2017) uses a phenomenological approach to investigate workplace morale of academic library employees. All participants reported experiencing low morale, defined by Kendrick as the “degree to which an employee harbors negative feelings about his or her workplace or dissatisfaction with aspects of the work or workplace” (p. 847). When asked what influenced their depleted morale, their reasons were administrative or managerial incompetence, bullying, personality conflicts, verbal abuse, changes in library administration, emotional abuse, manipulation by coworkers and supervisors, work overload, and being a victim of scare tactics and public shaming. Moreover, approaching 60% of those abused stated that the abuser was a direct supervisor or other administrator. Also, low morale leads to a wide range of reported health, emotional, and cognitive outcomes, including what Kendrick (p. 860) calls work dread, or intense feelings of worry, fear, sadness, despair, and suffering about going into a dysfunctional workplace. Several years later, Kendrick (2020) explores low morale in public libraries, finding that some of the same reasons academic librarians blame for low morale are true for public librarians, too, including incompetence in leadership, being overworked, and exposure to abuse via supervisors. In a study

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  17

of non-​librarian staff members working in academic libraries, Glusker et al. (2022) found that having a supportive, responsive, and trustworthy supervisor is the most salient factor related to worker morale, followed by how well non-​librarian staff are treated by librarians. Related research across decades confirms that plunging morale and increased burnout, and variables related to each of those (e.g., chronic negative stress, extreme workloads, exhaustion, etc.), in both public and academic libraries are widespread (Farler & Broady-​Preston, 2012; Farrell et al., 2017; Jordan, 2014; Lindén et al., 2018; Nardine, 2019; Nauratil, 1987; Salyers et al., 2019; Shupe et al., 2015). However, a recent study by Colón-​Aguirre and Webb (2020) concludes the opposite: Burnout does not seem to be an issue for academic librarians as a group, though the researchers do acknowledge that “these findings do not mean that academic librarians do not experience burnout individually” and “the combinations of higher means in certain indicators for some groups point to areas for further consideration” (p. 713). Some of these higher means include scores on exhaustion and cynicism among workers in reference and user services, archives, technical services, circulation and access services, information technology support, and administration. Burnout and low morale are consistently reported by library workers as reasons why they contemplate moving on, and do move on, from their current jobs (Heady et al., 2020; Luzius & Ard, 2006; Sewell & Gilbert, 2015), although Kennedy and Garewal (2020) note that low morale as reported by academic librarians is statistically average; that is, not any higher or lower than might be expected in libraries and the general workforce. In Fyn et al.’s (2019) study, the top four work environment-​ related reasons academic librarians depart their jobs are dissatisfaction with morale in and culture of their libraries (80% and 70%, respectively) and dissatisfaction with both library administration (75%) and direct supervisors (65%). In addition, dissatisfactory salary (60%) and salary prospects (67%) led librarians to quit. Other studies prior to and after Fyn et al.’s confirm that problems with management as well as access to pay raises and higher salaries, along with job dissatisfaction, are a few of the reoccurring major issues that sometimes lead to low morale and job exit among academic librarians (Colding, 2006; Kennedy & Garewal, 2020; Luzius & Ard, 2006). Based on a study of public librarians, Rubin (1996) also concludes that the top three reasons to contemplate leaving are concerns with salary and benefits as well as immediate supervisors and, overall, around 50% of all surveyed had thoughts about quitting. Moreover, an added issue of turnover for all library types is that, with ongoing budget cuts, vacated positions may be lost altogether (Colding, 2006). In recent decades, librarians continue to voice frustration, exhaustion, and despondency regarding their daily roles that have expanded and metamorphosed with the shifting needs of their users and communities, the ever-​expanding reach of new technologies and the development of skills to use them, changing perceptions of libraries and the librarian’s role in society, navigating the disconnect between what librarian roles entail and what library users assume about them, and more (Christian, 2015; Farler & Broady-Preston, 2012). As the LIS field is now continually

18  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

fluctuating in perpetual beta mode, it struggles to meet new societal demands and express its value. Current librarians must adapt while emerging librarians must be trained for future work realities that have yet to come to pass, and a culture of constant unforeseen change may lead these workers to seek out a more stable workplace and profession. While librarians continue to adjust to fluid library landscapes, many are speaking up about their concerns over job-​related uncertainty, stress, anxiety, and burnout. Using Harwell’s (2013) definition, the three primary symptoms of burnout are emotional exhaustion, high levels of cynicism, and low personal achievement. Emotional exhaustion occurs when a person’s exterior emotional response is disconnected from their internal reality (Christian, 2015). Being primarily a service industry, “professional norms in each area of librarianship suggest that librarians should express positive emotions and suppress negative ones” (Matteson & Miller, 2012, p. 55) such as when librarians feel pressured to emote friendliness and hospitality even when they are feeling frustrated or upset. For example, a circulation staff member may have to engage in this behavior several times with hostile patrons during a single shift. In a study of U.K. academic librarians, Farler & Broady-Preston (2012) report that chronic, lower-​level stress situations (e.g., when librarians need “to make repeated requests for students to alter their behaviour” [p. 236]) were viewed as more stressful by librarians than the infrequent high-​stress encounters with patrons such as a drunken outburst.The need to repeatedly portray an emotion the librarians did not feel when dealing with troublesome library users was more taxing than when dealing with one egregious breach of conduct. Because librarians, especially those in public-​facing roles, may experience this disconnect for much of their working day, they may be susceptible to burnout. Emotional exhaustion is often tied to Harwell’s second symptom of burnout: high levels of cynicism or detachment. Detachment occurs when library employees create distance between themselves and colleagues or patrons by “retreat[ing] to an office or cubicle to avoid others” or “habitually offer[ing] a plastered-​on smile rather than engag[ing] in genuine interaction” (Harwell, 2013, p. 2). When detached library workers cannot avoid interacting with others, they may resort to dehumanizing library users and coworkers rather than treating them respectfully as individuals (Harwell, 2008). Paradoxically, cynicism can result from work underload as much as work overload. When a person is expected to perform tasks that are “repetitive, unchallenging, and lacking in meaningful stimulation,” they can lose sight of the library’s mission and feel as if they are unappreciated and expendable (Bunge, 1989). Harwell’s final symptom of burnout is negative self-​evaluation. This symptom may manifest when, for example, a library worker cannot help but feel inadequate, incompetent, or view themselves as a failure for the task at hand or their job responsibilities at large (Harwell, 2008; Larrivee, 2014). Frequent interruptions by library users, coworkers, and other sources of disruption can wear down a librarian’s sense of personal accomplishment when they already have a long to-​do list. Additionally, some librarians feel “their job requires knowledge or skills that they do not have,

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  19

that the job contains elements that are inappropriate, or that the job is frustratingly fragmented or complex” (Bunge, 1989, p. 95) and may feel judged for not living up to some unknown and lofty standard either set by themselves or imagined by others (Agostino & Cassidy, 2019). Irrespective of whether the assumption is correct, the constant pressure of perceived failure can quickly lead to feelings of defeat as well as episodes of stress and anxiety ahead of burnout, perhaps even more so in early career librarians. Due to overwhelming workplace stressors, new library workers and early career librarians may be particularly susceptible to decreased morale and burnout experiences. One stressor an early career librarian may face is the competitive full-​ time job market. In their article on feelings of failure in early career librarians, Agostino and Cassidy (2019) reflect on their own journeys to librarianship. Agostino remembers a common response received when applying to library jobs after graduation: “I was a great candidate, but I didn’t have enough experience” (p. 2). Even though Agostino completed a library degree and “multiple co-​ops, achieved high grades, and participated in professional associations and conferences,” librarian jobs remained out of reach based on lack of work experience (p. 2). After several rejections, Agostino was hired in a non-​librarian role at an academic library and saw this as a time for resume building by learning new skills. Future managers, however, did not share this same opinion, interpreting the fact that Agostino had not been hired in a titled librarian role after graduation as a failure. As Agostino and Cassidy point out, such a misunderstanding of early career librarianship by library managers is problematic because it places all responsibility on the individual as opposed to the larger professional, social, and organizational structures of the LIS field that create obstacles to entry (e.g., bizarrely requiring years of work experience for an entry-​level job). In fact, research by Tewell (2012) shows that the most successful candidates for entry-​level jobs are not those directly out of library school but rather tend to be those with several years of working library experience. Another stressor new librarians may encounter is the disparity between the expectations—​or ambiguity thereof—​placed on them as a student versus those placed on them as a working professional and practitioner. Hogarth (2017, p. 75) describes role ambiguity as the uncertainty regarding how or when to complete a required task often due to “inadequate information, procedures or training, or unclear parameters in performance evaluations.” If expectations, workflows, procedures, and responsibilities are unclear, new librarians may feel surprised, confused, lost, frustrated, overwhelmed, and perpetually second-​guessing themselves (Faulkner, 2015; Oud, 2008). Although job and role ambiguity are not confined to the early years of librarianship, it may be especially disheartening for those just entering the field. Even so, library managers, who typically have more years of experience than early-​and mid-​career librarians, may also be vulnerable to burnout. Harwell’s three symptoms of burnout seem much like the emotional toxicity described by Frost (2004, p. 112) as “drain[ing] vitality from individuals and from the whole organization. Unless it is identified and handled in healthy and constructive ways, it is a serious and often overlooked cause of organizational dysfunction and

20  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

poor performance.” Toxicity, especially in academic libraries (Ortega, 2017), is a serious problem leading to low morale, burnout, and turnover. Moving on to other jobs at other libraries is a reasonable response of wanting to leave behind a dysfunctional workplace as it is rationalized with the logic that an employee’s current library is an irregularity, that not all libraries are dysfunctional—​just this one—​and if the employee moves on to another library, the problem for that individual will be solved. In some cases, this is exactly what happens: library workers leave one library that is dysfunctional and find jobs in much more functional, mature, and stable libraries. However, in other cases, workers exchange one dysfunctional library for another, sometimes repeatedly, seeking but failing to find a library at which they can be satisfied, one that is not dysfunctional. Sometimes, library workers consider leaving the LIS field altogether as Kendrick (2017) notes in the academic setting that low morale causes academic librarians to second-​guess their decision to join the LIS field; they often consider leaving the field entirely. Career reevaluation is fraught with indecision for demoralized academic libraries: they enjoy being a librarian and see the applied value of librarianship; however, they intensely dislike being in the immediate work environment or dealing with the offenders causing the low-​morale experience … respondents felt that their original devotion to the profession was not matched by how they were being treated … and they considered leaving the field completely. pp. 862, 873 Librarians are not leaving the field for better offers; rather, they are being forced out by negative working environments.While low morale and burnout are experienced uniquely by each individual, systemic issues are key factors contributing to the onset of these afflictions.

Problematic recruitment, retention, and hiring practices In terms of recruitment in general, the overall goal for employers is to optimize their organizational attractiveness, that is, to make their workplaces appealing to potential applicants and not-​yet-​hired candidates in an effort to secure employees. Toward this end, employers have a toolbox of employee-​targeted incentives and strategies at their disposal such as competitive salary, generous benefits (e.g., health insurance, retirement options, paid time off, etc.), flexible work arrangements (e.g., working from home, shortened work weeks, etc.), support for continuing education and professional development, opportunities for advancement, amicable work-​life balance, among other perks. These same tools are also used for retaining talent post-​hire. However, employers looking to cut costs for themselves may not offer all incentives nor to the maximum extent possible, and employees themselves may be reluctant to use benefits available to them for fear of judgment from peer coworkers and supervisors. Once hired, employees want interesting, challenging, and flexible

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  21

work; opportunities for ongoing training and professional growth; a favorable work-​life balance that allows them time to rejuvenate and enjoy ample time away from work; good communication and interaction with others in the workplace; fair performance evaluations; and sufficient continued compensation. Yet, as Herrera (2001, p. 91) asks: “It sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? Yet if it so simple, why do we not give employees what they want?” Extant literature shows that at least half of employers worldwide have trouble keeping employees, and even if workers are not actively looking for another job, they generally remain open to the idea of leaving their current position for another (Breitling et al., 2021; Cappelli & Keller, 2014). Recruiting and hiring practices in the LIS profession are problematic and have been for quite some time. When writing about academic libraries, Raschke (2003) makes the following declaration: [They] take too long to recruit, to interview, and to hire librarians.This results in an inability to hire and retain talented candidates, and the outcome too often leads to positions remaining open for excessively long periods, the selection of less qualified candidates, and existing staff stretching their energies to cover the resulting deficiencies. p. 55 On hiring, the materials required and criteria used to hire librarians are questionable. For example, academic library jobs often require official university transcripts as part of an applicant’s submitted materials; however, these documents are not free and the costs and time associated with obtaining them may be a barrier for some potential applicants to apply (Alabi, 2018). Another common, sometimes unsaid, practice is hiring for fit, that is, relying on instinct and judgment to hire a candidate that best “fits in” with the organization. In one study of public and academic librarians who had previously been on a hiring committee specifically for entry-​level librarian positions, over 95% of respondents said that fit was important or very important (Hodge & Spoor, 2012, p. 148). The danger of hiring for fit in libraries, however, is engineered homogeneity: If the only librarian candidates hired are those deemed to fit in with the rest of the group and existing institutional culture, then libraries will always lack diverse workplace perspectives, cultures, and skill sets. Calls within the LIS profession point out the trouble with fit and petition those hiring to abandon it as accepted practice (Alabi, 2018; Brown et al., 2018; Farkas, 2019). Problems exist even before recruitment and hiring, specifically surrounding the growing reliance on part-​time, contingent, temporary, on-​call, and limited or fixed contract jobs. Henry et al. (2017, pp. 44–​45) do well to note that employee mobility is a contributing factor to library dysfunction in that the transience of temporary and part-​time positions create instability yet are increasingly prevalent in libraries. These jobs are erratic in duration, low-​paid, and come with reduced opportunities for engagement in ongoing professional development and continuing education relative to their stable, full-​time, benefitted counterparts (Neigel, 2016). In addition,

22  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Antúnez (2018), using a sample of academic librarians involved in hiring processes, shows that 60% of participants believed that “frequent job changes reflect unfavorably on a librarian candidate” especially positions held four years or less and a smaller number [of participants] regarded librarian candidates with frequent job changes as disloyal or uncommitted; due to the belief that these candidates will soon leave the library, they preferred not to hire candidates with this characteristic, and some ranked job history as more important than job qualifications. pp. 213, 218, 225 Yet paradoxically, even though supervisors say they dislike candidates with frequent job changes—​a common side effect of short-​term employment—​they continue to create short-​term, part-​time positions knowing that library workers cannot stay in them due to low pay and no benefits. These types of positions in libraries are becoming increasingly normalized, yet libraries give little if any consideration that loyalty works both ways: While true that employees must be accountable for their decisions to leave their jobs, so, too, must library employers accept culpability for the dysfunctional and destructive environments from which their workers wish to escape, environments that by no coincidence include those that expect high-​level return from habitual and poorly compensated fleeting positions. When it comes to retention in libraries, some of the very same retention tools employees in the general workforce say keep them at their jobs are used in academic libraries, especially “funding to attend conferences and other professional events” (87%), “schedule flexibility” (76%), “support for professional service commitments” (72%), and “funding for other professional development” (68%); of these, respondents in Strothmann and Ohler’s (2011, pp. 200, 202) study were most satisfied with access to a flexible work schedule. That said, the lack of funds for some of these perks are a main reason why academic librarians report dissatisfaction with their jobs and institutions (Fyn et al., 2019; Kennedy & Garewal, 2020). With dwindling budgets in mind, some authors such as Shamchuk (2015) and Moen et al. (2020) suggest low-​cost, no-​cost, and in-​house ideas which, while well-​meaning, do not address systemic professional development budget issues in any sustainable manner, nor necessarily increase job satisfaction. The rising costs of attending LIS conferences, too, has come under critical fire as Comanda et al. (2021) write, following attendance to the popular Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) conference: We had each spent over $1,000 to attend, but mused that much of ACRL felt bloated, generic, and irrelevant to us despite its reputation as the most important conference in academic librarianship … Did anyone else feel this financial strain and professional pressure to attend the biggest, and most expensive, conference in our field? para. 3

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  23

One of several problems identified by Comanda et al. is that, despite the continued requirement by their employers that many academic librarians must attend and participate in conferences, librarian salaries have not increased enough proportionately to stave off financial hardships of fulfilling this requirement. Academic library culture insists that library employees become conference consumers, yet these libraries shift, in part or in whole, the fiscal responsibility from themselves to individual library workers. Long-​standing budgetary and equity issues aside, nearly 65% of respondents in the Strothmann and Ohler study report that their libraries do not have any formal retention program or initiative in place, suggesting that retention, when it happens, is done haphazardly, reactively, and without foresight. LIS professor Nicole A. Cooke (2014, p. 39) recounts a hiring experience: “the institution thought that hiring an African American female was enough to fulfill any larger organizational diversity goals. The care and retention of such a hire did not appear to be of consideration or concern.” To be sure, libraries and the LIS profession have a long-​standing problem with recruitment and retention, especially related to diversity (Alabi, 2015a; 2015b; 2018; Brook et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2018; Espinal et al., 2018; Hall & Grady, 2006; Jaeger et al., 2011; 2013; Larsen, 2017;Vinopal, 2016). Even if libraries are beginning to make commitments to recruiting employees of color, they are not making any headway in retaining them (Bugg, 2016; Musser, 2001), perhaps with the exception of residency programs that have shown some success even if on a small scale (Boyd et al., 2017; Dwyer, 2020). Instead, libraries insist on operating under the mistaken assumption that as long as recruitment processes and workplace conditions are decent enough, employees will stay without any extra effort on part of the employer (Strothmann and Ohler, 2011), despite empirical literature that says otherwise. Indeed, retaining librarians has been, and is, an ongoing problem for the LIS profession (Colding, 2006). According to Oud (2008), even though mentoring has the most significant effect on new employees’ adjustment process [and] most new academic librarians would benefit from more assistance in their adjustment to their new workplace … in many academic libraries, the new librarian is left to learn much of the job informally on his or her own initiative. pp. 263–​264 In particular, Fyn (2013, p. 331) champions peer and group mentoring, pointing out that “for new academic librarians, who often face challenges that are different from those of other new faculty within an institution, group peer mentoring may be the best option for sharing similar or commensurate experiences through narrative.” Mentoring and coaching—​both informal and formal—​could aid, along with thoughtful and attentive employee onboarding and socialization, in retaining employees, and some case studies of mentoring and onboarding programs show success (e.g., Colosimo et al., 2017; Goosney et al., 2014; Harker et al., 2019;

24  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Henrich & Attebury, 2010;Winterman & Bucy, 2019). As put by Acadia and Bartlett (2019), when speaking to library management audiences: [You] must go beyond the provision of guidance and support to truly create a memorable employee experience. If you fail to do this, your library staff are at an increased risk of becoming unhappy and unmotivated, feeling out of place, and lacking a sense of belonging.Through engaged onboarding of new employees, and the consistent coaching and mentoring of new and existing ones, the organizational culture at your library will improve.We intentionally use the word “improve” because the chances are that your library’s organizational culture needs improvement, and employee morale at your library could use a boost. pp. 40–​41 Yet, plenty of academic libraries in the United States and Canada do not have any formalized mentoring or coaching program nor invest in their employees with committed and dynamic onboarding (Black & Leysen, 2002; Farrell et al., 2017; Goodsett & Walsh, 2015; Graybill et al., 2013; Harrington & Marshall, 2014; Strothmann & Ohler, 2011). Conversely, Burke and Tumbleson’s (2019, p. 3) determine that “mentoring is clearly present in academic libraries” after finding that 65% of academic librarians had experience as a mentor, while about three-​fourths had experience as a mentee. Less is known about similar program activities in public, school, and special libraries. Within LIS education, student advising, which many LIS faculty do as part of their faculty duties, is not the same as mentoring nor should it be construed as such; many library schools do not offer programs to mentor their students (Lacy & Copeland, 2013). With regard to hiring, Alabi (2018, p. 143) points out: When we screen, interview, and hire for a position, we need to question whether the criteria we have been using are the ones we need to be using. We need to think more creatively about how candidates can demonstrate that they will be successful in a particular position. Thus, libraries must become more comfortable with changing the ways in which they evaluate applicants and what they ask of them during application and interview processes. Similarly, libraries must become more open to flexible forms of work when possible. One year prior to the COVID-​19 pandemic, Acadia and Bartlett (2019) advocated for increased possibilities of conducting library work at home and other places; not all library work must be conducted within library walls, despite administration’s traditional mandate that it be so. Even with this recognition coupled with new opportunities for remote work since the start of the pandemic, libraries and their parent institutions remain mostly resistant to providing sustainable, long-​term flexibility in all aspects of work; this is especially true for university settings that cleave to archaic, inflexible, and needlessly obstinate

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  25

workplace practices. The LIS profession makes claims that libraries (supposedly) embrace change and have over the years become nimble organizations that effectively meet the everchanging needs of their users, yet it seems in the case of the profession’s workforce that outdated and stifling legacy practices maintain their stronghold for now.

Discrimination and lack of workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion Workplace dysfunction in non-​library environments can manifest sometimes subtly and other times overtly as workplace discrimination and prejudice against protected-​ class employees. Discriminatory behaviors in U.S. and Canadian workplaces reflect deeply rooted prejudice that favors people, images, and narratives that are largely white, binary, straight, cis, and without disability. A Civility in America report (Weber Shandwick et al., 2017, p. 7) found that, in everyday life, the following groups report experiencing incivility “often” and “sometimes”: Black people (77%), immigrants (73%), women (72%), lower-​ income people (72%), LGBTQ+​people (70%), Hispanics/​Latinx (69%), people with physical (65%) and intellectual (64%) disabilities, Native Americans (60%), Jewish people (58%), and Asian Americans (55%). In Canada, discrimination against Indigenous people, members of the LGBTQ+​ community, people with disability, refugees, visible minorities, women, and others continue to plague the workplace (Godley, 2018; Nangia & Arora, 2021). Other research across North American and Western European workplaces confirms discrimination against marginalized populations continues (Bergbom et al., 2015; Cortina, 2008; Deitch et al., 2003; DiMarco et al., 2018; Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Lewis & Gunn, 2007; McCord et al., 2018; Roscigno et al., 2009) and, in some cases, results in increased turnover as these workers are pushed out of jobs (Cortina et al., 2013). Moreover, in a meta-​analysis, Jones et al. (2016) reveal that targets of both overt and subtle workplace discrimination are faced with a wide assortment of negative occupational, psychological, and physiological encounters and experiences. Discrimination-​based dysfunction is present in North American libraries as well. In Freedman and Vreven’s (2016) study, academic librarians of color report uncivil behaviors aimed at them: Black, Asian, and Hispanic academic librarians all report high rates of both work-​and person-​related negative acts in the workplace, including physical intimidation.Via an analysis of zine work, Arroyo-​Ramirez et al. (2018) show that some library employees regularly deal with microaggression and discrimination surrounding race, sex, gender, (dis)ability, assumed immigrant status, “not really” being a librarian or archivist, and other attributes. Several studies by Alabi (2015a; 2015b) also detail the microaggressive and racist climate of academic libraries. The continued work by Oud (2018; 2019), Pionke (2019; 2020a; 2020b), and others demonstrate the passive-​ aggressive, retaliative, and hostile responses library workers with disabilities routinely experience from supervisors and peer coworkers. Table 1 in Henry et al.’s (2018, p. 136) study indicates that white library employees disproportionally reported both incivility (97%) and conflict (86%), but

26  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

so did all other categories: Asian/​Pacific Islander at 86% and 84%, Black/​African American at 90% and 90%, Hispanic/​Latinx at 91% and 87%, two or more at 90% and 85%, and “other” at 90% and 87%, respectively. These findings might suggest that when it comes to reported occurrences of incivility and conflict in libraries, race and ethnicity are unimportant and not distinguishing factors because Hispanic ethnicity and all races, white respondents included, reported high incidences of experienced incivility and conflict. Such a perspective might argue that if all these groups, including whites, experience roughly the same level of workplace conflict and incivility in the library, race and ethnicity cannot possibly be relevant. Such a conclusion, however, is erroneous because it obscures the intent, severity, and entrenchment of ethnically and racially motivated dysfunction experienced by non-​whites in a destructively white library workplace. At the same time, if it is indeed true that all racial/​ethnic groups experience conflict and incivility at roughly the same amount, then such a conclusion also further strengthens the evidence that dysfunction in library workplaces is pervasive even if not accounting for ethnicity and race. The view of libraries as white spaces governed by organizational cultures of white dominance is not only evident by its mostly white workers, but also by the presence of microaggressive behaviors by fellow employees and library users (Arroyo-​Ramirez et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2018; Farrell et al., 2017; Mehra, 2019). For instance, a white worker might engage in disrespectful behavior against a coworker of color with no repercussions or a librarian of color might be incorrectly but automatically misidentified as a lower-​ranked employee or student, yet their white coworkers are much less likely to encounter the same misrepresentation. Over time, these actions along with the refusal to critique white, “neutral” LIS spaces create damaging, inhospitable environments for librarians and archivists of color, driving them out of the profession (Brown et al., 2018; Riley-​Reid, 2017; Vinopal, 2016). As Cooke and Colón-​Aguirre (2021, p. 247) pointedly ask: “How long can we stay in a profession that does not welcome us?” In LIS, a “common misconception about our failures to diversify librarianship is that there is nothing wrong with the profession” (Brown et al., 2018, p. 165). That is, libraries—​and LIS education for that matter—​are often described as neutral or inherently good, yet the profession continues to gatekeep who enters it, concealing the underlying exclusion of ideas from, interests of, and participation by marginalized groups (Brook et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2018; Collins, 2018; Ettarh, 2018; Hussey, 2010). Both racial-​ethnic discrimination and socioeconomic inequality continue to safeguard white students behind the protective shield of LIS as compounded discrimination of non-​white and economically poorer individuals more often prohibits them from attaining relevant LIS degrees and, therefore, LIS jobs, compared to white, economically advantaged individuals (Vinopal, 2016). The pervasive bias about who a librarian should be or what a librarian should look and sound like inhibits established practitioners from welcoming new, diverse voices

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  27

and bodies into the profession, and this bias is even more pronounced due to the lack of any large-​scale rectification (Brown, 2015; Moeller, 2019; Noor et al., 2018). Instead, when problems of diversity, equity, and inclusion are raised, libraries want to focus on maintaining a civil atmosphere—​to the extent that they tell themselves they can—​rather than addressing fundamental issues, even when overt and rampant racism, ableism, and discrimination against LGBTQ+​employees are evident (Gibson, 2019; Moeller, 2019). A part of this expectation of civility within LIS is that members of marginalized groups, when using voice and making claims to space, both figuratively and literally, are chastised by the majority for being hostile. A perfect example is provided by Ferretti (2020) when recounting a conference experience. In 2018, Ferretti and colleagues posted a sign on the door of a conference room that read: “Do not enter this room if you don’t believe the narratives of people of color. Everything being made and said in this room is rooted in believing the narratives of people of color and recognizing systemic oppression” (p. 135). Ferretti posted an image of the sign on Twitter and was promptly informed by another Twitter user that the sign was hostile and unwelcoming. This response is typical toward librarians of color like Ferretti and others who rightfully use space and voice in libraries, at conferences, and online to conduct BIPOC library work. The sign itself nor the intent behind it was hostile; rather, it was the “white normativity of the profession” that made it so (p. 136). Not all discrimination is blatant. The differential, non-​overt mistreatment of marginalized and stigmatized workers occurs as subtle discrimination that is “negative or ambivalent demeanor and/​or treatment enacted toward social minorities on the basis of their minority status membership that are not necessarily conscious and likely convey ambiguous intent” (Jones et al., 2016, p. 1591). This more subtle form of prejudice may be referred to as microaggression or selective incivility, that is, “mild” workplace discrimination involving negative acts and biased behaviors that become routinized against people of color, immigrants, and other disenfranchised groups while, at the time, maintaining a fake appearance of acceptance and equal opportunity. Selective incivility views uncivil behavior as an “instrument of oppression, used to ostracize women, people of color, and other undervalued minorities from organizational life” (Cortina et al., 2017 p. 308) by “provid[ing] a means by which individuals can discriminate (even unintentionally and unconsciously) … while preserving an image of themselves as egalitarian” [emphasis added] (Kabat-​Farr & Cortina, 2012, p. 110). In the case of libraries, the term “egalitarian” here might as well be replaced with the words “neutral” or “inherently good” as mentioned earlier. As dangerous as flagrant discrimination may be, some research suggests that “subtle discrimination may be even more damaging to targets than overt discrimination” (Jones et al., 2016, p. 1593). Cortina (2008, p. 65) also uses the term aversive racists to describe those employees who “consciously endorse values of egalitarianism and justice and condemn prejudice both internally and externally. However, these same individuals implicitly harbor negative emotions and cognitions toward [ethnic and racial] minorities,

28  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

driving them to discriminate in subtle or rationalizable ways.” Even before Cortina, Deitch et al. (2003) describe this same phenomenon: Subtle, everyday discrimination may become even more common, as blatant racism becomes less prevalent among dominant group members … Racism is not disappearing, but rather is being replaced by less overt forms … These forms of racism allow for individuals to hold racist views while buttressing such views with non-​racially based rationales … thus maintaining a view of themselves as nonprejudiced. p. 1301 Although Cortina and Deitch et al. are not speaking about any specific type of workplace or industry, the concept of aversive or everyday discrimination well describes libraries and librarianship to the extent that they purport to advocate for social justice and democratic values, yet continually uphold conditions that adversely and disproportionately affect library workers of color, library workers within the LGBTQ+​community, and library workers with disabilities. In this way, library schools, library workplaces, and librarianship as a profession can, consciously or not, mask their long-​standing intolerance not with blatant discrimination and hate-​fueled action—​though that does sometimes happen—​but rather with forms of selective discrimination Cortina describes. In instances where libraries acknowledge these issues, terms such as “inclusion,” “equity,” “diversity,” “equality,” and “justice” are vague, trendy, and now commonplace enough to be casually inserted into vision and mission statements, strategic and action plans, and other guiding documents without much substance, obscuring very real historical and current systemic complexities these libraries appear to want to address but without feeling the need to dive too deeply into finding actionable and pragmatic solutions (Brown et al., 2018; Cooke & Colón-​Aguirre, 2021; Fife et al., 2021; Hussey, 2010; Larsen, 2017). In their work on decentering whiteness toward making the LIS more inclusive, Espinal et al. (2018, p. 155) are mindful that “what has not worked is forming committees or writing policies and other documents that are eventually suspended or simply forgotten based on the trends of the organization” [emphasis added]. As put by Cooke (2014, p. 39): “The irony here is that while diversity is desirable on paper, it is often resisted in practice.” Discrimination in the workplace is embedded at the socio-​organizational level as prejudice exists systemically in society at large, including within its institutions (Volti, 2012), and libraries and archives as institutions are not and never have been exempt (Adkins et al., 2020; Ettarh, 2018; Noor et al., 2018). Recently, structural discrimination in libraries has been conceptualized using the “white-​IST” discourse, that is, “white +​elitist” practices that are structurally embedded within and permeate LIS education (Gray & Mehra, 2021; Mehra & Gray, 2020) and, indeed, extend throughout the profession as a whole. Moreover, the lack of attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion in librarianship by way of its overall reluctance to take meaningful and sustainable action against the ways in which it normalizes

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  29

white, straight, cis, non-​disabled, neurotypical hegemony is also institutionalized within North American LIS education.That is, LIS curricula are commonly known not to explore librarianship’s privileged legacy; include readings written by authors of color, authors experiencing disability, and authors from LGBTQ+​communities; or integrate topics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and cultural competency into its courses; if they do any of these things, it is likely to be presented as an elective rather than integrated into core courses (Adkins et al., 2015; Jaeger et al., 2013; Mehra, 2019; Mestre, 2010). In fact, in terms of offering an LIS education rich in diversity, LIS schools may be doing the very bare minimum as Jaeger et al. (2011, p. 172) declare: “In short, most LIS programs include just enough diversity to ensure that the diversity requirement of the ALA accreditation process is satisfied.” In 2017, in the face of social and civil unrest across North America, Sensoy and DiAngelo (p. 558) ask that “while universities have responded with declarations of ‘valuing diversity,’ and some with pledges and specialized programs, why have they overwhelmingly still not achieved these goals?” If libraries of all types are to become epicenters for positive social and cultural change that they purport to be, the profession—​in library schools, workplaces, conferences, and online spaces—​ must take more seriously the issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, social justice, and accessibility surrounding those currently in and soon-​to-​be-​in the profession. In a clarion call to action, Hodge and Willams (2021, p, 54) are unmistakable in their appeal to the LIS profession: “We can no longer avoid naming, critically examining, and dismantling structural inequities, such as how white supremacy, anti-​Blackness, classism, sexism, ableism, and Eurocentrism directly impact the lives and abilities of Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) library workers…” As libraries continue to engage in this work, they must not forget to look at their own implication in society’s ills.

Incivility, harassment, and bullying Bullying involves persistent, unwanted, and “repeated mistreatment by one or more perpetrators of an individual or group” (Namie, 2007, p. 43), creating a hostile work environment where the intent is to “degrade, humiliate, and isolate … intimidate, punish, or frighten” (Roter, 2017, p. 21; 2019, p. 39). In most definitions of bullying, abusive behaviors must occur repeatedly and with sustained duration; “one-​off ” and isolated offenses, as undesirable as they may be, are not usually considered to be bullying (Einarsen et al., 2003; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). When writing about bullying in libraries, Staninger (2016) offers an expanded definition writing that bullying includes but is not limited to unreasonable criticism of job performance, attempts to control workplace interactions between peers, and creating unwritten policies. Other bullying behaviors include assigning unrealistic workloads, ignoring and ridiculing suggestions about library operations, and excessive monitoring that leaves employees excluded and isolated. p. 3

30  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Staninger’s definition is important because it intentionally broadens the concept of bullying to include workplace-​specific actions and situations that are fuzzier in their interpretation (e.g., criticizing a colleague’s work can be helpful if the intent is constructive, but it may also be damaging if done in a demeaning way). In North America, the concept of workplace bullying was popularized in 1997 with the creation of the Workplace Bullying Institute (https://​workpl​aceb​ully​ing.org/​) by Ruth and Gary Namie. Sometimes, precursors to bullying are incivility and harassment. Incivility, or rudeness, is seminally defined by Andersson and Pearson (1999, p. 457) as “low-​ intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target [and] in violation of workplace norms … Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others.” While the specific actions considered to be uncivil may differ according to workplace, sector, industry, geographic location, and more, Pearson et al. (2005, p. 179) recognize that there is, nonetheless, “a common understanding of workplace incivility as behavior that disrupts mutual respect at work.” Harassment, in general, tends to be more severe than incivility; it is tantamount to offensive or hostile unwelcomed conduct and may be unlawful, especially when physically violent, sexual, or discriminatory against a protected class. Bullying, incivility, and harassment can be physical, emotional, or psychological, occurring in person or online, and can be person-​related or work-​related. Freedman and Vreven (2016) note that person-​related harassment emphasizes humiliation and exclusion of an individual from the rest of the group, usually through criticism, insults, or practical jokes, while work-​related harassment focuses on sabotaging an individual’s professional performance by withholding relevant information to successfully perform a task, giving too many tasks to be completed in a short period of time, or micromanagement of work.Thus, person-​related harassment is aimed to cause individual-​level harm (e.g., hurt a coworker’s feelings or bring them intense physical or psychological discomfort), whereas the purpose of work-​related harassment is to cause professional, occupational, and career-​focused harm. Examples of incivility, harassment, and bullying include but are not limited to eye rolling, sighing, staring, and other agitating body language and vocalizations; sending condescending emails to coworkers; continually interrupting a colleague when they are speaking; reprimanding or humiliating a subordinate, supervisor, or peer in front of others; insulting, ridiculing, mocking, or teasing a colleague or calling them names; intimidating, threatening, or attacking a coworker verbally, physically, or in writing; gossiping and spreading harmful rumors about a coworker with intent to damage their character and work performance; yelling, screaming, or otherwise raising voice at someone, or using improper tone; purposely excluding individuals from meetings or office events; violating someone’s privacy and personal space by cornering them or entering their office without permission; and using sexual language, asking for sexual favors, or touching someone inappropriately. Research across several decades confirms that North American workplaces are replete with incivility, harassment, and bullying (Blau & Andersson, 2005; Cortina

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  31

& Magley, 2003; Cortina et al., 2001; 2017; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lim et al., 2008; Lutgen-​Sandvik et al., 2007; Pearson et al., 2000). Ongoing research since 2010 from the Civility in America project by Weber Shandwick et al. (2017; 2018; 2019) describes a growing deficit of civility in the United States where as many as 85% of those surveyed report experiencing incivility in general and as many as 45% specifically at work. A 2012 U.S. study by Van Fleet and Van Fleet shows that just over half of their survey respondents reported being bullied at their workplaces and nearly 60% witnessed workplace bullying. Bartlett (2016) describes workplace bullying in libraries as a “silent epidemic” and indeed some library workplace studies reveal the same incidence of this behavior as in the general workforce. For instance, Kim et al. (2018) found that close to half of their total respondents across different library types experience bullying as either the target or a bystander, and some further report being targeted by groups of coworkers and supervisors, including the library director. A few years prior, Freedman and Vreven (2016) found that just less than 45% of non-​administrative academic librarians report being bullied over a six-​month period and nearly 55% say they witnessed bullying taking place over the same time frame. Earlier scholarship from 2005 by Montgomery and Cook found a much lower but no less important percentage—​about 15%—​of library workers reporting verbal threats, physical assault, items thrown, and other hostile behaviors perpetrated by coworkers in their libraries. More recently in Henry et al.’s (2017; 2018) landmark research involving over 4,000 library employees found that 91% from all types of libraries report experiencing some form of incivility at work; of those, almost half report dealing with it on a weekly basis and almost 75% on a monthly basis. Just over 40% “attributed incivility to communication methods which included negative and rude talk or yelling … disrespect, unprofessional actions, passive-​aggressive behavior, shunning/​ignoring, and moodiness” (Henry et al., 2018, p. 137). Moreover, forty percent of respondents report they are a victim of bullying in the library workplace, while nearly 60% are a witness to workplace bullying. Of those witnessing bullying, over one-​third report observing it on a weekly basis. Importantly, though, the survey does not consistently clarify incivility experienced from fellow employees versus external perpetrators. Thus, in Henry et al.’s results, incivility does not necessarily mean dysfunctional behavior that is explicitly internal to the workplace (i.e., only within the library and among library employees), but may also include dysfunction from external sources (e.g., library users). In addition, since the rise of the internet, online bullying, harassment, and incivility have become staples of North American life generally and workplaces particularly. One study found that one-​ quarter of respondents say they “have experienced cyberbullying or incivility online, up nearly 3x from 2011” in their everyday lives (Weber Shandwick et al., 2017, p. 4). A study by Kowalski et al. (2018) on cyberbullying and cyberincivility discovers that almost 75% of those reporting adult cyberbullying say it happened by a coworker or colleague. In fact, Kowalski et al. conclude that workers are bullied by fellow employees online more so than

32  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

they are in person. In the library setting, 15% of survey respondents in Henry et al.’s (2018) study report experiencing abuse online. Striking rates of dysfunctional behaviors such as these in person and online are unsurprising given that they can spread throughout an organization like a contagion (Foulk et al., 2016). Previous findings are mixed on the roles of workplace status and power on dysfunctional behavior. Some studies show that instigators are most likely to be of higher job status than their targets (Einarsen et al., 2003; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003; Namie & Lutgen-​Sandvik, 2010; Pearson et al., 2000; Roscigno et al., 2009), though this does not mean that it is always supervisors who instigate; the instigator may be a fellow, non-​supervisory coworker positioned higher in the workplace hierarchy in terms of title, responsibility, salary, seniority, or other characteristic. Other research, however, shows that peers are more likely to instigate and coworker-​to-​ coworker bullying, incivility, and harassment are more common than supervisor-​ to-​subordinate (Kowalski et al., 2018; Ortega et al., 2009; Torkelson et al., 2016). In their extensive literature review, Barling et al. (2009, p. 679) conclude that “the belief that most workplace aggression occurs within the supervisor-​subordinate relationships is incorrect.” Nonetheless, according to LIS research, supervisors are indeed more often culprits of negative behaviors (Heady et al., 2020; Henry et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2018) and this superior-​subordinate dynamic is linked to bullying in academic libraries where long, vertical hierarchies are common (Staninger, 2016). Although length of service working in libraries is not a statistically significant factor for bullying in Kim et al.’s study (2018), Freedman and Vreven (2016, p. 740) found that “librarians who had worked in the library 4-​7 years reported significantly more exposure to negative acts than those who had worked either fewer or more years,” recognizing, too, that this time frame is crucial because it marks the typical period when librarians are undergoing intense professional development, seeking career advancement, and going up for promotion and tenure. Seemingly, then, the years wherein librarians are often in pursuit of professional and career growth at work are the same years they are most susceptible to suffer negativity and deleterious effects at the workplace from their supervisors and coworkers. Additionally, of the five library types in Henry et al.’s (2018) research—​public, academic, school, special, and other—​the one wherein employees experience the most workplace incivility (63%) and conflict (61%) is public libraries. Kim et al. (2018) also found that respondents working in public as well as academic libraries express more occurrences of bullying compared to those in school and special ones. Empirical research in non-​ library workplaces is clear that these behaviors have been occurring in organizations for decades, yet librarians have yet to fully acknowledge dysfunctional behaviors by their coworkers and supervisors in their workplaces as widespread problems, but that is changing. The scant LIS research that does exist is beginning to confirm the many circulating anecdotes among library workers that these phenomena of bullying, incivility, and harassment are happening and now occur as major problems in North American libraries.

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  33

Contents of this book The term “library dysfunction” as used in this book is workplace dysfunction that happens inside libraries and within LIS contexts, including the LIS profession and LIS education. Evidence of workplace dysfunction and topics associated with it within library settings, as well as some of the ways these materialize and are transmitted, are discussed in this book across 13 chapters. These chapters are not meant to represent an exhaustive inventory of all the ways in which dysfunction related to library workplaces might take shape, however, as argued by the authors of each chapter, they are relevant for a greater understanding of the overall phenomenon of library dysfunction. Turnover and the issues that cause it—​including low morale, burnout, and other problems—​are explored by Amanda Foster Kaufman, Amy F. Fyn, Millicent Weber, and Christina Heady in Chapter 2: “The Dysfunctional Library and Academic Library Turnover.” The chapter is a continuation of ongoing work by these authors (Fyn et al., 2019; Heady et al., 2020) and examines the relationship between library leadership and employee turnover within academic libraries, arguing that much turnover can be explained both by problematic library leadership and systemic dysfunction occurring at the organizational—​not individual—​level. The authors emphasize the power held by library leadership when reinforcing negative behaviors by choosing to ignore it, engaging in the behavior themselves, and simply being ineffectual leaders. The authors conclude by offering several recommendations for reducing employee turnover in academic libraries. Erica Lopez, in Chapter 3, “Improving Dysfunctional Recruitment and Retention in Academic Libraries by Honoring the Whole Person,” examines dysfunctional library recruitment and retention practices in academic libraries faced by librarians, especially those early in their careers, and espouses a whole person approach toward creating inclusive environments that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. As the author shows, current library recruitment practices favor privileged individuals through the financially, physically, and psychologically exhausting interview process, requiring extensive relevant experience for entry-​level positions, and hiring for “fit” using unquantifiable criteria such as desired personality traits that favor search committee biases. The author recommends using a whole person approach when conducting candidate searches, providing several suggestions on how this might be done. Adena Brons, Chloe Riley, Ean Henninger, and Crystal Yin discuss the ways in which precarious labor is dysfunctional in Chapter 4: “Precarity Doesn’t Care: Precarious Employment as a Dysfunctional Practice in Libraries.” The chapter continues the work of Henninger et al. (2019; 2020). The authors highlight the struggles faced by precariously employed library staff, offer insight into the negative effect this type of work has on both employees and libraries, and recommend ways to create more inclusive and caring workplaces for all employees. Illuminating the underlying theoretical frameworks within libraries that reinforce the existence of precarious employment in the face of mounting evidence that this

34  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

type of employment is detrimental to the individual and organization, the authors explore higher rates of exposure to harassment, lack of access to professional development and team building, financial instability, and turnover. The authors offer recommendations for change at the individual, organizational, and LIS profession levels. In two separate chapters, workplace discrimination in libraries is considered. First is Chapter 5: Briana Zaragoza and T. Gonzalez’s contribution “Discrimination as Dysfunction: Why Do Libraries Have a Problem with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?” This chapter situates workplace discrimination as a type of dysfunction within libraries, noting that while libraries are focused on creating inclusive spaces for their communities, they have yet to proactively correct the discrimination and prejudice in their hiring practices and organizational cultures, leading to low retention rates for employees who are non-​white, LGBTQ+​, and those with disability. The authors offer suggestions to improve workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion within libraries. Later in Chapter 12, Silvia Vong weaves together the ideas of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to explain racism and race-​based exclusion against Asian-​American and Asian-​Canadian librarians in “Bamboo Ceiling Reframed: Exclusion through Social Practices and Structures in Libraries.” Here, the author utilizes the concepts of “capital,” “habitus,” and “field” to examine how social and organizational practices exclude and marginalize Asian librarians in Canadian and U.S. libraries. The author reports that diversity initiatives often fail to focus on retaining Asian employees and that Asian librarians with LIS degrees ​or management training often experience misrecognition where their white peers and supervisors belittle their experience and underutilize their expertise. Using intellectual freedom as context, Miranda Doran-​ Myers and Crystal Schimpf explore dysfunction in the workplace via Chapter 6: “Workplace Dysfunction and Intellectual Freedom in Public Libraries.” Via survey research of 342 public library workers from 39 U.S. states, the authors find that organizational dysfunction such as fear of retaliation; unclear policies and procedures; and lack of time, training, and other resources prevent library employees from effectively modeling intellectual freedom in their workplaces. In addition, librarians with MLIS degrees seem to be less fearful about potential negative consequences for raising concerns regarding intellectual freedom infringements than those without MLIS degrees. The authors discuss several recommendations to mitigate misunderstandings about the library’s role in promoting intellectual freedom both in the community and at work. Kate Dohe, Celia Emmelhainz, Maura Seale, and Erin Pappas explore the concept of sabotage in Chapter 7: “The Saboteur in the Academic Library.”The chapter extends the previous work of Dohe et al. (2019).The authors showcase how susceptible academic libraries are to both unintentional and willful saboteurs by exploring various reasons why sabotage may occur. In some cases, sabotage may be viewed as a simple nuisance, yet it has the potential to lead to discouragement, low morale, toxic communication, reinforcement of discrimination, and more.The authors propose different steps to address workplace sabotage depending on the individual’s

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  35

role: job seekers and new hires, current library staff and librarians, and both middle and upper management. Next, two chapters demonstrate that library workers are increasingly turning to the Internet to express dysfunction in libraries. First, Tim Ribaric, the creator of the popular Twitter account @lis_​g rievances (https://​twit​ter.com/​lis​_​g ri​evan​ces), provides a five-​year analysis of anonymous submissions to the account’s bot from 2016 to 2020 in Chapter 8: “ ‘Put the Fucking Salary in the Job Ad!’: An Analysis of an Anonymous Corpus of Tweets.” The tweets serve as evidence for systemic and shared experiences of dysfunction within the library field as the author’s analysis shows that most users of the bot tweet from the perspective of the library as a workplace rather than as a public service. Then, in Chapter 9, Éthel Gamache and Spencer Acadia present an evaluation of library memes in “You Are Seen:An Analysis of Library Dysfunction Found in Online Memes.” Via examination of nearly 400 memes, the authors reveal several overarching patterns, including problems with work environments, problematic dynamics with patrons, dealing with extraordinary events such as widespread social and civil unrest and the global COVID-​19 pandemic, the unstable library job market, and issues with LIS education. Much like tweets discussed in Ribaric’s chapter, memes may be distributed widely by online audiences in an anonymous manner to express shared frustrations without fear of judgment or retaliation. In Chapter 10, “A Descriptive Study of Workplace Bullying in U.S. Libraries during the COVID-​19 Pandemic,” Carol Anne Geary and Spencer Acadia provide results of survey research on bullying in the library workplace. The chapter extends previously published research on the topic by Geary and colleagues (Kim et al., 2018) and includes consideration of the global pandemic on bullying behavior between library employees, including management, both in person and online.Via survey research using over 550 responses, the authors discover that almost 70% of respondents had been bullied at some point in their career with their supervisor being the most common perpetrator. Although most of the reported bullying began before the pandemic started, 20% of respondents note that it increased for them during the pandemic. In 2017, Zorian M. Sasyk began researching work alienation in academic libraries and that work is continued in Chapter 11: “Work Alienation in Academic Libraries: A Marxist Analysis of Library Dysfunction.” Using the Marxist framework of alienation to examine dysfunction in academic libraries at the organizational level, the author posits that dysfunctional behaviors such as incivility, bullying, withdrawal, sabotage, and cyberloafing can be linked to combinations of the five aspects of work alienation: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self-​estrangement. The author suggests that utilizing this framework for research in other library types could further elucidate how alienation might materialize in libraries at large. The dual topics of power and conflict inherent in tenure versus untenured systems are explored by Sara Parme and Amy Pajewski in Chapter 13: “Combating Destruction: Organizational Power and Conflict in Academic Libraries.” The

36  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

authors employ group and organizational theory to examine dysfunction in academic libraries as a product of intergroup conflict between tenured and pre-​tenured librarians. The in-​group/​out-​group dynamic between tenured and pre-​tenured librarians creates unhealthy struggles for limited resources such as faculty contacts, budgetary allocations, and input on library projects. Given the unequal power dynamics between the two groups, negative behaviors such as ignoring input from lower-​status colleagues and consistently interrupting someone during meetings are left unchecked. The cycle continues when pre-​tenure librarians achieve tenure and mimic the attitudes and behaviors they see modeled by long-​standing tenured librarians. Toward ending this dysfunctional cycle of “us versus them,” the authors present several recommendations for change. Finally, in Chapter 14, Jasmine Hoover discusses dysfunctional organizational structure via the example of academic libraries and information technology departments in “Dysfunction by (Dis)organization: The Academic Library within University Structure and Organization.” Several years earlier, Hoover (2018) began exploring this topic. Here, the author further explores the ways hierarchical structures in academic institutions influence and create dysfunction within academic libraries. Universities operate in strict hierarchy which in turn influences library structure. Even though hierarchical organization inhibits knowledge sharing and encourages siloing and rankism, libraries are unable to fully pivot away from a hierarchical model because of the university systems within which they must operate. As university libraries encompass aspects of both academic support and information technology support, they are not easily situated in the university organizational chart. Depending on to whom they report on campus, libraries can be stunted in their efforts to optimally support the university community.

Dysfunctional libraries: A Western or global problem? This chapter relies mostly on North American and European (i.e., Western) scholarship, both from the general workplace and library workplace literatures. But, is workplace dysfunction as described in this chapter a problem present only in the West? In short: no, at least not generally speaking. General workplace dysfunction, in its many forms, is not exclusive to Canada, the United States, and other Western countries as organizations and their employees worldwide experience toxicity, incivility, deviance, harassment, bullying, violence, racism, sexism, ableism, high turnover, job insecurity, stress, burnout, physical and mental ill health, destructive management, poor communication, and so on, even if terminologies vary across geography and cultures (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work & Eurofound, 2014; Ghosh, 2017; International Labour Organization, 2021; Krings et al., 2014; Lippel, 2010; Milczarek, 2010; Salin et al., 2019). Indeed, the effects of dysfunction in the workplace globally are impactful on those experiencing them even when accounting for variance in culture. For example, in a review of global literature of workplace incivility covering nearly 15 years of empirical studies, Schilpzand et al. (2016, p. s61) conclude that “the extant incivility literature shows

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  37

that notwithstanding specific differences of what is considered uncivil behavior, the negative effects of incivility are not confined to certain cultures with specific characteristics but, instead, universally affect employees around the globe.” Geographically, the chapters of the book are written by LIS professionals and scholars located in the United States and Canada and, as such, are predicated on Western experiences, anecdotal evidence, and survey/​interview data. This book includes only Canadian and U.S. authors and contexts because most of the existing literature related specifically to library dysfunction is published by U.S. and Canadian writers working at institutions in these two countries.That said, literature outside of North America about dysfunctional topics in libraries is beginning to appear with some consistency.Thus, while general workplace dysfunction is shown to exist globally, relatively little has been published specifically on dysfunction in and of library workplaces outside of North America. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that librarians around the world do face some of the same challenges regarding dysfunctional workplaces and a fruitful avenue for future research would explore workplace dysfunction in libraries from a fully global perspective and comparing Western and non-​Western manifestations of dysfunction in LIS environments. Thus, while this book is intentionally written by Canadian and U.S. authors, it has much applicability for encouraging LIS professionals and scholars outside of North America and Western Europe to begin exploring in greater volume and depth the problems of dysfunctional libraries experienced within non-​Western geographies, cultures, and frameworks.

Conclusion This chapter provides an entry point for continuing conversations surrounding dysfunctional library workplaces, education, conferences, and online spaces. By blending LIS literature with general workplace literature, the chapter gives a brief overview of both psychological and socio-​organizational explanations for dysfunction followed by short reviews of the four specific topics of low morale, burnout, and turnover; problematic recruitment, retention, and hiring practices; discrimination and lack of workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion; and incivility, harassment, and bullying. The chapter then describes the content of this book’s other 13 chapters and further suggests more scholarship is needed about dysfunction outside of North American libraries. Henry et al.(2017,pp.12,161) state with a tinge of discouragement:“Unfortunately, there is not a great deal we can do … other than document and report issues as appropriate” and, in the end, “libraries and librarians must learn to live with a certain amount of dysfunction.” As hopeless as Henry et al. seem to be, the current book aims to expose library workplaces as dysfunctional by adding to the critical scholarship that has come before and to push back on the idea of libraries as inherently good and sacred places against which no criticism can be tolerated. Farkas (2020, p. 54) understands that “when an institution is beyond critique, it cannot be improved.” By continuing the efforts to unmask dysfunction in libraries and the

38  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

profession, the work presented in this book purposefully aims to critique, criticize, and challenge the existing socio-​organizational structural norms of LIS. The reasons this book is needed are as follows. First, although many anecdotes exist among library employees across Canada and the United States describing library workplaces as dysfunctional, and while some studies showing evidence of this dysfunction have emerged over the years, not much published LIS literature exists that recognizes, acknowledges, and describes libraries and the LIS profession using the terms “dysfunction” and “dysfunctional.” Second, advancement of discourse on library dysfunction in the workplace as social and organizational problems, not individual ones, is needed because much of LIS has taken the position to ignore dysfunctional issues, suggesting that they do not exist at all or, if they do, they are unimportant; are unique to individuals and therefore not of organizational concern; or will go away entirely on their own. Third, even if dysfunction is recognizable across many library workplaces and the profession, not much is done about it and therefore LIS must be held responsible for its habitual inaction to foundationally restructure itself toward improving working conditions. Finally, if any meaningful, positive change is to occur, the dysfunctional conditions of the LIS profession and library workplaces must be critiqued and interrogated; these institutions are not beyond reproach and transformative improvements will never occur if these institutions remain unquestioned and left to their own devices.

References Acadia, S. (2020). The organizational trap-​gap framework: A conceptual view of library dysfunction. IFLA Journal, 46(1), 72–​87. https://​doi.org/​frtc Acadia, S., & Bartlett, J. A. (2019). Challenges and issues in managing organizational knowledge. In: J. A. Bartlett & S. Acadia (Eds.), Libraries that learn: Keys to managing organizational knowledge (pp. 23–​48). American Library Association. Adkins, D., Buchanan, S. A., & Alston, J. K. (2020). LIS association activities in promoting and sustaining an inclusive profession. Library Quarterly, 90(2), 162–​172. https://​doi.org/​hcsm Adkins, D., Virden, C., & Yier, C. (2015). Learning about diversity: The roles of LIS education, LIS associations, and lived experiences. Library Quarterly, 85(2), 139–​149. https://​ doi.org/​ghn​qtg Agostino, C., & Cassidy, M. (2019). Failure to launch: Feelings of failure in early career librarians. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 14(1), 1–​7. https://​doi.org/​gpwj Alabi, J. (2015a). Racial microaggression in academic libraries: Results of a survey of minority and non-​minority librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), 47–​53. https://​doi. org/​f6w​xn2 Alabi, J. (2015b). “This actually happened”: An analysis of librarians’ responses to a survey about racial microaggressions. Journal of Library Administration, 55(3), 179–​191. https://​ doi.org/​gsbz Alabi, J. (2018). From hostile to inclusive: Strategies for improving the racial climate of academic libraries. Library Trends, 67(1), 131–​146. https://​doi.org/​hvx3 Allcorn, S., & Stein, H. F. (2015). The dysfunctional workplace: Theory, stories, and practice. University of Missouri Press.

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  39

Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99–​118. https://​doi.org/​fn5​6hf American Library Association (ALA). (2019). Core values of librarianship. https://​bit.ly/​ 3tfm​ce7 Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–​471. https://​doi.org/​fmr​xbh Antúnez, M.Y. (2018). Perspectives in hiring academic librarians with frequent job changes. Journal of Library Administration, 58(3), 205–​229. https://​doi.org/​hvx4 Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), 586–​ 598. https://​doi.org/​csk​xjp Arroyo-​Ramirez, E., Chou, R. L., Freedman, J., Fujita, S., & Orozco, C. M. (2018).The reach of a long-​arm stapler: Calling in microaggressions in the LIS field through zine work. Library Trends, 67(1), 107–​130. https://​doi.org/​hvx5 Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–​692. https://​doi.org/​fwf​6r6 Bartlett, J. A. (2016).Workplace bullying: A silent epidemic. Library Leadership and Management, 31(1), 1–​4. https://​bit.ly/​3MkU​Dqa Bartlett, J. A. (2019). Dealing with dysfunction. Library Leadership and Management, 33(4), 1–​3. https://​bit.ly/​3z4B​nKJ Baron, R.A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996).Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22(3), 161–​173. https://​doi.org/​czj Bergbom, B., Vartia-​ Vaananen, M., & Kinnunen, U. (2015). Immigrants and natives at work: Exposure to workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 37(2), 158–​175. https://​doi. org/​hvx8 Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-​analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–​424. https://​doi.org/​b96​5s7 Black, W. K., & Leysen, J. M. (2002). Fostering success: The socialization of entry-​level librarians in ARL libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 36(4), 3–​27. https://​doi.org/​ bq6​qxj Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 595–​614. https://​doi.org/​cw7​95m Boddy, C. R. (2015). Organisational psychopaths: A ten year update. Management Decision, 53(10), 2407–​2432. https://​doi.org/​f74​gc3 Boddy, C. R., & Taplin, R. (2016). The influence of corporate psychopaths on job satisfaction and its determinants. International Journal of Manpower, 37(6), 965–​988. https://​doi. org/​hvx9 Boyd, A., Blue,Y., & Im, S. (2017). Evaluation of academic library residency programs in the United States for librarians of color. College and Research Libraries, 78(4), 472–​511. https://​ doi.org/​gbk​3cd Breitling, F., Dhar, J., Ebling, R., & Lovich, D. (2021, November 15). 6 strategies to boost retention through the great resignation. Harvard Business Review . https://​bit.ly/​3atU​YcX Brook, F., Ellenwood, D., & Lazzaro, A. E. (2015). In pursuit of antiracist social justice: Denaturalizing whiteness in the academic library. Library Trends, 64(2), 246–​284. https://​doi.org/​f8b​v9g Brown, J., Ferretti, J. A., Leung, S., & Méndez-​Brady, M. (2018).We here: Speaking our truth. Library Trends, 67(1), 163–​181. https://​doi.org/​gfz​kb8

40  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Brown, M. E. (2015). Invisible debility: Attitudes toward the underrepresented in library workplaces. Public Library Quarterly, 34(2), 124–​133. https://​doi.org/​hvzc Bugg, K. (2016). The perceptions of people of color in academic libraries concerning the relationship between retention and advancement as middle managers. Journal of Library Administration, 56(4), 428–​443. https://​doi.org/​g3cz Bunge, C. A. (1989). Stress in the library workplace. Library Trends, 38(1), 92–​102. Burke, J. J., & Tumbleson, B. E. (2019). Mentoring in academic libraries. Library Leadership and Management, 33(4), 1–​19. https://​bit.ly/​3md4​1ll Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (2002). Dysfunction. Dictionary of the social sciences. Oxford Reference Premium Collection. Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. R. (2014). Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 305–​ 331. https://​doi.org/​gf8​433 Christian, L. A. (2015). A passion deficit: Occupational burnout and the new librarian: A recommendation report. Southeastern Librarian, 62(4), 2–​11. https://​bit.ly/​3Mha​WUX Cohen, A. (2018). Counterproductive work behaviors: Understanding the dark side of personalities in organizational life. Routledge. Colding, L. K. (2006). Will they stay or will they go? Predictors of academic librarian turnover. In: E. D. Garten, D. E. Williams, & J. M. Nyce (Eds.), Advances in library administration and organization (Vol. 23, pp. 263–​280). Emerald. https://​doi.org/​d38​z5c Collins, A. M. (2018). Language, power, and oppression: In the LIS diversity void. Library Trends, 67(1), 39–​51. https://​doi.org/​hvzd Colman, A. M. (2015). Dysfunction. Dictionary of psychology (4th ed.). Oxford Reference Premium Collection. Colón-​Aguirre, M., & Webb, K. K. (2020). An exploratory survey measuring burnout among academic librarians in the southeast of the United States. Library Management, 41(8/​9), 703–​715. https://​doi.org/​gh2​gzk Colosimo, A. L., Desmeules, R. E., & McKinnon, D. (2017). Whole-​person mentoring for every stage of careers in librarianship. Library Leadership and Management, 32(1), 1–​13. https://​bit.ly/​3MWf​bXe Comanda, B., Wilkinson, J., Bradham, F., Koziura, A., & Seale, M. (2021). Service ceiling: The high cost of professional development for academic librarians. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://​bit.ly/​3tD7​def Cooke, N. A. (2014). Pushing back from the table: Fighting to maintain my voice as a pre-​ tenure minority female in the white academy. Polymath: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Arts and Sciences, 4(2), 39–​49. https://​bit.ly/​3MkM​2UB Cooke, N. A., & Colón-​Aguirre, M. (2021). “Killing it from the inside”: Acknowledging and valuing Black, Indigenous, and people of color as LIS faculty. Library Quarterly, 91(3), 243–​249. https://​doi.org/​hvzg Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. SAGE. Corsini, R. J. (2016). Dysfunction. Dictionary of psychology (p. 305). Routledge. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–​75. https://​doi.org/​fkw​2fj Cortina, L. M., Kabat-​Farr, D., Magley,V. J., & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 299–​313. https://​doi.org/​gj6​2b8 Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247–​265. https://​doi.org/​fh4​2pk

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  41

Cortina, L. M., Magley,V. J.,Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–​80. https://​ doi.org/​btv​qnq Cortina, L. M., Kabat-​Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579–​1605. https://​doi.org/​fvx​88q Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-​analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 55–​70. https://​doi.org/​ ftp​r pn Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299–​1324. https://​doi.org/​c8x​22m DiMarco, D., Hoel, H., Arenas, A., & Munduate, L. (2018). Workplace incivility as modern sexual prejudice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(12), 1978–​ 2004. https://​doi.org/​ gdk​36s Dohe, K., Emmelhainz, C., & Pappas, E. (2019). Delay, distract, defer: Addressing sabotage in the academic library [Conference paper]. Maintainers III: Practice, Policy, and Care Conference (pp. 1–​7), Washington D.C., United States. https://​doi.org/​hvzh Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 547–​559. https://​ doi.org/​bqk​vzg Dwyer, K. (2020, March/​April). Inclusive internship initiative aims to increase diversity in library staff. Public Libraries, 59(2), 42–​49. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003).The concept of bullying at work:The European tradition. In: S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3–​30). Taylor & Francis. Espinal, I., Sutherland, T., & Roh, C. (2018). A holistic approach for inclusive librarianship: Decentering whiteness in our profession. Library Trends, 67(1), 147–​162. https://​ doi.org/​fzrq Ettarh, F. (2018, January 10).Vocational awe and librarianship:The lies we tell ourselves. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://​bit.ly/​3PJc​1Ip European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-​ OSHA), & Eurofound. (2014). Psychosocial risks in Europe: Prevalence and strategies for prevention. Publications Office of the European Union. https://​bit.ly/​3a43​wqM Farkas, M. (2017, November/​December). Less is not more: Rejecting resilience narratives for library workers. American Libraries, 48(11/​12), 56. Farkas, M. (2019, June). Is “fit” a bad fit? How evaluating job candidates can stifle diversity. American Libraries, 50(6), 78. Farkas, M. (2020, September/​ October). Not beyond critique: The need for critical conversations about our libraries and professions. American Libraries, 51(9/​10), 54. Farler, L., & Broady-Preston, J. (2012). Workplace stress in libraries: A case study. Aslib Proceedings, 64(3), 225–​240. https://​doi.org/​gqkm Farrell, B., Alabi, J.,Whaley, P., & Jenda, C. (2017). Addressing psychosocial factors with library mentoring. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 51–​69. https://​doi.org/​gmd​mcn Faulkner, A. E. (2015). Reflections on the impostor phenomenon as a newly qualified academic librarian. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(3), 265–​268. https://​doi.org/​hvzk Fenclau, Jr., E., Albright, C. M., Crothers, L. M., & Kolbert, J. B. (2014). Schoolyard scuffles to conference room chaos: Bullying across the lifespan. In: J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace: Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 69–​84). Routledge.

42  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Ferretti, J. A. (2020). Building a critical culture: How critical librarianship falls short in the workplace. Communications in Information Literacy, 14(1), 134–​152. https://​doi.org/​gjk​jcc Fife, D., Stephens, M. N., Lyons, A., & Huang, M. (2021). Leader responsibility for diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in academic libraries: An exploratory study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), Article ID 102361, 1–​8. https://​doi.org/​hvzm Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. (2016). Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low-​intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 50–​67. https://​doi.org/​f8b​q8q Fox, S., & Lituchy, T. R. (Eds.). (2012). Gender and the dysfunctional workplace. Edward Elgar. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (Eds.). (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. American Psychological Association. Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/​ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 438–​456. https://​ doi.org/​dbj​n95 Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organizational approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: Alternative dispute resolution and training. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 220–​241. https://​ doi.org/​cq9​4zk Freedman, S., & Vreven, D. (2016).Workplace incivility and bullying in the library: Perception or reality? College and Research Libraries, 77(6), 727–​748. https://​doi.org/​f9g​n9f Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for leaders and their organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 111–​127. https://​doi.org/​ftm​d5k Furnham, A., & Taylor, J. (2004). Dark side of behaviour at work: Understanding and avoiding employees leaving, thieving, and deceiving. Palgrave Macmillan. Fyn, A. F. (2013). Peer group mentoring relationships and the role of narrative. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(4), 330–​334. https://​doi.org/​f5b​d7x Fyn, A., Heady, C., Foster-​ Kaufman, A., & Hosier, A. (2019, April 10–​ 13). Why we leave: Exploring academic librarian turnover and retention strategies [Conference paper]. ACRL 19th National Conference: Recasting the narrative (pp. 139–​ 148), Cleveland, Ohio, United States. https://​bit.ly/​3Q0t​Dzt Ghosh, R. (2017).Workplace incivility in Asia: How do we take a socio-​cultural perspective? Human Resource Development International, 20(4), 236–​267. Gibbons, A. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Marsh, R. (2014). Sexual harassment and bullying at work. In: J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace: Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 193–​222). Routledge. Gibson, A. N. (2019). Civility and structural precarity for faculty of color in LIS. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 60(3), 215–​222. https://​doi.org/​gpwn Glusker, A., Emmelhainz, C., Estrada, N., & Dyess, B. (2022). “Viewed as equals”:The impacts of library organizational culture and management on library staff morale. Journal of Library Administration, 62(2), 153–​189. https://​doi.org/​hntn Godley, J. (2018). Everyday discrimination in Canada: Prevalence and patterns. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 111–​142. https://​doi.org/​gjs​4kd Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). Dysfunctional leadership. Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 368–​372). SAGE. Goldman, A. (2006). Personality disorders in leaders: Implications of the DSM IV-​TR in assessing dysfunctional organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 392–​414. https://​doi.org/​fss​3vh Goldman, A. (2009). Destructive leaders and dysfunctional organizations: A therapeutic perspective. Cambridge University Press.

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  43

Goodsett, M., & Walsh, A. (2015). Building a strong foundation: Mentoring programs for novice tenure-​track librarians in academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 76(7), 914–​933. https://​doi.org/​f76​zqt Goosney, J. L., Smith, B., & Gordon, S. (2014). Reflective peer mentoring: Evolution of a professional development program for academic librarians. Partnership:The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 9(1), 1–​24. https://​doi.org/​hvzq Gray, L., & Mehra, B. (2021). Going against the current of hegemonic “white-​IST” discourse: A doctoral program journal from critical student +​guide perspectives. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 62(2), 182–​200. https://​doi.org/​hvzt Graybill, J. O., Carpenter, M. T. H., Offord, Jr., J., Piorun, M., & Shaffer, G. (2013). Employee onboarding: Identification of best practices in ACRL libraries. Library Management, 34(3), 200–​218. https://​doi.org/​ggw​zbp Griffin, R. W., & Lopez,Y. P. (2005). “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 988–​1005. https://​doi.org/​bjk​r5k Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-​ Kelly, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). The dark side of organizational behavior. Wiley. Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-​Kelly, A., & Collins, J. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In: C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 65–​82). Wiley. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-​analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In: A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–​117). Taylor & Francis. Hall,T. D., & Grady, J. (2006, January/​February). Diversity, recruitment, and retention: Going from lip service to foot patrol. Public Libraries, 45(1), 39–​46. Harker, K., O’Toole, E., Keshmiripour, S., McIntosh, M., & Sassen, C. (2019). Mixed-​ methods assessment of a mentoring program. Journal of Library Administration, 59(8), 873–​ 902. https://​doi.org/​gjg​gpg Harker, R., Pidgeon, A. M., Klaassen, F., & King, S. (2016). Exploring resilience and mindfulness as preventative factors for psychological distress burnout and secondary traumatic stress among human service professionals. Work, 54(3), 631–​637. https://​doi.org/​ ghb​kk6 Harms, P. D., & Spain, S. M. (2014). Beyond the bright side: Dark personality at work. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 15–​24. https://​doi.org/​b8zs Harrington, M. R., & Marshall, E. (2014). Analyses of mentoring expectations, activities, and support in Canadian academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 75(6), 763–​790. https://​doi.org/​hvzz Hartmann, S., Weiss, M., Newman, A., & Hoegl, M. (2020). Resilience in the workplace: A multilevel review and synthesis. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 913–​959. https://​doi. org/​ggk​nh6 Harvey, M. G., Heames, J. T., Richey, R. G., & Leonard, N. (2006). Bullying: From the playground to the boardroom. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(4), 1–​11. https://​doi.org/​fqf​3dg Harwell, K. (2008). Burnout strategies for librarians. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 13(3), 379–​390. https://​doi.org/​fcg​265 Harwell, K. (2013). Burnout and job engagement among business librarians. Library Leadership and Management, 27(1/​2), 1–​19. https://​bit.ly/​3PJ3​4yN Heady, C., Fyn, A. F., Kaufman, A. F., Hosier, A., & Weber, M. (2020). Contributory factors to academic librarian turnover: A mixed-​methods study. Journal of Library Administration, 60(6), 549–​599. https://​doi.org/​frtg

44  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Henninger, E., Brons, A., Riley, C., & Yin, C. (2019). Perceptions and experiences of precarious employment in Canadian libraries: An exploratory study. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 14(2), 1–​22. https://​ doi.org/​gpwp Henninger, E., Brons, A., Riley, C., & Yin, C. (2020). Factors associated with the prevalence of precarious positions in Canadian libraries: Statistical analysis of a national job board. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 15(3), 78–​102. https://​doi.org/​hbmx Henrich, K. J., & Attebury, R. (2010). Communities of practice at an academic library: A new approach to mentoring at the University of Idaho. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(2), 158–​165. https://​doi.org/​dhc​2cz Henry, J., Eshleman, J., Croxton, R., & Moniz, R. (2018). Incivility and dysfunction in the library workplace: Perceptions and feedback from the field. Journal of Library Administration, 58(2), 128–​152. https://​doi.org/​frth Henry, J., Eshleman, J., & Moniz, R. (2017). The dysfunctional library: Challenges and solutions to workplace relationships. American Library Association. Henry, J., Eshleman, J., & Moniz, R. (2020). Cultivating civility: Practical ways to improve a dysfunctional library. American Library Association. Herrera, F. (2001). Demystifying hiring and retention. Employment Relations Today, 28(2), 87–​ 95. https://​doi.org/​dtx​mxn Hershcovis, M. S., & Reich,T. C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method considerations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(Suppl. 1), S26–​S42. https://​doi.org/​f5f​xpt Hodge, M., & Spoor, N. (2012). Congratulations! You’ve landed an interview:What do hiring committees really want? New Library World, 113(3/​4), 139–​161. https://​doi.org/​gn45 Hodge, T., & Williams, J. (2021, January/​February). Call to action: Envisioning a future that centers BIPOC voices. American Libraries, 52(1/​2), 54. Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., Keashly, L., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Bullying at work: The way forward. In: S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 412–​416). Taylor & Francis. Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying. In: S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 203–​218). Taylor & Francis. Hogarth, M. (2017). Avoiding burnout. Advances in library administration and organization (Vol. 37, pp. 71–​98). Emerald. https://​doi.org/​gnk​xh8 Hoover, J. (2018). Gaps in IT and library services at small academic libraries in Canada. Information Technology and Libraries, 37(4), 15–​26. https://​doi.org/​hhcn Hussey, L. (2010). The diversity discussion: What are we saying? Progressive Librarian, (34/​ 35), 3–​10. International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). (2018). Global vision report. https://​ bit.ly/​3tgt​GNU International Labour Organization (ILO). (2021). Violence and harassment in the world of work: A guide on Convention No. 190 and Recommendation No. 206. https://​bit.ly/​ 389I​TsO Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J. C., & Subramaniam, M. (2013). Preparing future librarians to effectively serve their communities. Library Quarterly, 83(3), 243–​248. https://​doi.org/​f42​j6q Jaeger, P. T., Subramaniam, M. M., Jones, C. B., & Bertot, J. C. (2011). Diversity and LIS education: Inclusion and the age of information. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 52(3), 166–​183. https://​bit.ly/​3xh3​41r

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  45

Jacobs, J. L., & Scott, C. L. (2011). Hate crimes as one aspect of workplace violence: Recommendations for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 85–​98. https://​doi.org/​btr​879 Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel Management, 30(4), 457–​465. https://​doi.org/​hvz3 Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). Not so subtle: A meta-​analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1588–​1613. https://​doi.org/​gdn​gcx Jordan, M. W. (2014). All stressed out, but does anyone notice? Stressors affecting public libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 54(4), 291–​307. https://​doi.org/​gzbm Kabat-​Farr, D., & Cortina, L. M. (2012). Selective incivility: Gender, race, and the discriminatory workplace. In: S. Fox & T. R. Lituchy (Eds.), Gender and the dysfunctional workplace (pp. 107–​119). Edward Elgar. Kabat-​Farr, D., Cortina, L. M., & Marchiondo, L. A. (2018). The emotional aftermath of incivility: Anger, guilt, and the role of organizational commitment. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(2), 109–​128. https://​doi.org/​gdg​sp9 Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive leadership in and of organizations. In: D.V. Day (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 260–​284). Oxford Handbooks Online. https://​doi.org/​hqkr Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality and extreme leader behavior. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 55–​92. https://​doi.org/​f6s​7qr Keashly, L. (2001). Interpersonal and systemic aspects of emotional abuse at work:The target’s perspective. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 233–​268. https://​doi.org/​hcd3 Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In: S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 31–​61). Taylor & Francis. Keashly, L., Trott,V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9(4), 341–​357. https://​doi.org/​gff​mdx Kendrick, K. D. (2017). The low morale experience of academic librarians: A phenomenological study. Journal of Library Administration, 57(8), 846–​878. https://​doi.org/​frtn Kendrick, K. D. (2020). The public librarian low-​morale experience: A qualitative study. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 15(2), 1–​ 32. https://​doi.org/​fxtt Kennedy, S. P., & Garewal, K. R. (2020). Quantitative analysis of workplace morale in academic librarians and the impact of direct supervisors on workplace morale. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), Article ID 102191, 1–​11. https://​doi.org/​ghj​g38 Kim, H. J., Geary, C. A., & Bielefield, A. (2018). Bullying in the library workplace. Library Leadership and Management, 32(2), 1–​13. https://​bit.ly/​3NEb​7ej Kluemper, D. H., Taylor, S. G., Bowler, W. M., Bing, M. N., & Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2019). How leaders perceive employee deviance: Blaming victims while excusing favorites. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 946–​964. https://​doi.org/​gfw​n7w Kowalski, R. M., Toth, A., & Morgan, M. (2018). Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 64–​81. https://​doi.org/​ghm​jp4 Krings, F., Johnston, C., Binggeli, S., & Maggiori, C. (2014). Selective incivility: Immigrant groups experience subtle workplace discrimination at different rates. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 491–​498. https://​doi.org/​f6m​64z Lacy, M., & Copeland, A. J. (2013). The role of mentorship programs in LIS education and in professional development. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(2), 135–​146. https://​bit.ly/​3ziq​lS9

46  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Langan-​Fox, J., Cooper, C. L., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms. Edward Elgar. Larrivee, A. (2014). Exploring the stressors of new librarians. Public Services Quarterly, 10(1), 1–​10. https://​doi.org/​hvz6 Larsen, S. E. (2017, May/​June). Diversity in public libraries: Strategies for achieving a more representative workforce. Public Libraries, 56(3), 32–​36. LeBlanc, M. M., & Barling, J. (2005). Understanding the many faces of workplace violence. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 41–​63). American Psychological Association. Lemmergaard, J., & Muhr, S. L. (2013). Broadening the critical leadership repertoire: Emotions, toxicity, and dysfunctionality. In: J. Lemmergaard & S. L. Muhr (Eds.), Critical perspectives on leadership: Emotion, toxicity, and dysfunction (pp. 3–​26). Edward Elgar. Lewis, D., & Gunn, R. (2007). Workplace bullying in the public sector: Understanding the racial dimension. Public Administration, 85(3), 641–​665. https://​doi.org/​bdm​q9p Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483–​496. https://​doi.org/​cjv​5fv Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley,V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 95–​107. https://​doi.org/​ dv9​kvh Lindén, M., Salo, I., & Jansson, A. (2018). Organizational stressors and burnout in public librarians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50(2), 199–​204. https://​doi.org/​ gdk​phh Lipinski, J., & Crothers, L. M. (Eds.). (2014). Bullying in the workplace: Causes, symptoms, and remedies. Routledge. Lippel, K. (2010). The law of workplace bullying: An international overview. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 32(1), 1–​14. https://​bit.ly/​3xhk​awc Lutgen-​Sandvik, P., & Arsht, S. S. (2014). How unaddressed bullying affects employees, workgroups, workforces, and organizations: The widespread aversive effects of toxic communication climates. In: J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace: Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 51–​65). Routledge. Lutgen-​Sandvik, P., & McDermott,V. (2011). Making sense of supervisory bullying: Perceived powerlessness, empowered possibilities. Southern Communication Journal, 76(4), 342–​368. https://​doi.org/​fwr​pn4 Lutgen-​ Sandvik, P., & Sypher, B. D. (Eds.). (2009). Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing. Routledge. Lutgen-​Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 837–​862. https://​doi.org/​bh4​nsv Luzius, J., & Ard, A. (2006). Leaving the academic library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 593–​598. https://​doi.org/​cpv​4x9 Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In: W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 19–​32). Taylor & Francis. Matteson, M. L., & Miller, S. S. (2012). Emotional labor in librarianship: A research agenda. Library and Information Science Research, 34(3), 176–​183. https://​doi.org/​hvz7 McCord, M. A., Dhanani, L.Y., Joseph, D. L., & Beus, J. M. (2018). A meta-​analysis of sex and race differences in perceived workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 137–​163. https://​doi.org/​gc5​bbh

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  47

Mehra, B. (2019). The non-​white man’s burden in LIS education: Critical constructive nudges. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 60(3), 198–​207. https://​doi. org/​hvz8 Mehra, B., & Gray, L. (2020). An “owning up” of white-​IST trends in LIS to further real transformations. Library Quarterly, 90(2), 189–​239. https://​doi.org/​gjk​jbp Mestre, L. S. (2010). Librarians working with diverse populations: What impact does cultural competency training have on their efforts? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(6), 479–​ 488. https://​doi.org/​dqr​c7d Milczarek, M. (2010). Workplace violence and harassment: A European picture. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. https://​bit.ly/​38FB​ZM4 Miner, K. N., Smittick, A. L., He, Y., & Costa, P. L. (2019). Organizations behaving badly: Antecedents and consequences of uncivil workplace environments. Journal of Psychology, 153(5), 528–​554. https://​doi.org/​ght​jsc Moeller, C. M. (2019). Disability, identity, and professionalism: Precarity in librarianship. Library Trends, 67(3), 455–​470. https://​doi.org/​ggj​v4n Moen, M. H., Mandel, L. H., & Karno, V. (2020). Continuing education for public library staff: Valued competencies and preferred delivery format. Education for Information, 36(2), 177–​198. https://​doi.org/​hvz9 Montgomery, J. G., & Cook, E. I. (2005). Conflict management for libraries. American Library Association. Musser, L. R. (2001). Effective retention strategies for diverse employees. Journal of Library Administration, 33(1/​2), 63–​72. https://​doi.org/​bw9​r7h Namie, G. (2007). The challenge of workplace bullying. Employment Relations Today, 34(2), 43–​51. https://​doi.org/​bg7​mng Namie, G., & Lutgen-​Sandvik, P. E. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of Communication, 4, 343–​ 373. https://​bit.ly/​3M16​f1q Nangia, P., & Arora, T. (2021). Discrimination in the workplace in Canada: An intersectional approach. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 46(2), 147–​178. https://​bit.ly/​3tfc​Kax Nardine, J. (2019). The state of academic liaison librarian burnout in ARL libraries in the United States. College and Research Libraries, 80(4), 508–​524. https://​doi.org/​gnk​xjc Nauratil, M. J. (1987). Causes and cures: Librarian burnout and alienation. Canadian Library Journal, 44(6), 385–​389. Neigel, C. (2016). Professional development for library workers: Exposing the complicated problems of equity and access. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 11(2), 1–​7. https://​doi.org/​gpws Noor, T., Bell, N., Chan, M. P., Liu, G., & Ramos, A. (2018). Roundtable: What is holding librarianship back from being more inclusive of visible minorities. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 13(2), 1–​6. https://​doi. org/​hv2c O’Farrell, C., & Nordstrom, C. R. (2013). Workplace bullying: Examining self-​monitoring and organizational culture. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 3(4), 6–​17. https://​doi.org/​gh7​kxh Ortega, A., Høgh, A., Pejtersen, J. H., & Olsen, O. (2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups: A representative population study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 82, 417–​426. https://​doi.org/​d2m​9dg Ortega, A. C. (2017). Academic libraries and toxic leadership. Chandos. Oud, J. (2008). Adjusting to the workplace: Transitions faced by new academic librarians. College and Research Libraries, 69(3), 252–​266. https://​doi.org/​hv2d

48  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Oud, J. (2018). Academic librarians with disabilities: Job perceptions and factors influencing positive workplace experiences. Partnership:The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 13(1), 1–​30. https://​bit.ly/​3tgv​PZY Oud, J. (2019). Systemic workplace barriers for academic librarians with disabilities. College and Research Libraries, 80(2), 169–​194. https://​doi.org/​hctn Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123–​137. https://​doi.org/​cgw​8nr Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility. In: S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 177–​200). American Psychological Association. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 777–​796. https://​doi.org/​d3h​v5t Pionke, J. J. (2019). The impact of disbelief: On being a library employee with a disability. Library Trends, 67(3), 423–​435. https://​doi.org/​ggj​v4k Pionke, J. J. (2020a). Disability-​and accessibility-​related library graduate school education from the student perspective. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 61(2), 253–​269. https://​doi.org/​gmt​nc5 Pionke, J. J. (2020b). Library employee views of disability and accessibility. Journal of Library Administration, 60(2), 120–​145. https://​doi.org/​hctp Porath, C. (2016). Mastering civility: A manifesto for the workplace. Grand Central. Raschke, G. K. (2003). Hiring and recruitment practices in academic libraries: Problems and solutions. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(1), 53–​67. https://​doi.org/​cnk​snd Riley-​Reid, T. (2017). Breaking down barriers: Making it easier for academic librarians of color to stay. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 392–​396. https://​doi.org/​gb2​5bc Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status inequalities, and organizational context. Social Forces, 87(3), 1561–​1589. https://​bit.ly/​3mgp​7PI Roter, A. B. (2017). Understanding and recognizing dysfunctional leadership: The impact of dysfunctional leadership on organizations and followers. Routledge. Roter, A. B. (2019). The dark side of the workplace: Managing incivility. Routledge. Rousseau, D. (2008). Psychological contract. In: S. R. Clegg & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), International encyclopedia of organization studies (pp. 1327–​1329). SAGE. Rubin, R. (1996). A study of job factors affecting current public library employees’ desire to remain with or leave their employer. Journal of Library Administration, 22(1), 85–​111. https://​doi.org/​c48​wsj Salin, D., Cowan, R., Adewumi, O., Apospori, E., Bochantin, J., D’Cruz, P., Djurkovic, N., Durniat, K., Escartín, J., Guo, J., Išik, I., Koeszegi, S. T., McCormack, D., Monserrat, S. I., & Zedlacher, E. (2019). Workplace bullying across the globe: Cross-​cultural comparison. Personnel Review, 48(1), 204–​219. https://​doi.org/​ghv​d76 Salyers, M. P.,Watkins, M. A., Painter, A., Snajdr, E. A., Gilmer, L. O., Garabrant, J. M., & Henry, N. H. (2019). Predictors of burnout in public library employees. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(4), 974–​983. https://​doi.org/​hv2g Sasyk, Z. M. (2017). Measures of work alienation from work process in academic libraries in the information age [Master’s thesis, Minnesota State University Mankato]. https://​bit.ly/​3x48​k7E Schilpzand, P., de Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016).Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(s1), s57–​s88. https://​ doi.org/​f79​tv6 Scott, J. (2015). Dysfunction (dysfunctional). Dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Oxford Reference Premium Collection.

An introduction to dysfunction in the library workplace  49

Sensoy, Ö, & DiAngelo, R. (2017). “We are all for diversity, but…”: How faculty hiring committees reproduce whiteness and practical suggestions for how they can change. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 557–​580. https://​doi.org/​gfw​xqk Sewell, B. B., & Gilbert, C. (2015). What makes access services staff happy? A job satisfaction survey. Journal of Access Services, 12(3/​4), 47–​74. https://​doi.org/​gpr​wr6 Shamchuk, L. (2015). Professional development on a budget: Facilitating learning opportunities for information literacy instructors. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 10(1), 1–​14. https://​doi.org/​hv2h Shupe, E. I., Wambaugh, S. K., & Bramble, R. J. (2015). Role-​related stress experienced by academic librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 264–​269. https://​doi.org/​ f7c​v2w Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005a). Concluding thoughts: Where do we go from here? In: S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 297–​305). American Psychological Association. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005b). The stressor-​emotional model of counterproductive work behavior. In: S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–​174). American Psychological Association. Staninger, S. W. (2016). The psychodynamics of bullying in libraries. Library Leadership and Management, 30(4), 1–​5. https://​bit.ly/​3NHN​v8p Statt, D. A. (1999). Dysfunctional. Concise dictionary of business management (p. 48). Routledge. Stohl, C., McCann, R. M., & Bakar, H. A. (2013). Conflict in the global workplace. In: J. G. Oetzel & S.Ting-​Toomey (Eds.), SAGE handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 713–​736). SAGE. Strothmann, M., & Ohler, L. A. (2011). Retaining academic librarians: By chance or by design? Library Management, 32(3), 191–​208. https://​doi.org/​fgm​68g Sullivan, L. E. (Ed.). (2009). Dysfunction. SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences (p. 164). SAGE. Tewell, E. C. (2012). Employment opportunities for new academic librarians: Assessing the availability of entry level jobs. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(4), 407–​423. https://​ doi.org/​f4c​b7n Torkelson, E., Holm, K., & Bäckström, M. (2016). Workplace incivility in a Swedish context. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 6(2), 3–​22. https://​doi.org/​f9s​fmb Van Fleet, D. D., & Griffin, R. W. (2006). Dysfunctional organization culture: The role of leadership in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 698–​708. https://​doi.org/​cwh​762 Van Fleet, D. D., & Van Fleet, E. W. (2012). Towards a behavioral description of managerial bullying. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24, 197–​215. https://​doi.org/​ghv​c7j Van Fleet, D. D., & Van Fleet, E.W. (2014). Future challenges in issues of bullying in the workplace. In: J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace: Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 387–​404). Routledge. Van Fleet, D. D., & Van Fleet, E. W. (2022). Bullying and harassment at work: An innovative approach to understanding and prevention. Edward Elgar. Vinopal, J. (2016, January 13). The quest for diversity in library staffing: From awareness to action. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://​bit.ly/​3zes​kH5 Volti, R. (2012). An introduction to the sociology of work and occupations (2nd ed.). SAGE. Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate, & KRC Research (2017). Civility in America VII: The state of civility. https://​bit.ly/​3PAh​lO4 Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate, & KRC Research (2018). Civility in America 2018: Civility at work and in our public squares. https://​bit.ly/​3LB4​iIQ

50  Spencer Acadia and Kyndal Vogt

Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate, & KRC Research (2019). Civility in America 2019: Solutions for tomorrow. https://​bit.ly/​3sNT​CjA Wilde, J. (2016). The social psychology of organizations: Diagnosing toxicity and intervening in the workplace. Routledge. Winterman, M., & Bucy, R. (2019).Welcome aboard: A program for improving the new hire experience for academic libraries. Library Leadership and Management, 33(4), 1–​16. https://​ bit.ly/​3GRs​EgN

2 THE DYSFUNCTIONAL LIBRARY AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER Amanda Foster Kaufman, Amy F. Fyn, Millicent Weber, and Christina Heady

Introduction While employees often voluntarily leave positions due to factors outside of an organization’s control, high employee turnover may signal dysfunction within an organization deserving of redress. Previous research shows that academic librarians are driven to undertake the arduous process of seeking other positions due to a combination of factors related to their work environment, compensation and benefits, job duties, and personal commitments (Heady et al., 2020). Negative effects of turnover on an organization include the time and costs associated with hiring and training new employees along with potential problems associated with redistributing the extra work while positions remain unfilled. In the fall of 2018, we surveyed 275 academic librarians from the United States to investigate the primary reasons for turnover (Heady et al., 2020). Using a mixed methods approach, primary data analysis focused both on quantitative statistical analyses of survey responses and qualitative coding of narrative data. Quantitative results indicated that low morale and dissatisfaction with library leadership and direct supervisors were top factors leading academic librarians to resign.The survey also included four open-​ended questions that invited participants to describe additional factors related to work environment, job duties, compensation and benefits, and personal factors that influenced their decisions to leave. Qualitative results indicated the additional factors of bullying, neglect, unfair treatment, and other dysfunctional behaviors by coworkers, supervisors, and library administration as reasons leading to librarian resignation. This chapter reviews literature on dysfunctional work environments in U.S. academic libraries and draws from the responses collected in our open-​ended survey that report dysfunctional behaviors or signs of toxic workplace culture. Using overarching themes among the responses as evidence, the chapter argues that DOI: 10.4324/9781003159155-2

52  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

the most salient reasons for academic librarian turnover are symptoms of larger, systemic dysfunction at the organizational level within the workplace, often tracing back to problems with library leadership. The chapter concludes with several recommendations for library administrators toward reducing turnover and promoting employee retention.

Dysfunctional and toxic work environments Most individuals have an intuitive sense of what a toxic or dysfunctional workplace is, and these terms are often used interchangeably by employees when describing poor work environments. However, there is a distinction in the literature between what constitutes a “dysfunctional” environment versus a “toxic” one. Dysfunctional work environments tend to be defined in terms of factors that impact employee and workplace efficacy. For example, Van Fleet and Griffin (2006) define a dysfunctional organization as “one that constrains or limits individual-​and group-​level capabilities and/​or that actually encourages and rewards mediocre individual-​and group-​level performance” (p. 699). According to Robinson (2008), indirect factors that create dysfunctional work environments are organizational mismanagement of resources, high levels of employee withdrawal and absenteeism, and generally counterproductive behaviors. Although none of these factors are directed at individuals, the behaviors can still be harmful to workers. Toxic work environments refer to factors within the workplace that cause significant harm to individuals and the organization.Walton (2008) defines a toxic organization as one where “behaviors which poison, are disruptive, destructive, exploitive, and abusive are pervasive and tolerated” (p. 9). Meanwhile, Shain (2009) describes such an environment as “one in which there is a (usually) persistent and repetitious pattern of abuse, harassment, or discrimination over time that is ignored, allowed to exist and/​or supported by the employer and no adequate steps are taken to correct the situation” (pp. 45–​46). Toxic environment research focuses on the micro-​level, personal impact that being exposed to dysfunctional workplace behaviors has on employees’ mental and emotional well-​being. Toxic workplaces cause emotional pain, a type of individual-​level discomfort that can be predicted by a variety of stressors such as high workload and burnout (Frost, 2003). In Frost’s study, the effort employees exerted to manage not only the stressors but also the stress-​induced emotions significantly harmed their well-​being and created a broad sense of toxicity within their workplace. While some stressors are necessary and present in every organization (e.g., deadlines and performance reviews), they do not always lead to workplace toxicity or dysfunctionality. Persistent exposure to stressors, however, creates both toxicity and organizational dysfunction; the longer employees are exposed to stressors, the more likely they are to perceive that environment in a negative or toxic way (McCulloch, 2016).The extent to which individuals perceive their workplace as dysfunctional or toxic depends on a variety of organizational and personal characteristics. In either case, perceptions of negative environments erode the willingness of an individual to stay within an organization.

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  53

Much of the scholarly literature about dysfunctional workplaces centers around measuring individual employee behaviors and actions, such as incivility, absenteeism, theft, aggression, workplace bullying, and poor communication (Robinson, 2008). According to Robinson, these dysfunctional behaviors are caused by both individual antecedents related to employee personalities and attitudes as well as contextual antecedents such as poor management or experiencing or witnessing workplace injustices. These factors also interact with organizational culture as shown by examining the relationship between larger organizational culture and individual dysfunctional behaviors.Van Fleet and Griffin (2006), for instance, argue that an organization’s culture can promote dysfunctional individual behavior by creating social conditions that allow it to occur. This argument is furthered by MacKenzie et al. (2011): “Individual behavior is reflective of organizational cues and the behavior of other colleagues and supervisors” (p. 352). Indeed, several factors contribute to an organization’s culture, including its age and history, shared values and beliefs, symbols and rituals, incentive and reward systems, and organizational structure (Masland, 1985; Trice & Beyer, 1993). As employees continue working within a dysfunctional culture, they become more immersed in it and begin behaving congruently with dysfunctional norms and leadership. In fact, leadership is one of the most influential organizational factors that influences culture and dysfunction (Van Fleet & Griffin, 2006). In focusing specifically on incivility, Henry et al. (2017) question whether it is inherent to the library workplace, perhaps as a byproduct of the “pressure put on libraries, and therefore librarians, to work within limited budgets, cover numerous job responsibilities, and constantly work towards proving the overall value of … libraries” (p. 129). Questioning whether a dysfunctional behavior is inherent to the library workplace places the focus on systemic library dysfunction over the behavior of individual employees. While little research has been done on library dysfunction at the organizational level, Acadia (2020) describes system-​wide library dysfunction as a consequence of trap-​gaps where a library gets stuck in outmoded workflows and routines and does not have the knowledge, competency, or strategy to move itself forward. These more recent trends in the literature seem to argue for a reconsideration of previous employee-​centered accounts of library dysfunction, instead shifting to examination of organizational and contextual-​dependent explanations. Regarding turnover, few studies link employee turnover to general organizational dysfunction. However, several studies do link employee turnover to individual experiences of specific dysfunctional behaviors, such as bullying and unfairness (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979; Houshmand et al., 2012). Other studies connect dysfunctional outcomes such as low morale and burnout to increased turnover or intention to quit (Jayaratne & Chess, 1984; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002). Several of these dysfunctional factors and behaviors appear repeatedly in the narrative responses of our survey on academic librarian turnover in which dozens of academic librarians indicated that bullying, inequitable treatment, low morale, and burnout played a critical role in their decision to leave previous library positions. The following

54  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

sections weave research and narrative survey responses from academic librarians to further examine the nature of these factors and behaviors and their contribution to dysfunction within libraries.

Workplace bullying One of the hallmarks of a dysfunctional organizational culture is the presence of workplace bullying. The Workplace Bullying Institute (2022) defines workplace bullying as, “repeated, health-​harming mistreatment by one or more employees of an employee” (para. 1). Obvious bullying behaviors like name-​calling and insults happen in the workplace, but often this bullying takes on more subtle forms such as intentionally preventing access to opportunities, withholding information, setting impossible deadlines, removal from responsibility, and setting up someone to fail (Rayner & Heol, 1997). Freedman and Vreven’s (2016) study of bullying and incivility affirms that bullying is a common occurrence in academic libraries by finding several factors that predict increased exposure to bullying, including being a nonwhite ethnic minority and holding a non-​leadership role. The most common types of bullying reported by those authors were “withholding of information,” “being ignored or excluded,” and “having your opinions and views ignored” (p. 740). Incivility is a term sometimes used interchangeably with bullying, but incivility is generally less severe and encompasses behavior typically seen as rude or discourteous rather than harmful. Surveying library employees on incivility, Henry et al. (2018) found that experiencing bullying or witnessing it were common experiences in libraries of all types. Experiencing and witnessing bullying are harmful to employees’ mental health and may lead to higher employee turnover. Houshmand et al. (2012) observes that working in an environment with a high rate of bullying, whether one is the target of the bullying or not, increases employees’ intention to quit, while Deery et al. (2011) concludes that, among nurses, encountering harassment and aggression from coworkers increases job turnover intentions. These findings may have crossover implications for librarians who also work in a helping profession and are often on the receiving end of aggression from colleagues. Many of the narrative responses in our survey on academic librarian turnover describe experiences related to workplace bullying that influenced the decisions to leave their jobs. The bully in most of these situations was a colleague or supervisor. The bullying behaviors included harassment, isolation, work sabotage, and withholding information or professional opportunities. Typically, those who reported bullying indicated experiencing more than one form of this behavior. The experience of enduring multiple forms of bullying was captured well by this respondent: They bullied me at every opportunity. They stole ideas and efforts and claimed them as their own. Goals and objectives changed regularly to ensure I never realized success. I was set up to fail so often I started keeping minutes

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  55

of every conversation and email. It was exhausting.The only thing that would have allowed me to stay there was their departure. The emotional impact of bullying was mentioned by several respondents with many describing increased fear, anxiety, depression, and exhaustion. Another respondent wrote that “the long-​term effects of my previous position linger almost 3 years later. I still have moments where I’m worried about making a mistake that will destroy the support and respect I’ve earned here.” This same person also mentioned fear of running into their bully in professional non-​workplace settings (e.g., conferences) even after leaving their position. The long-​term emotional impact of experiencing workplace bullying can lead to avoidant behavior, decreased professional performance, and leaving the profession altogether. One respondent admitted job departure after experiencing repeated verbal abuse that led to hiding under a desk: “I felt extremely burned out, and seriously questioned whether I wanted to remain in the field.” The potential for workplace bullying to cause librarians to leave the profession entirely was expressed by several respondents. Librarians viewed unchecked bullying as a problem for all employees—​not just supervisors—​to address. Respondents frequently mentioned that the experience of being bullied was made worse by the inaction of witnesses, that is, colleagues and library administrators. As one respondent wrote: “I would have stayed at my prior job had my bully been held accountable for their actions. My supervisor agreed I was being bullied, but the bullying was permitted to continue.” Several times throughout the responses, former employees described dysfunctional situations in which bullying was ignored or allowed to continue without repercussions, leading employees to feel helpless, isolated, and undervalued. In a healthy organization, types of acceptable behavior are clear, and these norms are enforced by those in leadership positions. However, when leadership fails to act on inappropriate behavior, many employees may feel there is no alternative but to leave.

Inequitable treatment Another indication of dysfunction in an organization is disparity between how individuals are treated. In organizations where employees feel they are treated unfairly, the risk of dysfunctional behaviors increases, including resistance, workplace deviance, aggression, and retaliation efforts such as sabotage and theft (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). According to Howard and Cordes (2010), when an employee perceives injustice in the workplace, there is an increase in employees’ emotional withdrawal, exhaustion, absenteeism, and self-​medication with alcohol. Unsurprisingly, how an employee feels they are treated, particularly in comparison with others, also directly affects employee turnover. In fact, perceptions of fairness in the workplace tend to have a higher impact on employee turnover than do those of job satisfaction (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979). Unsurprisingly, our study also found that factors related to organizational justice were frequently cited as reasons employees left their previous positions. Among individuals who cited inequitable treatment as a reason for quitting, nepotism,

56  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

favoritism, and inequitable systems for determining raises were the primary complaints. On the topic of preferential treatment, one respondent wrote that “[there was] the appearance of favoritism … Certain individuals would be given opportunities if they were closer to individuals in library administration than others.” This favoritism led to decreased morale in the library as relations devolved into an “us versus them” environment—​those perceived as being favored by administration and those feeling left out of the inner circle. In another respondent’s experience, a newly appointed library dean demoted several members of the administration and promoted close friends into those roles, including one person who had never worked in a library before. The result was decreased morale and resentment as one respondent described: “The associate deans were not able to handle the demands of the positions and created a lot of frustration for subordinates as they tried to micromanage details of jobs they had never done and knew nothing about.” Other librarians reported favoritism among departments, such as administration favoring public services over technical services and favored departments receiving privileges such as better technology and private offices as opposed to cubicles. Equitable distribution of raises was another frequent concern. One respondent described a system in which “raises larger than dictated by the university’s rules could be given at the discretion of the library director, who did not have an equitable or distinct way of deciding who received the extra funds.” In some cases, the level of unfairness was so great that it led to the allegations of administrative corruption (e.g., the redirection of staff travel funds for personal travel use). According to our study, librarians with faculty status were less likely to leave their positions than those in non-​faculty positions. Many librarians described their frustration over the divisions that arise when some have faculty status and others do not. According to one librarian, “there was little to no contact between the two groups. We worked on different floors, were represented by different unions, and effectively belonged to different castes. It contributed to my sense of broad dysfunction.” Some described pretension and belittlement among the academic librarians aimed at paraprofessional staff with library administration doing little to curb the behavior. At institutions where faculty and non-​faculty statuses exist for librarians, there was evidence of lower job satisfaction and morale among librarians without faculty status. One librarian described the results of this inequitable setup: There were several full-​time, non-​tenure track librarians who did equivalent work to full-​time tenure track librarians but were not treated as equals. The non-​tenure track librarians were constantly left out of meetings and expected to take on more tasks with no compensation. This decreased morale and library staff also saw the difference in treatment, lowering their morale as well. The faculty culture was toxic. Other comments pointed to academic librarians’ position in the academy. Several librarians described frustration over being considered faculty, but not “true” faculty in the eyes of their institution, pointing specifically to lower pay and lack of respect

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  57

as areas of dissatisfaction. An organizational hierarchy such as this where staff receive inequitable treatment based on their status can create dysfunction, yet this type of structure is common in academic libraries and may be a root source of dysfunction in academic libraries. While inequitable treatment may appear to be the result of random bad luck with a supervisor or organization, many academic librarians with minority statuses experience inequitable treatment through microaggressions, “chilly work environments,” isolation, and institutionalized discrimination (Alabi, 2015; Damasco & Hodges, 2012). Cortina et al. (2013) describe selective incivility, where employees with minority status are more likely to experience rudeness or disrespect than non-​ minority employees. In Cortina et al.’s research, this covert dysfunction predicted turnover intentions of employees on the receiving end of this discourteous—​and, at times, abusive—​behavior. In our survey narratives, several academic librarians reported facing discrimination and harassment based on race, gender, (dis)ability, religion, and other statuses. Experiences described included sexual harassment, the use of racial slurs, and receiving lower salary than counterparts at work. One librarian reported that an influential alumnus tried to get them fired because of their religious affiliation. On top of navigating a hostile work environment, the emotional labor of being one of the few people on whom students from similar backgrounds can rely for both mentorship and venting about mistreatment led some survey respondents to describe exhaustion and burnout. One librarian wrote: It was a painfully toxic work environment for me. I was tired of being humiliated and treated like a second-​class citizen, while my colleagues silently watched the abuse and tried to convince me to ignore it. People were very focused on convincing me that the abuse and mistreatment I experienced were somehow my fault and that gaslighting was horrible for my mental health. At a certain point, you realize that no job is worth having your dignity assaulted on a daily basis.You pay an extreme physical and mental toll when you work in toxic environments. Other academic librarians expressed frustration with the approach academic libraries take to diversity, specifically an overreliance on diversity programs, scholarships, and residencies that perpetuate second-​class citizen status. As one librarian wrote: “We basically want pictures of underrepresented librarians to use in brochures in order to appear inclusive, long after people flee their library or the profession due to unhealthy organizations.” This librarian stressed the need to focus on making lasting structural changes to improve the “health of the environments where we are sending our underrepresented librarians.”

Morale Kendrick’s (2017; 2020) research in both public and academic libraries finds that the (in)actions of supervisors greatly impact morale. Low morale is a continuum of

58  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

negative emotions or dissatisfactions that employees harbor against their work or workplace, resulting in severe and long-​lasting affective and physiological outcomes that manifest among academic librarians as “fear, apathy, anxiety, and confusion [as well as] increased introversion, self-​censorship, and reduced professional confidence” (Kendrick, 2017, p. 875). Low morale suggests dysfunction within an organization, oftentimes the product of prolonged exposure to some combination of factors just mentioned. Rather than seeing morale through an individual lens, librarians in our survey indicated that low morale was a larger experience felt throughout an organization, often due to the actions of library administration or supervisors. Librarians expressed that their reasons for leaving low-​morale environments were in response to workplaces that were toxic, dysfunctional, and divisive. Positive effects of library leadership on morale are seen when a leader introduces change by adequately preparing personnel, involving them in decision making, and adding reasonable and transparent accountability measures. When defective leadership was present, however, survey respondents indicated that morale often suffered. One librarian connected decreased morale to a new leader’s actions: A new director of the library started and changed many things that negatively affected morale, such as taking away travel funding for conferences, micromanaging (requiring weekly reports of daily activities), disallowing comp time for weekend reference shifts, among other things. Other respondents also linked lower morale with removing opportunities or incentives to pursue professional development. In at least one instance, a respondent indicated that the loss of a supervisor who effectively buffered a department from pervasive toxicity led to the loss of additional librarians after a new supervisor further reduced department morale: The primary motivator for leaving my former position was the extraordinarily toxic work environment. The broader library space had been toxic, but my initial boss had protected me and our department from much of that dysfunction. The boss who took over brought his own form of toxicity that further demoralized my colleagues and fundamentally altered the department’s culture. While initially the job’s culture was one of independent direction in each professional’s work toward a collaboratively set goal, the new boss instituted expectations that were dictated by his ill-​defined and often contradictory goals with a high level of micro-​management that denied professional agency and implicitly told professionals they were not qualified to do the work. Actions such as questioning professionalism or infantilizing and over-​managing librarians indicate leadership issues within an organization. Tension and lack of support from supervisors or administrators also extended beyond individual employees to negatively impact the entire organization. One

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  59

respondent indicated this tension influenced the decision to leave a position by stating that “the library dean had a strained relationship with the department, with an associated impact on our department’s collective morale.” Another respondent described how an administration’s preferential hiring practices alienated staff: I was told by other librarians that the administration had a history of never hiring internal candidates, which led to poor morale among the paraprofessional and contract staff, most of whom had [Master of Library and Information Science (MLS or MLIS)] degrees and were qualified for the faculty positions as they opened up. These actions damaged morale and ultimately drove away librarians who were invested in the institution. Beyond the library system, campus administration contributed to low morale of librarians. Poor relationships between faculty and administrators at the provost or trustee level—​manifesting as library budget cuts, failure to replace library positions, or disdain for the purpose of the library within the institution—​contributed to a sense of low morale that extended to the entire campus or system.

Burnout Recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an occupational phenomenon, burnout is associated with low energy or exhaustion, detachment from work or negative and cynical feelings toward work, and lowered work effectiveness (Maslach & Leiter, 2016; WHO, 2019). According to McCormack and Cotter (2013),“burnout is generally a consequence of a dysfunctional relationship between two parties—​the individual and the workplace” (p. 153). Thus, burnout can be viewed as a breakdown of an individual’s coping mechanisms developed in response to work conditions, affecting both the individual and the workplace. Employee burnout may be a symptom of organizational dysfunction. Although burnout is a manifestation of the experiences of an individual rather than of an organization, the effects of unmanaged work stress on individuals can spread to others and, thus, contribute to ongoing organizational dysfunction. Missed workdays, job apathy, and decreased employee effectiveness negatively influence a workplace. Findings from a survey of academic librarians and other professionals in 2018 using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory indicated that, in comparison to several other professions, academic librarians experienced burnout at significantly higher rates, and while nearly 50% of academic librarians felt burnout, it was not evenly distributed among all demographics: “women and non-​binary/​third gender individuals are experiencing burnout at noticeably higher scores than their male counterparts” (Wood et al., 2020, p. 9). These inequities associated with librarian burnout may contribute to higher turnover rates within libraries. Current and previous research notes the negative effects of redistributing job duties, often without additional compensation, when librarians retire or

60  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

otherwise leave their positions (Heady et al., 2020; Kennedy & Garewal, 2020). In our survey, respondents repeatedly indicated that the common practice of overloading the job duties of remaining librarians contributed to their decision to leave a job. After leaving positions due to work overload, some respondents said they felt validated seeing their previous job duties split into two or more positions. Several others mentioned being overworked without additional pay, implying that they may have been more satisfied with their workloads if they were paid more. At least one respondent questioned whether the nominal pay bump for earning tenure was worth the work required for that achievement. Low or no funding for professional development was also mentioned several times in conjunction with taking on new duties, suggesting that when work is redistributed, lack of training for that new work also contributes to feelings of being overwhelmed. The public-​ servant nature of librarianship further complicates the issue of librarian burnout, as the instinct to help others is shown to place additional invisible strain on librarians already facing many demands (Heady et al., 2020). Respondents frequently expressed that the inclination to respond to all requests equally, develop and support initiatives relevant to their stakeholders, and meet all expectations placed on them created a sense of task overload and role ambiguity. One librarian noted that sometimes even successful initiatives set librarians up for burnout because workloads are rarely reconfigured: I was expected to teach the multimedia classes AND be a collections and teaching librarian to up to 4 departments. It was too much, especially as the multimedia business was booming. The only way I would have stayed would have been if I could have relinquished some of my collecting or teaching, and there wasn’t an avenue to do that. Meeting the needs of the ever-​changing higher education environment is important for remaining relevant, but so is ensuring that employees have the time and support to be successful at their jobs. The exhaustion attributed to trying—​and failing—​to “do it all” is a key signal of burnout. One respondent described what this never-​ ending struggle looked like in a two-​person library: Because my list of duties was so overwhelming, I consistently left work exhausted. I worked at a very busy but small campus library … Because there were only two of us, my desk was the reference desk, despite having an office, and all items on my ever-​g rowing to-​do list had to be completed there. Library supervisors and administrators play a role in managing the energy, connection, and effectiveness of their librarians.The likelihood of burnout increases when management adds tasks or defunds initiatives but then passes that work on to librarians without providing sufficient training or revising their existing workload. One respondent admitted that the combination of inadequate resources and

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  61

reprioritization was internalized by those who had to turn down patron requests for assistance: When everything is a “yes” and yet there are budget cuts, and projects aren’t re-​evaluated to understand how the same work can be accomplished with fewer people (it usually can’t), then the front-​line staff really suffer. They feel responsible for not getting things done, and for being the face of the deficit having to say no to faculty or students, or just failing to get something done because there was too much on their plate. Those in positions to allocate funds, prioritize tasks, or direct librarians are responsible for recognizing and addressing burnout within their organizations. Failure to reasonably do so harms the welfare of a library and its workers.

Leadership On leadership, research tends to look for general characteristics that toxic or dysfunctional leaders exhibit in a variety of occupations. Although there is some overlap, toxic leaders approach leadership in destructive, deliberately harmful, or unethical ways, while dysfunctional leaders demonstrate incompetence, apathy, or ineffectiveness. Both toxic and dysfunctional leaders may marginalize and disrespect employees, as well as withhold important information from them and create unnecessary barriers that prevent them from effectively doing their jobs or maintaining a proper work-​life balance (Appelbaum & Roy-​Girard, 2007; Pelletier, 2010). Leaders have significant influence over workplace culture because they “set the tone of the organization, define its values and norms, and create and maintain a persona of what the organization is like” (Van Fleet & Griffin, 2006, p. 704). Many of the narrative responses to our survey identified toxic and dysfunctional leadership as a major reason for leaving their jobs, yet research into these forms of leadership within academic libraries is thin. Ortega (2019) identifies five general types of toxic leaders: (1) abusive supervisors, (2) negligent/​laissez-​faire leaders, (3) authoritarian style leaders, (4) toxic leadership related to institutional culture, and (5) leadership by someone perceived to be mentally ill. In Ortega’s study, close to 500 academic librarians were surveyed and about 65% of them claimed to have experience with a toxic library leader. The most frequently cited negative characteristics of these leaders included abusive supervision, micromanagement, insecurity, and lack of innovation. Indeed, dysfunctional leadership comes in many forms, from weak and ineffective to overbearing and harmful. Often, high levels of dysfunctional behavior exist within an organization because leadership allows, ignores, or in some cases even instigates the behavior. Additionally, research shows that there is a strong link between sustained dysfunctional leadership behaviors and negative outcomes (e.g., emotional harm and psychological distress) that create chronic workplace problems (Webster et al., 2016). Given how influential leadership is on setting the tone of workplace culture, those who experience toxic

62  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

leadership face decreased job satisfaction and organizational commitment, both of which have been linked to employee turnover (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013). One of the largest criticisms of library leadership in our survey was disagreement over the strategic direction or creative vision for the library. One respondent said that “the primary motivation [for me to leave] was a deep dissatisfaction with library leadership at the strategic level.” While many disagreements over strategic vision may boil down to differing opinions, at least one respondent reported encountering a library dean who failed to consult the library staff while developing the library’s mission and vision statements. In other cases, library leadership had a specific vision for a position or department that was not shared by the employee in that position or department. For example, one respondent reported leaving their position after leadership tasked them with creating a revenue-​generating program even though the employee felt there was no audience for it. Another librarian wrote: “I did not agree with their approach to public services at our library. I felt that the progress of our program was being undermined from the top, and it was starting to damage the reputation of our program on campus.” Library leadership suppressing new ideas and blocking attempts at improving the libraries they lead was a common theme among respondents’ narratives and a major contributor to turnover. Leaders that stifled creativity and innovation contributed to feelings of frustration and stagnation among competent employees. One respondent wrote that library leadership had a dated view of academic libraries and “actively thwarted attempts by very competent, enthusiastic librarians to evolve the library.” Other respondents reported that library leaders were unwilling to hear the opinions of long-​time library employees and even responded with hostility when presented with alternative approaches, saying, in one case, that “[the dean] acted threatened if anyone had their own ideas or different approaches to handling assignments.”While leaders must make decisions and set directions for their library and staff, an opaque or tyrannical leader-​employee dynamic impedes the overall success and mission of the library. Many of the narrative responses to our survey argued that a lot of library leaders are unsuitable for management roles, often pointing the finger at lack of professional training in management or a bad personality fit. As one respondent wrote: There are a lot of major problems with management in academic libraries. People get promoted into management usually by just having been there long enough or having spent enough years as a librarian that the only way they can get a higher-​paying job is to move up into management. Unfortunately, people who make really good librarians tend to make absolutely terrible managers and supervisors. Not only do they lack any training or preparation, but their personalities don’t fit the role. While librarians can gain training in management through courses offered in library and information science programs, workshops offered through the American Library Association and other professional organizations, and via formal Master of

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  63

Business Administration programs, many managers miss these opportunities. In one study, Rooney (2010) reveals that nearly 40% of library middle managers report having received no formal training in management outside of their library education. Further, receiving formal training may not be enough to overcome previously learned poor management habits. Several respondents in our survey made broad statements about the personalities of librarians not being a good fit for management, with one saying, “Overall, I think librarians are generally pretty bad managers … the personality of a good manager and a good librarian are a little different.”While these statements do overgeneralize an entire group, other respondents highlighted specific negative personality traits exhibited by individual library managers that contributed to their eventual job turnover. These personality traits included narcissism, over-​ competitiveness, and passive-​ aggressive behavior. Research demonstrates that poor or toxic leaders often have higher levels of “dark” personality traits such as narcissism and Machiavellianism (Volmer et al., 2016). Many librarians pointed to unpopular decisions made by library leaders that they felt demonstrated incompetence or lack of respect for workers. As one respondent reported, “administration decided that staff ’s annual performance scores needed to be lowered overall to combat years of grade inflation, which soured manager-​ employee relationships.” Another librarian reported having a library dean who “made decisions based on their likes and dislikes,” which alienated several units in the library. These decision-​making examples are considered toxic because they generate widespread frustration and negative emotions in employees (Maitlis & Ozcelik, 2004). One librarian wrote: Changes in the library … led to a hostile, secretive workplace. I was asked to evade answering questions and give no explanations to my staff for why things were done. Because of this, morale was very low and at least 50% turnover rate happened. Toxic decisions as demonstrated here increase the likelihood that employees will experience stress and anxiety, leading to counterproductive and dysfunctional behaviors such as withdrawal and interpersonal conflict. Left unchecked, pervasive stress and negative emotions become increasingly destructive to morale and may subsequently lead to turnover. Still, other librarians pointed to ineffective leaders who they believed failed in their leadership roles. Several described micromanagement from library leaders, creating anxiety and resentment and promoting a toxic environment wherein employees worked solely to appease their leader. Others indicated a lack of advocacy for specific departments, programs, or the library more generally, pointing to collections budgets that were cut every year or the loss of professional development and travel funding. Poor communication practices also came up repeatedly, such as withholding information or contributing to information silos among library units. Others mentioned classic toxic behaviors, including the deliberate withholding of resources, work sabotage, and unprofessional behavior.

64  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

Many of the dysfunctional behaviors leading to academic librarian turnover mentioned here (i.e., bullying, inequitable treatment, low morale, and burnout) all have the common denominator of being tolerated, allowed, ignored, supported, or perpetrated by library leadership. Managers and supervisors must reflect on how they are contributing to their organization’s dysfunction. Moreover, those who aspire to be in leadership positions should learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. Being a library leader is difficult and often humbling, and with this leadership comes responsibility to repair these issues to prevent losing valued workers.

Recommendations for addressing turnover Turnover to some degree is natural in any organization. Nonetheless, because high employee turnover leads to increased costs and decreased organizational effectiveness, customer satisfaction, organizational stability, and morale, academic libraries should be concerned with the turnover of their workers and explore methods that can reduce it (Abbasi & Hollman, 2000; Hancock et al., 2013; Kennedy & Garewal, 2020). Recruitment and retention recommendations at the individual level include support for mentoring opportunities, flexible working hours, and professional service and development opportunities (Heady et al., 2020). However, the factors contributing to turnover this chapter identifies are not solely individual problems but also are indicative of larger systemic ones. Policies and procedures must be implemented at the organizational and professional levels to begin diagnosing problems and implementing solutions. Respondents to our survey described workplace bullying within their library as causing fear, anxiety, depression, and exhaustion. Henry et al. (2017) found that high emotional intelligence (EI) can moderate bullying behavior. Using Goleman’s five elements of EI—​self-​awareness, self-​management, self-​motivation, empathy, and social skills—​Henry et al. illustrate how increased training can foster an individual’s understanding of their roles in and relationships with their workplace.These training sessions can cover topics such as “interpersonal skills, conflict resolution, and stress management” (Henry et al., 2017, p. 61). While training sessions and increasing individual EI is valuable, Henry et al. go on to say that more formal measures are necessary, using workplace bullying as an example: “Library administrators need to incorporate an anti-​bullying policy within a code of work ethics. The policy should clearly define unacceptable behavior as well as enforcement and intervention methods” (p. 61). Open discourse and accountability measures are among the first steps to addressing dysfunctional behaviors such as bullying. At the same time, leaders must remember that dysfunction has long-​term ramifications and that amending it is not instantaneous—​it takes time. Trust repair is essential to the process of healing perceived injustices. Barclay and Saldanha (2015) explore recovery from injustice events between coworkers and supervisors/​employees, proposing that leadership must address violations but also explore how the episode evolved. Over time, the parties involved “attempt to make sense of the violation, deal with their emotions and cognitions, and ultimately cope

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  65

with or develop a sense of resolution about the experience” (Barclay & Saldanha, 2015, p. 504). Those authors suggest that leaders encourage individuals to engage in sensemaking activities, either through talking with others or reflecting on their thoughts and feelings in writing over several days. Considering the perspectives of both parties, and examining how they experienced and processed the violation, is imperative for rebuilding working relationships. In cases where library administration loses the trust of their workers, apologies are necessary but demonstrated commitment to behavioral change is vital. As is often the case, actions speak louder than words. Gillespie and Dietz (2009) explore organizational failure through the lens of systems theory, concluding that failure or betrayal of trust at the administrative level, especially when habitual, impacts the “organization’s reputation for trustworthiness” (p. 130). When trust is broken, an apology without evidence of modifying the situation can reinforce distrust. Instead, those authors recommend actions that prevent future transgressions as “repeated and/​or enduring displays of such positive signals over time help restore employees’ confidence in the organization” (p. 134). Libraries can improve morale by enhancing their onboarding processes, encouraging organizational activities to build community, and providing frequent feedback. When new hires arrive at the library, they must be set up for success. A library-​wide program that includes logistical information, an orientation, and a prolonged socialization phase goes a long way toward making new employees feel welcomed and confident. The socialization phase should last up to a year “helping the new employee understand their role in the organization, sharing performance expectations, meeting coworkers in formal and informal meetings, and learning the organizational culture” (Corbin, 2020, p. 360). Supervisors should be a continued presence during this phase to “integrate [new employees] to their long-​ term contributions to the organization and the profession,” communicate their management style and performance expectations, and demonstrate their commitment to their employees (Loya & Sunday, 2010, p. 171). Regular feedback to employees is beneficial and favorably impacts morale as discovered by Kennedy and Garewal’s (2020) study: “academic librarians have higher workplace morale in the monthly or weekly feedback condition when compared to the once per year or twice per year feedback conditions” (p. 8). To keep feedback loops open, managers should give feedback more frequently than the annual evaluation cycle commonly used within higher education. Contentions in the workplace can arise from employee differences in age, professional status, and departmental affiliation. Results by Jennings and Tvaruzka (2013) reveal that 85% of their survey participants reported a drop in morale after just six months in their position, but a compliment or some recognition helped curb negative feelings. Opportunities for recognition not only increases individual morale but also conveys that administration respects their employees while communicating successes to other colleagues and departments that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. Another method to combat divisiveness is informal activities that promote team building. Christian (2015) encourages creating fun and varied

66  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

internal activities to keep the work and workplace interesting, while Jennings and Tvaruzka (2013) describe how external activities such as team sports and happy hours can increase positive relationships between colleagues. Also, according to Jennings and Tvaruzka, “incorporating fun activities and a sense of humor into the library can result in increased employee productivity, creativity, motivation, and satisfaction” (p. 199). Team building and inclusionary practices may alleviate library morale issues. Health organizations are beginning taking note of workplace burnout with WHO (2019) stating that they are “embark[ing] on the development of evidence-​ based guidelines on mental wellbeing in the workplace” (para. 7). In the meantime, libraries should promote and become dedicated to work-​life balance to prevent what Kennedy and Garewal (2020, p. 5) describe as duties spread, or the increase of responsibilities. Work-​life balance may revitalize employees who are already burnt out and serve as a preventive measure at the same time. Supervisors and library administration should have regular conversations with employees to diagnose when burnout is developing and collaboratively strategize about possible remedies (Leiter & Maslach, 2005). One method includes adjusting employee workloads by assessing them for fairness and matching them to employees’ values. When individuals feel well-​matched to their tasks, they are more engaged with their work and the likelihood of burnout decreases (Harwell, 2013). Sustainable, well-​matched workloads also give employees opportunities to refine their skills and explore new areas of interest. As pervasive and serious as burnout is within librarianship, much existing literature places the onus of recovering from it on the individual rather than tracing the problems to their core. Keeping library employees engaged via training, innovation, and professional development should be a priority (Christian, 2015; Kennedy & Garewal, 2020). In addition, toward alleviating burnout, the creation of decision-​ making opportunities and exhibition of transparency are two ways to engender trust among and empower employees (Wood et al., 2020). Library leadership was the most pervasive concern throughout our participant responses, but this is not surprising. In short, “dictatorial—​or even worse, weak—​ leaders are a big problem” (Henry et al., 2017, p. 188). The intention here is not to be flippant; this statement acknowledges a very serious problem many libraries are facing. The extant literature and majority of comments from our study express that problematic leadership is either tyrannical or otherwise absent or ambivalent toward employees and their needs. Managers must understand how their own behavior influences the emotions of their employees and the overall health of the organization (Levine, 2010). Democratizing management training opportunities based on best practices is a step toward the formalization of librarian leadership qualifications and professional library associations must rethink barriers to leadership training programs. For example, the Association of Research Libraries (n.d.) created the Library Management Skills Institute but the cost to attend is prohibitive at $1,200 for a three-​day workshop that does not cover hotel accommodations, travel, or evening meals. Such high costs instead force many librarians to take advantage of free and

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  67

lower-​cost workshops and webinars that, while still valuable, may not be considered as prestigious as other opportunities. Ideally, leadership training should be available not only to those who are already in leadership positions, but also those interested in future leadership roles. Commonly, librarians are promoted to management positions due to situational circumstances or organizational need (e.g., turnover, retirements, etc.) rather than genuine interest, but preparing them for management roles nonetheless is imperative. Communication is key, and that is evident throughout the literature. Henry et al. (2017) conclude their book on dysfunctional libraries by stating that “dysfunction stems primarily from a lack of good communication” (p. 184). Several comments about leadership in our own survey traced back to a breakdown in communication. Good library leaders must clearly and consistently communicate information about change, library missions, librarian roles, community support, and advocacy endeavors. While hearing differing—​and sometimes directly opposing—​opinions may be difficult, leadership must foster spaces that encourage discussions that allow for critique and dissent (Albert, 2019). One pitfall of these forums is that they can create an illusion of shared governance in which meetings are held and discussions take place but the resulting changes or decisions that emerge may not be transparent or fully implemented. The goal of these meetings should be to establish positive feedback loops, and managers can use their employees as rapid resources for feedback to inform the next iteration of decisions then communicate important developments at consequent meetings with an emphasis on team contribution. Two final recommendations to combat library dysfunction and librarian turnover are to identify librarians who engage in transformational leadership behaviors, as well as develop training to teach existing and prospective library leaders how to use transformational leadership techniques. Transformational leadership centers on the importance of strong leader-​subordinate relationships, emphasizing individual employee needs, empowerment, and motivating employees to work together toward collective goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership emphasizes employee empowerment though effective communication. However, increased communication itself does not make this style of leadership effective; instead, it is the type of communication that matters. Because transformational leaders embody a strong sense of purpose, their communication style involves motivating employees through inspirational vision and high-​performance expectations. These leaders go further by incorporating empathy, compassion, and sensitivity into their communication with others. This form of leadership creates an emotional attachment between leaders and followers as the latter begin to feel valued and validated by the former. If employees feel as though their leader has a vested interest in their well-​ being, they are more likely to be satisfied with and committed to their jobs (Dvir et al., 2002). Fostering the transformational leadership style within libraries may be the key to improving overall communication between library employees and leadership. Many of the reasons for turnover (e.g., bullying, burnout, inequitable treatment, and low morale) could be prevented or more constructively handled if library leaders used more empathic and attentive communication.

68  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

Conclusion This chapter used existing published research along with individual survey narratives from a previous study of ours (Heady et al, 2020) to explore connections between librarian turnover and dysfunction within academic libraries. According to the study, and as articulated in this chapter, the overarching themes that consistently lead to librarian turnover and create library dysfunction are bullying, inequitable treatment, low morale, burnout, and poor leadership. The last of these appears to be at the core of most of dysfunctional issues, whether it is apathetic leadership, micromanagement, or unethical leader behavior. However, peer colleagues also play a major role in furthering the dysfunctional environment. Whereas leaders create a dysfunctional environment by their behaviors, employees can perpetuate it by mirroring the leader’s behaviors to fit within the dysfunctional culture. Aspects beyond the control of the leader or employees, such as declining budgets, impact the amount of dysfunction within libraries as well. Burnout and morale appear to be tied to poor treatment from leaders and colleagues as much as it is to work overload and lack of resources from budgetary or administrative issues. While various sources of dysfunction can be pinpointed and teased out, they also commingle to create a dynamic that requires multiple approaches to remediate. If these areas of dysfunction are not adequately addressed, the result, as many librarians espoused in our study, is increased turnover to escape an unhealthy workplace. Because destructive library leadership can harm both the academic library and its individual employees, the library profession must do better at creating and supporting healthy workplaces. Results from our survey as presented in this chapter may help libraries more successfully develop ways to retain librarians.

Acknowledgments Thank you to Allison Hosier, information literacy librarian at the University of Albany, for contributing to original survey development and previous analysis of survey narratives examined within this chapter.

References Abbasi, S. M., & Hollman, K. W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 333–​342. https://​doi.org/​frtb Acadia, S. (2020). The organizational trap-​gap framework: A conceptual view of library dysfunction. IFLA Journal, 46(1), 72–​87. https://​doi.org/​frtc Alabi, J. (2015). Racial microaggressions in academic libraries: Results of a survey of minority and non-​minority librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), 47–​53. https://​doi. org/​f6w​xn2 Albert, A. B. (2019, October 2–​4). Take the bull by the horns: Combatting bullshit in academic libraries [Conference poster]. Missouri Library Association Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, United States. https://​bit.ly/​3LYD​7YC

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  69

Appelbaum, S. H., & Roy-​ Girard, D. (2007). Toxins in the workplace: Affect [sic] on organizations and employees. Corporate Governance, 7(1), 17–​28. https://​doi.org/​fns​5rb Association of Research Libraries (ARL). (n.d.). ARL Leadership Fellows Program. https://​bit. ly/​3wTs​xN5 Barclay, L. J., & Saldanha, M. F. (2015). Recovering from organizational injustice: New directions in theory and research. In: R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 497–​522). Oxford University Press. https://​doi. org/​frtd Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates. Christian, L. A. (2015). A passion deficit: Occupational burnout and the new librarian: A recommendation report. Southeastern Librarian, 62(4), 2–​11. https://​bit.ly/​3wW1​52I Corbin, J. L. (2020). Turnover is coming: Strategies to prepare for impending retirements. Journal of Library Administration, 60(4), 354–​364. https://​doi.org/​frtf Cortina, L. M., Kabat-​Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579–​1605. https://​doi.org/​fvx​88q Damasco, I.T., & Hodges, D. (2012).Tenure and promotion experiences of academic librarians of color. College and Research Libraries, 73(3), 279–​301. https://​doi.org/​f3z​f98 Deery, S., Walsh, J., & Guest, D. (2011). Workplace aggression: The effects of harassment on job burnout and turnover intentions. Work, Employment, and Society, 25(4), 742–​759. https://​doi.org/​fxk​xb7 Dittrich, J. E., & Carrell, M. R. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee job satisfaction, and departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24(1), 29–​40. https://​doi.org/​bfg​jv8 Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field study. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–​744. https://​doi.org/​drtn Freedman, S., & Vreven, D. (2016).Workplace incivility and bullying in the library: Perception or reality? College and Research Libraries, 77(6), 727–​748. https://​doi.org/​f9g​n9f Frost, P. J. (2003). Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Harvard Business School Press. Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-​level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–​145. https://​doi.org/​b9f​z5n Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013). Meta-​analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of Management, 39(3), 573–​603. https://​doi.org/​bnn​7ff Harwell, K. (2013). Burnout and job engagement among business librarians. Library Leadership and Management, 27(1/​2), 1–​19. https://​bit.ly/​3PJ3​4yN Heady, C., Fyn,A. F., Foster Kaufman,A., Hosier,A., & Weber, M. (2020). Contributory factors to academic librarian turnover: A mixed methods study. Journal of Library Administration, 60(6), 579–​599. https://​doi.org/​frtg Henry, J., Eshleman, J., Croxton R., & Moniz, R. (2018). Incivility and dysfunction in the library workplace: Perceptions and feedback from the field. Journal of Library Administration, 58(2), 128–​152. https://​doi.org/​frth Henry, J., Eshleman, J., & Moniz, R. (2017). The dysfunctional library: Challenges and solutions to workplace relationships. American Library Association. Houshmand, M., O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S., & Wolff, A. (2012). Escaping bullying: The simultaneous impact of individual and unit-​level bullying on turnover intentions. Human Relations, 65(7), 901–​918. https://​doi.org/​frtj

70  Amanda Foster Kaufman et al.

Howard, L. W., & Cordes, C. L. (2010). Flight from unfairness: Effects of perceived injustice on emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 409–​428. https://​doi.org/​fdj​6vk Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. A. (1984). Job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover: A national study. Social Work, 29(5), 448–​453. https://​doi.org/​frtk Jennings, E., & Tvaruzka, K. (2013). Building staff morale and creating a positive workplace. In: K. Blessinger & P. Hrycaj (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries (pp. 189–​200). Chandos. Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser,V. J. (2002). Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave: A multilevel explanation. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 518–​542. https://​doi.org/​frtm Kendrick, K. D. (2017). The low morale experience of academic librarians: A phenomenological study. Journal of Library Administration, 57(8), 846–​878. https://​doi.org/​frtn Kendrick, K. D. (2020). The public librarian low-​morale experience: A qualitative study. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 15(2), 1–​ 32. https://​doi.org/​fxtt Kennedy, S. P., & Garewal, K. R. (2020). Quantitative analysis of workplace morale in academic librarians and the impact of direct supervisors on workplace morale. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 1–​11. https://​doi.org/​ghj​g38 Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2005). Banishing burnout: Six strategies for improving your relationship with work. Jossey-​Bass. Levine, E. L. (2010). Emotion and power (as social influence): Their impact on organizational citizenship and counterproductive individual and organizational behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 4–​17. https://​doi.org/​d8b​325 Loya, A. D., & Sunday, D. S. (2010). Trends in integration-​based orientation in academic libraries. In: E. Pankl, D. Theiss-​White, & M. C. Bushing (Eds.), Recruitment, development, and retention of information professionals: Trends in human resources and knowledge management (pp. 170–​178). IGI Global. https://​doi.org/​dw8​3t2 MacKenzie, C., Garavan, T. N., & Carbery, R. (2011). Understanding and preventing dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Conceptualizing the contribution of human resources development. Human Resource Development Review, 10(4), 346–​380. https://​doi. org/​gg3​zw9 Maitlis, S., & Ozcelik, H. (2004). Toxic decision processes: A study of emotion and organizational decision making. Organization Science, 15(4), 375–​393. https://​doi.org/​cmc​8xq Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–​111. https://​doi.org/​ f8t​wbg Masland, A. T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 157–​168. https://​doi.org/​frtp McCormack, N., & Cotter, C. (2013). Managing burnout in the workplace: A guide for information professionals. Chandos. McCulloch, A. (2016). Toxic work environments. [Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University]. https://​doi.org/​frtq Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. C. (2013). Consequence of toxic leadership on employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 8(2), 1–​23. Ortega, A. C. (2019). Academic libraries and toxic leadership. [Doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego]. https://​doi.org/​frtr Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373–​389. https://​doi.org/​fgq​4pt

The dysfunctional library and academic librarian turnover  71

Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 181–​191. https://​doi.org/​fwh​hgp Robinson, S. L. (2008). Dysfunctional workplace behavior. In: J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 141–​158). SAGE. https://​doi. org/​frts Rooney, M. P. (2010). The current state of middle management preparation, training, and development in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(5), 383–​ 393. https://​doi.org/​fm7​cgb Shain, M. (2009). Psychological safety at work: Emergence of a corporate and social agenda in Canada. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 11(3), 42–​48. https://​doi.org/​frtt Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–​443. https://​ doi.org/​cq9​gqv Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice-​Hall. Van Fleet, D. D., & Griffin, R. W. (2006). Dysfunctional organizational culture: The role of leadership in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 698–​708. https://​doi.org/​cwh​762 Volmer, J., Koch, I. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders’ dark triad traits: Effects on subordinates’ career success and well-​being. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 413–​418. https://​doi.org/​f84​b74 Walton, M. (2008). In consideration of a toxic workplace: A suitable place for treatment. In: A.  Kinder, R. Hughes, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Employee wellbeing support: A workplace resource (pp. 9–​24). Wiley. https://​doi.org/​b6f​zzn Webster, V., Brough, P., & Daly, K. (2016). Fight, flight, or freeze: Common responses for follower coping with toxic leadership. Stress and Health, 32(4), 346–​354. https://​doi.org/​ f9d​gv2 Wood, B. A., Guimaraes, A. B., Holm, C. E., Hayes, S. W., & Brooks, K. R. (2020). Academic librarian burnout: A survey using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). Journal of Library Administration, 60(5), 512–​531. https://​doi.org/​gg9​539 Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI). (2022). What is workplace bullying? https://​workpl​aceb​ ully​ing.org/​ World Health Organization (WHO). (2019, May 28). Burn-​out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases. https://​bit.ly/​3t3A​8HY

3 IMPROVING DYSFUNCTIONAL RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES BY HONORING THE WHOLE PERSON Erica Lopez

Introduction The broad spectrum of communities served by U.S. libraries include those who may experience language or literacy-​related barriers; economic distress; cultural or social isolation; physical or attitudinal barriers; racism; discrimination on the basis of appearance, ethnicity, immigrant status, religious background, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression; or barriers to equal education, employment, and housing. American Library Association, 2021b, para. 2 The American Library Association (ALA) (2021a) policy manual stresses the importance of increasing “awareness of and responsiveness to the diversity of the communities we serve” (para. 1). Librarianship, however, is not reflective of the communities it serves. Despite librarianship’s supposed commitment to diversity, a demographic survey of members belonging to the ALA (2017) reports a white majority of more than 86%. Furthermore, libraries tend to respond to the needs of their diverse communities with programming and services developed almost exclusively by the libraries themselves and in the absence of adequate representation from people who identify with the intended audience (Pugh & Doyle, 2019). Efforts to diversify the profession through recruitment and retention of students and librarians of color focus mostly on race and ethnicity while neglecting to consider other underrepresented and intersectional identities (Jaeger et al., 2010). Furthermore, academic librarianship has done very little to shift away from requiring its participants to conform to the ideals of an academe that was developed solely with non-​disabled, heterosexual, white male scholars in mind.The harms encountered by librarians who are forced to assimilate into the oppressive DOI: 10.4324/9781003159155-3

Honoring the whole person  73

system of librarianship in order to succeed are detailed in library and information sciences (LIS) literature: Librarians from marginalized groups experience racism, discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exploitation, tokenization, alienation, isolation, as well as minimization and undervaluation of their contributions, perspectives, and experiences (Brook et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2018; Hathcock, 2015; Hollich, 2020; Kattari et al., 2018; Kuecker, 2016; Riley-​Reid, 2017; Swanson et al., 2018; Thornton, 2001;Towers, 2019). Librarianship falls short in its efforts to diversify the profession because of its continued apprehension toward change, instead adhering to antiquated systems of recruitment, hiring, and retention. Diversity is a complex social construct of variables including race, ethnicity, social class, religion, national identity, gender, sexual identity, and more. How well diversity contributes to group function depends on how a group defines and values diversity. Ely and Thomas (2001), when studying the effects of different perspectives of diversity on group functioning in the workplace, were mindful that organizations benefit from the diversity of their workforce when the group adopts perspectives that value the contributions of the “whole person” (p. 254). A whole person approach appreciates humans as complex individuals that interact to form relationships with others and their environments. The approach also considers factors that may affect the formation of relationships between people and their environments (Jonas & Rosenbaum, 2021; Sleeth, 2006). An organization that values the whole person devotes time to a deliberate consideration of differing points of view through open conversations about how these perspectives may inform workplace practices and processes.This method requires a commitment to promoting and providing a secure environment in which all may express themselves freely, learn from one another, work together to surface biases that impede progress, and embrace and overcome the inevitable tensions that arise during difficult conversations. The benefits of this approach can only be realized if diversity of perspective is valued at all levels throughout an organization, from student workers to library staff to librarians to upper administration (Ely & Thomas, 2001). A whole person approach to workplace identity is congruent with librarianship’s espoused values of diversity, equity, and inclusion because it emphasizes the value of diverse perspectives informed by unique lived experiences. Because “no profession becomes and remains this homogenous by accident” (Morales et al., 2014, p. 443), it is long past time to critically examine practices that prevent librarianship from embodying a diverse, inclusive, and equitable profession through a whole person approach. This approach has been applied to a variety of disciplines and industries with positive results. In business, for instance, whole person principles are linked to lower rates of employee turnover and higher profit margins (Kleymann & Malloch, 2010). Whole person application as an intervention model for women dealing with gendered workplace issues result in higher feelings of self-​efficacy and empowerment (Giordano, 1995).Whole person approaches to integrative healthcare that considers human dimensions related to social, emotional, and spiritual needs demonstrate improved outcomes of patient satisfaction, patient health, reduced healthcare costs, and reduced care provider burnout (Jonas & Rosenbaum, 2021).The communication

74  Erica Lopez

of employee wellness plans that honor the whole person from recruitment to retirement is recommended by law enforcement agencies in order to maximize performance, mitigate the stress of the job, and prevent burnout (McDonough, 2011). In education, whole person methods are touted for developing empathic connections among learners, engaging diverse learner perspectives, fostering the will to learn by honoring the learner’s sense of identity, building trust between learners and their teachers, ameliorating psychological barriers to learning, and developing learner autonomy and self-​efficacy (Best, 2008; Podger et al., 2010;Yorks & Kasl, 2002). The whole person is not a new concept in librarianship as Zettervall and Nienow (2019), for instance, apply the approach to patron services to connect community members with vital social services. Regarding the academic librarian hiring process, the typical interview in the United States is similar to the usual format for academic faculty and stands to benefit from the whole person approach. Yet, while existing efforts to diversify the racial and ethnic composition of librarianship have made very little progress, “interrupting status quo procedures is a critical entry point for challenging the reproduction of inequity” (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017, p. 564). This chapter takes up Sensoy and DiAngelo’s call by (1) interrogating common recruitment and retention practices in academic libraries and (2) promoting change in these practices by considering the whole person.

Dysfunction in library recruitment Academic librarian interviews at U.S. institutions tend to range from one to three days and are financially, physically, and psychologically exhausting. Candidates and libraries invest significant time, money, and other resources preparing for and performing in interviews. In spite of the considerable resources that libraries devote to recruitment, evidence of dysfunction in the typical academic librarian interview abounds. For example, in terms of recruitment, dysfunction may begin when those in charge of hiring do not consider the strategic goals of their library before deciding to fill newly vacated positions (Buschman, 2017). The dysfunction continues when libraries neglect to carefully consider job duties in the crafting of position announcements (Lehner, 1997) that often list an unrealistic number of minimum requirements (Fietzer, 1993; Raschke, 2003). Additional criticisms of the interview process include uncertainty about libraries’ abilities to make objective decisions in selecting personnel (Lehner, 1997) and that recruiting, interviewing, and hiring librarians are expensive and altogether time-​consuming (Fietzer, 1993; Howze, 2008; Raschke, 2003).

Hiring for “fit” Best practices for hiring and recruiting librarians contradict one another when it comes to finding the right fit. While some authors suggest that a candidate’s fit within the library’s organizational culture is essential to a successful librarian search (Bugg, 2015; Eckard et al., 2014; Gaspar & Brown, 2015; Hodge & Spoor,

Honoring the whole person  75

2012; Wheeler et al., 2008), others contend that assessing candidates for cultural fit perpetuates the status quo and undermines diversity efforts (Brown et al., 2018; Cunningham et al., 2019; Farkas, 2015). Furthermore, promoting the idea of fit as a criterion may push applicants to behave inauthentically to do just that—​fit in, even if disingenuously (Florentine, 2017). Scholarship on hiring practices for academic faculty also describes cultural fit as problematic. The determination of fit rarely has anything to do with a candidate’s qualifications, skill, or how a candidate’s research and teaching interests and priorities align with institutional goals (White-​ Lewis, 2020). As there is no evaluative framework for assessing fit, determining it is a highly subjective decision about a candidate’s perceived compatibility with an institution based entirely on search committee members’ personal preferences and biases (Hodge & Spoor, 2012; Liera & Ching, 2019; Sagaria, 2002; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017; Tuitt et al., 2007; White-​Lewis, 2020). Another dysfunctional practice related to hiring for cultural fit is the tendency to write job descriptions that call for candidates with certain desirable personality traits, even when those personality traits have no obvious link to the responsibilities of the job. A 2019 analysis by Tokarz of academic librarian positions advertised on the ALA JobLIST website (https://​jobl​ist.ala.org/​) found that the majority of listed job postings wanted applicants with certain personality traits. Adjectives to describe personality traits are typically included in narrative job descriptions rather than as qualifications within job requisitions (Geckle & Nelson, 2017). Despite the fact that extraversion is only linked to job performance in positions that require interaction with others, extraversion traits are sometimes listed for positions that involve little to no interaction with the public. One exploratory study that surveyed nearly 325 public and academic librarians with hiring experience found that over 70% of respondents believed personality to be a very important factor in the selection of a successful entry-​level librarian, while about the same proportion felt institutional fit to be very important (Hodge & Spoor, 2012). Comparatively, only about half thought education was very important, while just over one-​fifth felt prior experience was very important. One critique of allowing perceived personality traits to influence hiring decisions is that libraries may pass over otherwise skilled candidates who possess the actual talent to perform the job (Geckle & Nelson, 2017). Much like with cultural fit, there is no way to objectively evaluate a candidate’s personality fit in a job interview. One way to reframe the idea of fit—​be it personality or cultural—​is to define the concrete values that help drive an organization’s mission and goals and determine how to assess candidates for those values rather than how they conform to an ambiguous and subjective conception of organizational culture (Florentine, 2017).

Assumed understanding of the recruitment process Successful first-​time applicants to library jobs usually possess at least an informal knowledge of the interview process (Reed et al., 2015), but hiring institutions may operate under the false assumption that applicants understand the intricacies of

76  Erica Lopez

how to navigate the typical librarian application and interview. Current practices in librarian recruitment privilege those with access to information about the interview process, whether through professional literature, personal experience, or secondhand knowledge. The abundance of LIS literature attempting to demystify the librarian job search suggests that employers do not typically supply all the information needed by candidates to successfully apply and interview for posted vacancies. Inexperienced job seekers who search these publications for insight will find articles that explain the roles of search committees, describe the application practices that do or do not work in an applicant’s favor, outline the distinctions between required and preferred qualifications, offer tips on navigating the in-​person interview, and provide suggestions for how to make sense of the subjective minimum requirements in job postings that are open for wide interpretation (Bridges, 2005; Cannady & Newton, 2010; Davis, 2015; Franks et al., 2017; Goldberg & Womack, 1999; Hodge & Spoor, 2012; Kenney, 2013; Womack, 1997). Even so, authors writing about librarian positions describe application processes as “difficult” (Cannady & Newton, 2010, p. 207), “discouraging” (Womack, 1997, p. 205), “confusing” (Davis, 2015, p. 136), “chaotic” (Kenney, 2013, para. 20), and “daunting” (Orbanus, 2007, p. 46). In existing literature, there are hardly any terms used to describe an equitable, inclusive, and accessible hiring and interview process. Recruitment practices that honor the whole person must be built upon the recognition that job seekers may be inexperienced and not have access to LIS literature that offers information and insight into the process. Search committees should not assume a shared understanding of the interview process or even the purpose and role of a search committee. Clear information regarding job descriptions, the roles of search committees and other groups involved in the interview process, what to expect from interviews and interview questions, and how candidates are evaluated should be as readily available as the job announcement itself.

Requisite experience Apparently, the best way to enter the library workforce as a new graduate is to have already participated in professional librarianship. Previous experience, committee work, conference attendance, publications, and proper timing all increase a recent graduate’s employability as a librarian (Eckard et al., 2014). At the very least, new library graduates should have completed a practicum while earning their degrees to compete in the job market (Eckard et al., 2014; Galvan, 2015). However, practicums are often unpaid; thus, only students who are already financially stable or who can assume debt are able to participate (Farkas, 2019a; Galvan, 2015). Landing the first full-​time librarian position can take many years (Burns, 2016) and frustrations experienced by recent graduates seeking to enter the workforce illustrate the harm of listing experience as a preferred qualification for entry-​level jobs. One frequent job seeking experience of new LIS graduates includes losing out on entry-​level positions to veteran librarians while settling for part-​time or clerical positions (Bruno, 2009). Libraries desiring to shift away from structures that promote inequity must

Honoring the whole person  77

contemplate issues of access and how these issues relate to acquiring job experience, education, and career development resources. As long as libraries continue to exploit unpaid labor in the form of internships during graduate LIS programs, and as long as professional experience is a preferred qualification for entry-​level positions, the professional workforce will continue to embody a privileged majority (Galvan, 2015). Improving interview processes with a whole person framework requires organizations to critically analyze four main areas, each discussed below: (1) job descriptions, (2) interview questions, (3) the interview schedule, and (4) evaluation measures.

Critical analysis of job descriptions Libraries often fail at posting job descriptions whose qualifications and requirements accurately reflect position duties and real needs of the organization (Howze, 2008; Lehner, 1997; Raschke, 2003). Studies of librarian job announcements demonstrate that listed job responsibilities as well as preferred skills and proficiencies have steadily increased for available librarian positions without proportional increases in pay (Meier, 2010; Osorio, 1999; Tang, 2013; Triumph & Beile, 2015). The position of the ALA (2012) is that librarians should be more motivated by the intrinsic societal good offered by their work than by compensation but paying people a less than reasonable salary for a job requiring an advanced degree and previous job experience contradicts a commitment to societal good. Libraries and the LIS profession must consider the privilege inherent in being able to accept a job for its righteousness despite its low pay. For libraries to depart from tendencies of setting unrealistic expectations in job announcements, they should consider greater flexibility in job requirements (Raschke, 2003), as well as the ways in which applicants are screened. Lo (2014) argues that by hiring based on a candidate’s past experience, libraries are not hiring for the future. A 2011 analysis of academic librarian job announcements revealed that nearly three-​fourths of the listed positions required or preferred previous experience (Triumph & Beile, 2015). In another study, only 20% of nearly 1,400 librarian job postings were listed as entry-​level; however, the majority of those entry-​level job ads also preferred years of experience or advanced knowledge, and only three of the 33 successful applicants for such positions had less than one year of relevant experience (Tewell, 2012). Positions are no longer entry-​ level if the only candidates being considered and hired are experienced librarians, and the salary ranges listed in the job ads should be adjusted accordingly. In addition, screening qualified applicants for entry-​level positions according to experience does not necessarily deliver better candidates and excludes from consideration recent graduates who may not have had the privilege to work in a library job while pursuing their education (Berry, 2008; Galvan, 2015; Raschke, 2003; Tewell, 2012). While in library school, students may have to choose between keeping an unrelated job in order to afford living expenses (e.g., rent, childcare, groceries, etc.) versus pursuing an unpaid or volunteer position in a library setting. Other students may

78  Erica Lopez

devote their free time to studying in order to perform well on coursework rather than gaining on-​the-​job experience. A search committee that honors the whole person recognizes that all entry-​level candidates have the potential for contributing valuable perspectives based on their own unique experiences, whether they have worked in libraries or not.

Critical analysis of the interview Interview questions Libraries advertising a willingness to hire applicants directly out of library school must consider the types of interview questions those candidates can answer reasonably and effectively. Search committees should not ask entry-​level candidates questions aimed at determining qualifications based on library experience because inexperienced candidates will not have the answers expected of experience-​ based questioning. Asking these questions of candidates who apply for entry-​level positions may promote deceptive image management on the part of the candidate (Levashina & Campion, 2007); that is, exaggerating past experience or inventing scenarios that never took place. In high-​stakes situations like job interviews, even the most scrupulous individuals may engage in what they perceive in the moment to be harmless but necessary deception in order to secure a job. For entry-​level positions, interview questions for the candidate might focus instead on the philosophies that drive their decision making, what they perceive to be their strengths, and how they hope to learn and grow from the position. When landing a job is preceded by misrepresentation during the interview stage, both the hired candidate and organization risk failing to live up to expectations. If a library worker achieves a position based on a counterfeit persona presented during the interview process, they may feel inauthentic when they arrive and be more likely to engage in dishonest behavior (Cable & Kay, 2012; Gino et al., 2010). Furthermore, although it may be common for job candidates to cater their image according to what they perceive to be congruent with a potential employer’s expectations, this practice leads to increased anxiety and diminished performance (Gino et al., 2020; Lenton et al., 2013). Empowering candidates to be themselves ensures that the person interviewed and to whom an offer is extended is the same one who arrives on the first day of the job. One way to relieve some interview pressure is to provide questions well in advance, especially for positions in which the ineffective pop-​quiz approach adds little to the assessment of a candidate’s suitability for the demands of the job. Providing a list of possible interview questions ahead of time offers candidates a better idea of the qualities for which an organization is looking and affords candidates time to reflect upon their whole self, allowing them to provide responses most illustrative of their past experiences, current abilities, and future goals. In addition, providing interview questions in advance allows candidates to formulate relevant questions of their own to ask during their interview or to clarify any points of confusion.

Honoring the whole person  79

Interview schedule In the same way that interviewers should consider the appropriateness of minimum requirements listed in job descriptions and the relevancy of interview questions, libraries must consider whether all the scheduled events during interview day(s) are necessary for assessing a candidate’s potential for success in the position. Maintaining the full one to three days of tightly scheduled interview activities typical of most academic librarian interviews in the United States requires that candidates have a great deal of time away from day-​to-​day responsibilities, implies that all scheduled interview activities are crucial to the successful selection of a candidate, and assumes that all candidates can easily and quickly transition between those activities. A case in point: One survey found that 72% of librarians who identified with a disability reported having an invisible one (Oud, 2018). To ease these candidates’ anxieties of transitioning from one activity to another, search committees could apply universal design principles to the librarian interview—​in the same way, for instance, that instruction librarians do as a means of optimizing instruction so that all learners may interact with resources without needing accommodations (Kattari et al., 2018); doing so may reveal glaring issues that require great shifts in practice in order to honor candidates as whole people. Other cases in point: A search committee might expect a candidate to prepare for their presentation during the 15-​minute break allotted to them after some other activity, but a new mother might choose instead to express breastmilk to avoid leaking through their clothing in front of an audience. A candidate suffering from chronic pain may need to sit, stretch, or lie down in order to refocus. Candidates who practice religious faith may choose to pray. Candidates with certain medical conditions may need to snack outside of scheduled mealtimes. Two pointed questions to consider in order to reduce indirect ableism and assumptions of how candidates will use their transition time between activities are: First, does the interview schedule reflect an appreciation for the fact that candidates are whole people, having lives outside of the job search that search committees know nothing about, and, second, has the search committee considered that successful candidates will continue to have lives outside of the job? Libraries must also consider the role that informal activities such as meals and tours play during the interview. While these activities are a standard way to welcome candidates, they should be offered without putting candidates in awkward positions to perform. Instead, libraries might provide URLs to virtual video tours and allow candidates to eat alone if desired. Informal activities that do not aid in candidate evaluation, too, might be eliminated. If the intensity of the interview schedule is meant to prove something about a candidate’s resiliency under pressure, a whole person approach demands a reexamination of such practices.Valuing resilience in librarianship requires librarians to adapt to exploitative environments that continually expect workers to “do more with less” and tend to place blame on employees rather than on institutions when workplace conditions become toxic or overwhelming (Berg et al., 2018; Farkas, 2017). A profession seeking to promote

80  Erica Lopez

diversity, equity, and inclusion fails to do so when it presents adversity to its own workforce as a fitness test.

Critical analysis of evaluation measures Popular suggestions for combatting unconscious biases in the selection process include anonymizing applications prior to evaluating them; asking appropriate interview questions; using standardized scoring rubrics that require evaluators to explain their ratings; incorporating outside members into search committees; and engaging in explicit conversations that uncover what organizations value around fit, including what it means for a candidate to be a good or bad fit and why (Cunningham et al., 2019; Farkas, 2019b; Leske & Pendleton, 2020; Nicklin & Roch, 2009; White-​Lewis, 2020).

Search committees Because libraries have not made substantial progress toward embodying a diverse workforce, the current systems in place to recruit are ineffective. For many institutions, recruitment begins and ends with the search committee. Examining the search committee to ensure that it accurately reflects the diversity toward which an organization strives is one way to promote a more inclusive process as diverse committees lead to more diverse applicant pools (Kazmi et al., 2022). The danger for libraries with limited diversity in their workforce is overtasking tokenized workers with committee duties at the expense of time that could be spent on other activities impactful for promotion, such as research and scholarship (Baez, 2000; Kazmi et al., 2022; Riley-​Reid, 2017; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). Libraries lacking a diverse workforce can include diverse committee members from outside of the organization when possible. In such cases, libraries must recognize the additional service burden taken on by these members and advocate for release time so that they may serve without becoming overtasked themselves (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). Another option is to move hiring outside of the library altogether. By using an outside third party well-​versed in anti-​bias recruitment, libraries save internal employees from search committee work, remove themselves from biased decision making, and practice articulating exactly what they are looking for well in advance of the interview stage.

Rubrics A disregard for validity is one of the major shortcomings of librarian selection practices easily mitigated with use of structured selection methods to guard against biased and discretionary decision making (Lehner, 1997). Using the same well-​ defined rubrics and rating scales for all candidates promotes fairness and transparency in the selection process and ensures that interviewers evaluate all candidates according to the same criteria (Cunningham et al., 2019).The use of rubrics, however,

Honoring the whole person  81

is not guaranteed to prevent biases and personal preferences from impacting candidate evaluations (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007; White-​Lewis, 2020). The effectiveness and reliability of a rubric is limited by its quality (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007) and constructing a quality rubric is cumbersome because it requires serious deliberation about what it means for candidates to satisfy job criteria at varying levels of performance (Brannon & Leuzinger, 2014). When used, rubrics must be fairly written and applied, ideally with a whole person approach. Open discussions must be had about how each member might describe varying levels of performance for each rubric criterion and then cross-​ examine their reasoning. During discussions about how a candidate does or does not meet or exceed expectations, committees should uncover any problematic ideas or biases that, left unchecked, might result in inequitable rating scales (Sagaria, 2002; White-​Lewis, 2020). All members of the search committee and others using rubrics to evaluate candidates must have a shared understanding of the criteria and how to use the scales (Brannon & Leuzinger, 2014; Jonsson & Svingby, 2007; White-​ Lewis, 2020). The thoughtful construction of a rubric necessitates challenging conversations and significant effort, but a good-​quality rubric promotes transparency, aids in fair and equitable assessment, and may even make it easier for evaluators to assess candidates (Brannon & Leuzinger, 2014). Supplying candidates in advance of the interview with the rubrics by which they will be evaluated has the added benefit of communicating additional insight about the goals and expectations of the position, leading to better quality interviews.

Letters of recommendation Job references are often a required component of a job application and are considered to be an important factor in a search committee’s final decision (Bridges, 2005). Two factors that impact the validity of job references include the similarity of a candidate’s previous job responsibilities to those of the new position and the amount of time a reference has observed a candidate’s behavior (Lehner, 1997). Job references may be more valuable and appropriate for positions requiring significant experience because longer-​term work relationships better speak to consistent behavior over time (Bai et al., 2020). People serving as job references may sometimes be asked to compose letters of recommendation, but these letters are problematic for reasons regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion as well as validity. The standard letter of recommendation for academic positions differs between world geographies both in the types of evidence presented to support candidates and in the style with which that evidence is presented, and evaluators may be biased toward the conventions in their own countries of origin (Bouton, 1995; Precht, 1998). One common letter-​writing practice in the United States that poses a compromise to validity is the deliberate inflation of a candidate’s positive characteristics in the effort to create a stand-​out recommendation. American search committees tend to look more favorably upon letters that make greater use of superlatives and less favorably on letters that lack hyperbole and, as such, the information

82  Erica Lopez

regarding a candidate’s skill and potential success in a position is eclipsed, allowing the recommender’s choice of adjectives to become the more relevant factor in decision making (Mason & Schroeder, 2014). Excessive praise in letter writing is not necessarily a norm in countries outside of the United States and this places candidates who choose letter writers from different academic cultures at a distinct disadvantage (Schneider, 2000). Well-​meaning letter writers who, perhaps in an effort to create a more believable or helpful letter, are frank and honest about a candidate’s potential areas for growth tend to create doubt among U.S. hirers about a candidate’s abilities (Schneider, 2000; Trix & Psenka, 2003). Also, American search committees view longer letters more favorably than shorter ones. Whatever the reason for a shorter letter, short letters tend to suggest an unwillingness on the part of the recommender to take the necessary time to compose a supportive letter and this may reflect poorly on candidates (Trix & Psenka, 2003). This practice poses additional issues related to culture, because letters written by Americans are, on average, typically longer than letters written by recommenders from other countries (Precht, 1998). In addition, gender and racial stereotyping and bias can affect both the language and the evaluation of letters of recommendation (Morgan et al., 2013), depending, in the case of gender, on whether the recommender or evaluator believes the job to be more suitable for those who exhibit traits that are stereotypically associated with men (masculine) or women (feminine) (Madera et al., 2019). Recommenders tend to write longer letters for men than for women and use different language to describe men and women (Madera et al., 2019; Trix & Psenka, 2003). References are more likely to include doubt-​ raising and negative language in letters for women than they are for men, leading to significantly lower evaluations for women candidates (Madera et al., 2019). Another flaw in using recommendation letters to evaluate candidates is that perceived strengths and deficiencies in letters of recommendation become part of the assessment for candidates rather than the letter writers (Trix & Psenka, 2003). Name recognition and the amount of prestige evaluators assign to the institutions and references where letters originate may impact the assessment of candidates, which puts those from underprivileged backgrounds with smaller networks and limited resources at a distinct disadvantage (Nicklin & Roch, 2009;Vaillancourt & Ersin, 2021). Requirements that letters of recommendation come from current or former employers also disadvantage applicants who lack previous relevant experience or who are looking to escape toxic work environments. Reducing ambiguity by providing structure and clear criteria letter writers should use to evaluate candidates is one way to combat the validity issues inherent in letters of recommendation (Liu et al., 2009; Madera et al., 2019; Morgan et al., 2013; Nicklin & Roch, 2008; 2009). Committees can also provide guidance for letter writers in advance regarding what their recommendation letter should address and how it will be used to evaluate the candidate. Any rubrics committees use to evaluate recommendation letters should include narrative sections where members provide explanations for their ratings. Providing the reasons for the scores in each category on a rubric may

Honoring the whole person  83

help to mitigate and minimize any irrelevant preferences and biases from impacting the assessment of the candidate (Liu et al., 2009; Madera et al., 2019; Morgan et al., 2013). For candidates who lack previous professional library experience, accepting letters of recommendation from community members or others who can speak to a candidate’s potential for success would help ensure that less privileged candidates are not excluded from consideration (Hathcock, 2015).

Retention of successful candidates Library organizations too often take for granted their responsibility to retain successful candidates (Strothmann & Ohler, 2011). While institutions of higher education purport a commitment to the recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce, very few provide retention incentives, demonstrate an attentiveness to fostering supportive environments for their employees, or assess existing efforts to retain librarians (Brown et al., 2018, Kuecker, 2016; Musser, 2001). While recruitment efforts such as writing and posting job descriptions, scheduling interviews, and selecting candidates may only occur periodically, retention requires a sustained commitment on the part of the organization beyond what is delivered by a search committee (Cruz, 2019; Musser, 2001). LIS scholarship suggests that low morale and burnout are long-​standing concerns to the profession and libraries could do more to provide support mechanisms for employees (Fisher, 1990; Harwell, 2013; Kendrick, 2017; Nelson, 1987; Sheesley, 2001; Smith & Nelson, 1983; Togia, 2005). Retention strategies should be communicated early in the interview process so that candidates may ask any clarifying questions about the resources that will be available to them. Current strategies for retaining a diverse LIS student body (e.g., financial support for career development, work-​life balance support, and mentor networks) are also useful for retaining a diverse LIS workforce (Kim & Sin, 2008). Investing in employees in ways that promote their success increases productivity, engagement, retention, and the attractiveness of the organization (Cunningham et al., 2019; Harwell, 2013; Raschke, 2003), and demonstrates that the organization values the success of its employees.

Demystifying and adjusting promotion and appraisal Hierarchical organization models inherent in libraries create environments wherein employees are subject to and dependent on the approval of superiors in order to succeed. A new or early career librarian’s position, for example, may include a precarious probationary status and placement in the organizational hierarchy that may be seen as inferior. Some librarians may need to request reasonable accommodations, even when facing challenges such as admitting the need for assistance, disclosing a disability, and describing the needed accommodations, and, especially in cases where a disability may be invisible, proving that the disability is real (Hollich, 2020). Regardless of the hierarchy and power dynamics at play, supervisors have a crucial responsibility to evaluate the whole of that employee’s contributions carefully, fairly,

84  Erica Lopez

and consistently. In addition, supervisors should provide access to regular feedback loops, mentors, and straightforward documentation of promotion policies and practices. Consistent communication of feedback and decision-​making processes signals respect and fosters the development of trust between employees and their supervisors (Whitener et al., 1998). Regular feedback also helps support interpersonal congruence, ensuring that employees’ and supervisors’ perceptions of job performance match one another’s (Polzer et al., 2002). An appreciation of the whole person is especially important given the natural human tendency toward negativity bias. Supervisors must communicate perceived performance deficiencies early and provide suggestions for success to employees, keeping in mind that negative or antagonistic feedback provides no framework for improvement, is counterproductive, and may impede an employee’s progress (Damasco & Hodges, 2012). Negative events demand more attention than positive ones, both in the appraisal of others and in terms of self-​preservation; it is for this reason across multiple languages that human beings are better equipped in terms of vocabulary to describe negative rather than positive events and impressions (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Negative stressors also stimulate stronger physiological responses than positive ones (i.e., fight, flight, and freeze), and humans tend to describe empathy as a response to negative circumstances rather than in celebration of the successes of others (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Plus, certain groups experience greater negativity bias than others (e.g., those who suffer from depression or anxiety and those who identify with marginalized or underrepresented groups) and may be more likely to attune to the negative aspects of a situation (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Negative self-​evaluation impacts the appraisal assigned by others (Keltner et al., 2003) and negative work experiences may be especially detrimental to those in less powerful positions within libraries because these workers likely have little agency to advocate for themselves and champion their own achievements. Librarians in these positions and who have these tendencies may make it easier for others to evaluate them in ways that both overlook the positive and emphasize the negative. Thus, in addition to providing documentation of the policies, processes, and practices that inform employee appraisal, supervisors should help employees navigate the appraisal process by offering sample goals and timelines for the promotion process as well as engaging in practices that combat negativity bias (e.g., regular celebration and documentation of employee accomplishments and contributions). Libraries should also address bias in performance appraisal policies and processes, particularly as it relates to professional service (Alabi, 2015). When it comes to appraisal, service is not as highly valued as teaching and research (Baez, 2000; Liera & Ching, 2019) and may go largely unacknowledged. While librarians may gain some personal fulfillment through service work, the undervaluation of service activities may lead to barriers in advancement, particularly for women and people of color who tend to take on more of the institutional housekeeping (Anantachai & Chesley, 2018; Baez, 2000; Bird et al., 2004; Foster et al., 2019). The labor of professional service is crucial to librarianship and should be valued as such but

Honoring the whole person  85

feeling undervalued contributes to low morale and burnout (Kendrick, 2017). The retention of librarians hinges on providing adequate credit and acknowledgement of their contributions, especially in performance appraisals (Kazmi et al., 2022), and this is where a whole person approach can shine because it assumes all employees are competent individuals who deserve respect and well-​being (Ely & Thomas, 2001).

Professional development support Communicating the amount of funds available to successful candidates for personal and professional development as well as the types of activities those funds can be used for allows candidates to strategically map and prioritize the opportunities they pursue in order to maximize the impact of their professional development throughout their careers. In order to distribute funds more equitably, libraries might also consider expanding the approved uses of professional development funding in ways that minimize obstacles to librarians with additional unique needs. Institutions that require involvement with national organizations should consider the barriers to participation that may exist for those with limited mobility and for those with dependent care responsibilities (e.g., convening in-​ person meetings without a virtual option). Library workers who feel compelled to participate face the usual costs of travel, hotel accommodation, and meals. Library workers who travel with additional people by necessity, such as caregivers or dependents, will incur additional costs that may not be reimbursed. One examination of library conferences found that 59% of national meetings and 80% of state meetings provided no information about resources available for caregivers on their websites, suggesting that unless the institutions for which they work offer support, caregivers are largely on their own tackling the costs and logistics for participating while ensuring dependents are safely looked after (Lopez et al., 2020). Library conferences only recently began addressing accessibility concerns that have limited and prevented attendance by participants with disabilities (Marlin, 2017). In addition to ensuring that their own workforce is adequately supported, institutions hosting conferences should prioritize accessibility in order to promote inclusivity in participation.

Work-​life balance Libraries should outline the ways in which their organizations and institutions support work-​life balance, especially relating to the integration of work and family life. For librarian mothers, the challenges of balancing career with home duties can affect job satisfaction and career advancement (Zemon & Bahr, 2005). A study on the job satisfaction of faculty-​status librarians found that female librarians struggle more with this balance than male librarians (Galbraith et al., 2016). However, male and female faculty both experience higher job satisfaction the more they perceive their institutions to value and promote work-​life balance (Hill et al., 2007). Overall, workers who perceive their institutions to be flexible and supportive of work-​life

86  Erica Lopez

integration exhibit higher job satisfaction and well-​being, especially those holding lower-​level positions (i.e., those who have the least access to work flexibility yet may need it the most) (Hill et al., 2001; McCoy et al., 2013). Support for work-​ life integration may include flexibility of work hours and mealtimes as well as compressed work weeks. Along with flexible work hours, telecommuting, virtual work, and work from home options should be made available as they promote work-​family balance and are more inclusive (Anantachai & Chesley, 2018; Gallin-​ Parisi, 2017; Hill et al., 2001). A whole person perspective recognizes the importance of work-​life balance.

Mentorship programs and community networks Libraries should make available information about any formal and informal mentoring programs for new hires, including whether the programs are voluntary or involuntary, and whether there are resources for matching with an appropriate mentor. In 2007, less than a quarter of academic librarians surveyed about their library’s retention strategies reported having access to formal mentoring programs, despite mentorship as a popular idea for retention in the LIS literature (Strothmann & Ohler, 2011). In a survey of academic librarians of color, informal mentoring was cited as a more effective type of professional development relative to others, including formal mentoring, funding for continuing education and development institutes, workshops, and support groups (Damasco & Hodges, 2012). For institutions that require librarians to engage in research and scholarship, one critical support that helps librarians conduct research includes the opportunity to engage in hands-​on collaborative research with experienced research mentors (Ackerman et al., 2018). Institutions can apply a whole person approach to mentorship by developing customizable programs that promote both personal and professional success (Colosimo et al., 2017). The lack of diversity in librarianship means that people with marginalized identities often find themselves in small numbers at their institutions, leading to discrimination, feelings of isolation, and both subtle and overt harassment by their peers and institutions (Alabi, 2015; Brown et al., 2018; Cruz, 2019; Hollich, 2020; Liera & Ching, 2019; Swanson et al., 2018; Thornton, 2001). Librarians may feel pressure to engage in image management such as “passing” or other identity negotiation tactics in order to survive in organizations where they feel underrepresented, unwelcome, and unsupported (Anantachai & Chesley, 2018; Brown et al., 2018; Hollich, 2020; Levashina & Campion, 2007; Swanson et al., 2018). Communities of color still struggle to gain access to the same level of support and resources so readily available to the dominant culture in both their personal lives and the work environment (Damasco & Hodges, 2012; Liera & Ching, 2019; Riley-​Reid, 2017; Swanson et al., 2018), and the tendencies in librarianship to underdeliver on its promises to create a more inclusive and equitable profession may exacerbate these issues. Encouraging and providing support to librarians to join networks available to them outside of the library promotes inclusivity may help to decrease feelings of

Honoring the whole person  87

isolation, and may foster the development of informal mentor-​mentee relationships (Alburo et al., 2020).

Library spaces User-​centered approaches to developing library amenities may sometimes neglect to consider library workers as users of library spaces and other resources. Some forward-​thinking U.S. academic libraries have created family-​friendly spaces to meet the needs of student parents on campus (Gammons & Corlett-​Rivera, 2020; Godfrey et al., 2017; Graff et al., 2019; Moore et al., 2020; Paustenbaugh & Belliston, 2018; Petit, 2014). Family-​friendly rooms and other spaces may also be applicable to needs of library workers and the needs of visiting candidates. For example, students who bring their children to campus are likely doing so because of an obstacle they are facing without the support they need to overcome it (Gammons & Corlett-​ Rivera, 2020) and job seekers may grapple with similar obstacles. Family-​friendly spaces in libraries can promote more productive learning environments for student caregivers and possibly some degree of emotional and economic security. These spaces also provide libraries the opportunity to communicate to all library users that the lived experiences of those with families and caregiving responsibilities are valued and that the success of students and staff with caregiving responsibilities is a priority. Communicating the existence of these spaces and making them available for candidate use during interviews illustrates an appreciation for the candidate as a whole person, not just a potential recruit.

Conclusion Librarians and library administrators must critically examine and adjust current recruitment and retention strategies or risk denying equal opportunity for all qualified prospects to participate fully in the application process. The academic librarian interview as currently constructed is not accessible to all. A whole person approach for reimagining the librarian interview requires organizations to engage in open discussions that identify the barriers and hardships presented by current recruitment practices. Participants in these discussions can share their own experiences with the interview process and examine how current interview formats prevent qualified and desirable candidates from being successful. A whole person approach appreciates that any known existing barriers to entering librarianship may be further complicated by factors such as race, gender identity, and socioeconomic class. Furthermore, the approach appreciates that people are more than just the sum of their parts, that the whole of a person includes the relationships they have with others and with their surroundings outside of the workplace. Retaining successful candidates may necessitate additional fundamental shifts in organizational culture. Reexamination and revision of existing practices through a whole person lens is a challenge—​though a necessary one—​for creating safe and welcoming interview environments as well as honoring diverse perspectives

88  Erica Lopez

in the library workplace. Ideally, this chapter would have suggested the complete deconstruction and rebuilding of the entire interview format altogether as it currently exists in the academy, but that—​at least at this stage—​is too unrealistic. Thus, the chapter focused on offering small-​scale solutions toward improving upon an existing, broken structure that assumed dominance when academia was only accessible to a privileged few. The existing academic interview structure still demands a large degree of conformity for all who wish to participate, and that fact does not go unnoticed to those aware enough to see it. A whole person approach to the academic librarian interview requires recognition and appreciation of the challenges faced by those for whom the existing oppressive structure was never meant to accommodate.

References Ackerman, E., Hunter, J., & Wilkinson, Z. T. (2018). The availability and effectiveness of research supports for early career academic librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(5), 553–​568. https://​doi.org/​gkj​6fd Alabi, J. (2015) “This actually happened”: An analysis of librarians’ responses to a survey about racial microaggressions. Journal of Library Administration, 55(3), 179–​191. https://​ doi.org/​gsbz Alburo, J., Bradshaw, A. K., Santiago, A. E., Smith, B., & Vinopal, J. (2020). Looking beyond libraries for inclusive recruitment and retention practices: Four successful approaches. In: S. S. Hines & D. H. Ketchum (Eds.), Critical librarianship (Vol. 41, pp. 85–​109). Emerald. https://​doi.org/​gp72 American Library Association (ALA). (2012, July 10). ALA president responds to Forbes.com post that library and information science is among the worst master’s degrees. ALAnews. https://​bit.ly/​3wUk​Oyz American Library Association (ALA). (2017). 2017 ALA demographic study. https://​bit.ly/​ 3PH8​k5M American Library Association (ALA). (2021a). ALA policy manual. https://​bit.ly/​3wVD​8IH American Library Association (ALA). (2021b). Diversity in libraries. https://​bit.ly/​3PPR​Rw8 Anantachai,T., & Chesley, C. (2018).The burden of care: Cultural taxation of women of color librarians on the tenure-​track. In: R. Chou & A. Pho (Eds.), Pushing the margins:Women of color and intersectionality in LIS (pp. 301–​327). Library Juice. Baez, B. (2000). Race-​related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in academe. Higher Education, 39, 363–​391. https://​doi.org/​bvk​kmp Bai, F., Ho, G. C. C., & Liu, W. (2020). Do status incentives undermine morality-​based status attainment? Investigating the mediating role of perceived authenticity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 126–​138. https://​doi.org/​fsqp Berg, J., Galvan, A., & Tewell, E. (2018). Responding to and reimagining resilience in academic libraries. Journal of New Librarianship, 3(1), 1–​4. https://​doi.org/​gjww Berry, III, J. N. (2008, May 15). Blatant Berry: The experience trap. Library Journal, 133(9), 10. Best, R. (2008). Education, support, and the development of the whole person. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 36(4), 343–​351. https://​doi.org/​bd6​5k4 Bird, S., Litt, J. S, & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work.” NWSA Journal, 16(1), 194–​206. https://​doi.org/​fxb​6fm

Honoring the whole person  89

Bouton, L. F. (1995). A cross-​cultural analysis of the structure and content of letters of reference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(2), 211–​244. https://​doi.org/​dv4​wts Brannon, S., & Leuzinger, J. (2014). Keeping human resources happy: Improving hiring processes through the use of rubrics. Library Leadership and Management, 29(1), 1–​10. https://​bit.ly/​3lQB​SAn Bridges, K. (2005). “Come on down! You’re the next contestant”: One librarian’s view of the interview process. In: G. M. Gregory (Ed.), The successful academic librarian: Winning strategies from library leaders (pp. 69–​81). Information Today. Brook, F., Ellenwood, D., & Lazzaro, A. E. (2015). In pursuit of antiracist social justice: Denaturalizing whiteness in the academic library. Library Trends, 64(2), 246–​284. https://​doi.org/​f8b​v9g Brown, J., Ferretti, J. A., Leung, S., & Méndez-​Brady, M. (2018).We here: Speaking our truth. Library Trends, 67(1), 163–​181. https://​doi.org/​gfz​kb8 Bruno,T. (2009). It isn’t just me: A story of four recent library science graduates on the prowl for their first librarian job. Indiana Libraries, 28(2), 20–​22. https://​bit.ly/​3wTA​MKu Bugg, K. (2015). Best practices for talent acquisition in 21st-​century academic libraries. Library Leadership and Management, 29(4), 1–​14. https://​bit.ly/​3wSG​PyT Burns, C. (2016, May 13). Remember when this was full-​time? Your newest coworkers don’t. Public Libraries Online. https://​bit.ly/​3a03​9xw Buschman, J. (2017).The politics of academic libraries: Every hire is a strategic hire. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 266–​267. https://​doi.org/​gk73 Cable, D. M., & Kay, V. S. (2012). Striving for self-​verification during organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 360–​380. https://​doi.org/​gck​fn4 Cannady, R., & Newton, D. (2010). Making the best of the worst of times: Global turmoil and landing your first library job. College and Research Libraries News, 71(4), 205–​212. https://​doi.org/​gj7​8jp Colosimo, A. L, Desmeules, R. E., & McKinnon, D. (2017). Whole-​person mentoring for every stage of careers in librarianship. Library Leadership and Management, 32(1), 1–​13. https://​bit.ly/​3MWf​bXe Cruz, A. M. (2019). Intentional integration of diversity ideals in academic libraries: A literature review. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(3), 220–​227. https://​doi.org/​dpd2 Cunningham, S., Guss, S., & Stout, J. (2019, April 10–​ 13). Challenging the “good fit” narrative: Creating inclusive recruitment practices in academic libraries [Conference paper]. ACRL 19th National Conference: Recasting the Narrative (pp. 12–​21), Cleveland, Ohio, United States. https://​bit.ly/​38OY​Q8c Damasco, I.T., & Hodges, D. (2012).Tenure and promotion experiences of academic librarians of color. College and Research Libraries, 73(3), 279–​301. https://​doi.org/​f3z​f98 Davis, A. R. (2015). Searching for an academic librarian job. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research and Practice, 3(2), 136–​143. https://​doi.org/​gjcq Eckard, M., Rosener, A., & Scripps-​Hoekstra, L. (2014). Factors that increase the probability of a successful academic library job search. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 107–​ 115. https://​doi.org/​f5z​4n5 Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–​273. https://​doi.org/​dcb​xht Farkas, M. (2015, September 28). The insidious nature of “fit” in hiring and the workplace [Blog post]. Information Wants to be Free. https://​bit.ly/​3NFW​Bm9 Farkas, M. (2017, November/​December). Less is not more: Rejecting resilience narratives for library workers. American Libraries, 48(11/​12), 56.

90  Erica Lopez

Farkas, M. (2019a, May). Barriers to diversity: The problems of LIS internships and practica. American Libraries, 50(5), 48. Farkas, M. (2019b, June). Is “fit” a bad fit? How evaluating job candidates can stifle diversity. American Libraries, 50(6), 78. Fietzer, W. (1993). World enough, and time: Using search and screen committees to select personnel in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19(3), 149–​153. https://​ doi.org/​c97​gm2 Fisher, D. P. (1990). Are librarians burning out? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 22(4), 216–​235. https://​doi.org/​cfk​kf7 Florentine, S. (2017, September 6). How to keep “culture fit” from killing workplace diversity. CIO. https://​bit.ly/​3GtZ​Fj9 Foster, C., Millsop, R., & Reed, D. (2019, October 13). The heavy, unseen labor of writing reference letters. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://​bit.ly/​3N00​Id1 Franks, T. P., Budzise-​ Weaver, T., & Reynolds, L. J. (2017). Unlocking library search committees at ARL public universities: Techniques and best practices for getting hired. Information and Learning Science, 118(5/​6), 252–​265. https://​doi.org/​fsqr Galbraith, Q., Fry, L., & Garrison, M. (2016). The impact of faculty status and gender on employee well-​being in academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 77(1), 71–​86. https://​doi.org/​gsfd Gallin-​Parisi, A. (2017). It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and other lessons for supporting librarianship and motherhood. Library Leadership and Management, 31(4), 1–​14. https://​bit.ly/​ 3lSL​GcZ Galvan, A. (2015). Soliciting performance, hiding bias: Whiteness and librarianship. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://​bit.ly/​3a6E​97W Gammons, R., & Corlett-​Rivera, K. (2020, March/​April). Helping parents in a pinch: An academic library becomes more family friendly. American Libraries, 51(3/​4), 18–​19. Gaspar, D. B., & Brown, A. K. G. (2015). Hiring in an academic library: Fit is essential. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 22(3/​4), 374–​386. https://​doi.org/​fsqq Geckle, B. J., & Nelson, D. N. (2017). Classifying librarians: Cataloger, taxonomist, metadatician? Serials Librarian, 72(1/​4), 57–​64. https://​doi.org/​gnk​svx Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2010).The counterfeit self:The deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Science, 21(5), 712–​720. https://​doi.org/​ck7​vxh Gino, F., Sezer, O., & Huang, L. (2020). To be or not to be your authentic self? Catering to others’ preferences hinders performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 83–​100. https://​doi.org/​ggk​fgf Giordano, F. G. (1995). The whole person at work: An integrative vocational intervention model for women’s workplace issues. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 20(1), 4–​13. https://​doi.org/​br2​xg4 Godfrey, I., Rutledge, L., Mowdood, A., Reed, J., Bigler, S., & Soehner, C. (2017). Supporting student retention and success: Including family areas in an academic library. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(2), 375–​388. https://​doi.org/​f96​8jt Goldberg, T., & Womack, K. (1999). Application practices of recent academic library appointees. College and Research Libraries, 60(1), 71–​77. https://​doi.org/​gn4x Graff, T. C., Ridge, R. D., & Zaugg, H. (2019). A space for every student: Assessing the utility of a family friendly study room in a university library. Journal of Library Administration, 59(6), 629–​655. https://​doi.org/​gkj​6bn Harwell, K. (2013). Burnout and job engagement among business librarians. Library Leadership and Management, 27(1/​2), 1–​19. https://​bit.ly/​3PJ3​4yN Hathcock, A. (2015). White librarianship in blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://​bit.ly/​3PLa​wcD

Honoring the whole person  91

Hill, E. J., Allen, S., Jacob, J., Bair, A. F., Bikhazi, S. L.,Van Langeveld, A., Martinengo, G., Parker, T. T., & Walker, E. (2007). Work-​family facilitation: Expanding theoretical understanding through qualitative exploration. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(4), 507–​526. https://​doi.org/​b2v​3rp Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week:The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50(1), 49–​58. https://​doi.org/​cfr​t3s Hodge, M., & Spoor, N. (2012). Congratulations! You’ve landed an interview:What do hiring committees really want? New Library World, 113(3/​4), 139–​161. https://​doi.org/​gn45 Hollich, S. (2020). What it means for a disabled librarian to “pass”: An exploration of inclusion, identity, and information work. International Journal of Information, Diversity, and Inclusion, 4(1), 94–​107. https://​doi.org/​hgwt Howze, P. C. (2008). Search committee effectiveness in determining a finalist pool: A case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(4), 340–​353. https://​doi.org/​cnb​mrp Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., & Franklin, R. E. (2010). Diversity, inclusion, and underrepresented populations in LIS research. Library Quarterly, 80(2), 175–​181. https://​doi.org/​fm8​jkr Jonas, W. B., & Rosenbaum, E. (2021). The case for whole-​person integrative care. Medicina, 57(7), Article 677, 1–​12. https://​doi.org/​gtdt Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity, and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–​144. https://​doi.org/​bbj​7nd Kattari, S. K., Olzman, M., & Hanna, M. D. (2018). “You look fine!”: Ableist experiences by people with invisible disabilities. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 33(4), 477–​492. https://​doi.org/​gfg​mtc Kazmi, M. A., Spitzmueller, C., Yu, J., Madera, J. M., Tsao, A. S., Dawson, J. F., & Pavlidis, I. (2022). Search committee diversity and applicant pool representation of women and underrepresented minorities: A quasi-​experimental field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8), 1414–​1427. https://​doi.org/​gkh​wbb Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–​284. https://​doi.org/​fjp​kks Kendrick, K. D. (2017). The low morale experience of academic librarians: A phenomenological study. Journal of Library Administration, 57(8), 846–​878. https://​doi.org/​frtn Kenney, B. (2013, August 2). How to land a library job. Publishers Weekly. https://​bit.ly/​ 3z1s​aCY Kim, K.-​S., & Sin, S.-​C. J. (2008). Increasing ethnic diversity in LIS: Strategies suggested by librarians of color. Library Quarterly, 78(2), 153–​177. https://​doi.org/​dvg​hsj Kleymann, B., & Malloch, H. (2010). The rule of Saint Benedict and corporate management: Employing the whole person. Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(2), 207–​224. https://​ doi.org/​cqr​2jd Kuecker, E. (2016). Recruiting and retaining LGBTQ-​Identified staff in academic libraries through ordinary methods. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://​bit.ly/​3zcq​E0G Lehner, J. A. (1997). Reconsidering the personnel selection practices of academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(3), 199–​204. https://​doi.org/​drz​j2q Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2013). How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 276–​289. https://​doi.org/​ gdd​mjs Leske, L., & Pendleton, C. (2020, November 2). How a search committee can be the arbiter of diversity. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://​bit.ly/​3wWO​goT Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1638–​1656. https://​doi.org/​cqw​g2c

92  Erica Lopez

Liera, R., & Ching, C. (2019). Reconceptualizing “merit” and “fit”: An equity-​minded approach to hiring. In: A. Kezar & J. Posselt (Eds.), Higher education administration for social justice and equity (pp. 111–​131). Routledge. Liu, O. L., Minsky, J., Ling, G., & Kyllonen, P. (2009). Using the standardized letters of recommendation in selection. Education and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 475–​492. https://​ doi.org/​fps​q4g Lo, L. S. (2014). New perspectives in leadership: No more square pegs for square jobs: A proposal for a new recruitment mindset for the future of libraries. Library Leadership and Management, 28(2), 1–​4. https://​bit.ly/​3z5z​8qt Lopez, E. R., Deal, E., & Fontenot, E. (2020). Exploring the childcare-​conference conundrum in academic librarianship. Journal of Library Administration, 60(4), 383–​392. https://​ doi.org/​gmt3 Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., Dial, H., Martin, R., & Valian,V. (2019). Raising doubt in letters of recommendation for academia: Gender differences and their impact. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 287–​303. https://​doi.org/​ghwq Marlin, M. L. (2017, August 19). Accessibility at American library conferences [Conference paper]. IFLA 83rd World Library and Information Congress (pp. 1–​8), Wroclaw, Poland. https://​ bit.ly/​3a6r​vpa Mason, R. W., & Schroeder, M. P. (2014). The predictive validity of teacher candidate letters of reference. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(3), 67–​75. https://​doi.org/​ghws McCoy, S. K., Newell, E. E., & Gardner, S. K. (2013). Seeking balance: The importance of environmental conditions in men and women faculty’s well-​being. Innovative Higher Education, 38(4), 309–​322. https://​doi.org/​gmbq McDonough, M. E. (2011, December 1). The employee wellness plan: A strategy for fighting the “evil from within.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. https://​bit.ly/​3wTg​n6Y Meier, J. J. (2010). Are today’s science and technology librarians being overtasked? An analysis of job responsibilities in recent advertisements on the ALA JobLIST website. Science and Technology Libraries, 29(1/​2), 165–​175. https://​doi.org/​cxw​8ww Moore, A. C., Croxton, R., & Sprague, L. (2020). Breaking down barriers for student parents and caregivers with family-​friendly library spaces. Journal of Library Administration, 60(3), 215–​234. https://​doi.org/​gmtm Morales, M., Knowles, E. C., & Bourg, C. (2014). Diversity, social justice, and the future of libraries. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(3), 439–​451. https://​doi.org/​ghn​p78 Morgan, W. B., Elder, K. B., & King, E. B. (2013). The emergence and reduction of bias in letters of recommendation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2297–​2306. https://​ doi.org/​f5g​w59 Musser, L. R. (2001). Effective retention strategies for diverse employees. Journal of Library Administration, 33(1/​2), 63–​72. https://​doi.org/​bw9​r7h Nelson,V. C. (1987). Burnout: A reality for law librarians. Law Library Journal, 79, 267–​275. Nicklin, J. M., & Roch, S. G. (2008). Biases influencing recommendation letter contents: Physical attractiveness and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(12), 3053–​3074. https://​doi.org/​c3f​z64 Nicklin, J. M., & Roch, S. G. (2009). Letters of recommendation: Controversy and consensus from expert perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(1), 76–​91. https://​doi.org/​fkh​b84 Orbanus, C. (2007, June 15). NextGen: Where are all the jobs? Library Journal, 132(11), 46. Osorio, N. L. (1999). An analysis of science-​engineering academic library positions in the last three decades. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 24. https://​bit.ly/​ 3MW3​G1T

Honoring the whole person  93

Oud, J. (2018). Academic librarians with disabilities: Job perceptions and factors influencing positive workplace experiences. Partnership:The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 13(1), 1–​30. https://​doi.org/​hg77 Paustenbaugh, J. F., & Belliston, C. J. (2018). When students drive design: Creating a family study room for students who are parents [Conference paper]. 2018 IATUL Proceedings. 38th IATUL Conference: Libraries for the Future: From Inspiring Spaces to Open Science (Paper 9, pp. 1–​10), Oslo, Norway. https://​bit.ly/​3NIH​w3u Petit, J. (2014). A family-​friendly study room for student-​parents and their children at Portland State University Library. OLA Quarterly, 20(1), 36–​39. https://​bit.ly/​3SEX​izs Podger, D. M., Mustakova-​Possardt, E., & Reid, A. (2010). A whole-​person approach to educating for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 339–​352. https://​doi.org/​ccf​gms Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, Jr., W. B. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 296–​324. https://​ doi.org/​bff​sjx Precht, K. (1998.) A cross-​cultural examination of letters of recommendation. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 241–​265. https://​doi.org/​cp4​9hc Pugh, C., & Doyle, B. (2019). Equity, diversity, inclusion: Seattle’s “Loud at the Library” collaboration. Children and Libraries, 17(3), 27–​29. https://​doi.org/​ghwr Raschke, G. K. (2003). Hiring and recruitment practices in academic libraries: Problems and solutions. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(1), 53–​67. https://​doi.org/​cnk​snd Reed, J. B., Carroll, A. J., & Jahre, B. (2015). A cohort study of entry-​level librarians and the academic job search. Endnotes: The Journal of the New Members Round Table, 6(1), 1–​22 https://​bit.ly/​3a0a​NIe Riley-​Reid, T. (2017). Breaking down barriers: Making it easier for academic librarians of color to stay. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 392–​396. https://​doi.org/​gb2​5bc Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–​320. https://​doi.org/​c6c​28q Sagaria, M. A. D. (2002). An exploratory model of filtering in administrative searches:Toward counter-​hegemonic discourses. Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 677–​710. https://​doi. org/​gswv Schneider, A. (2000, June 30). Why you can’t trust letters of recommendation. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://​bit.ly/​3wS2​aHv Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). “We are all for diversity, but...”: How faculty hiring committees reproduce whiteness and practical suggestions for how they can change. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 557–​580. https://​doi.org/​gfw​xqk Sheesley, D. F. (2001). Burnout and the academic teaching librarian: An examination of the problem and suggested solutions. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(6), 447–​451. https://​ doi.org/​bzb​6bk Sleeth, D. B. (2006). The self and the integral interface: Toward a new understanding of the whole person. Humanistic Psychologist, 34(3), 243–​261. https://​doi.org/​cc5​skt Smith, N. M., & Nelson, V. C. (1983). Burnout: A survey of academic reference librarians. College and Research Libraries, 44(3), 245–​250. https://​doi.org/​gjm​4cj Strothmann, M., & Ohler, L. A. (2011). Retaining academic librarians: By chance or by design? Library Management, 32(3), 191–​208. https://​doi.org/​fgm​68g Swanson, J.,Tanaka, A., & Gonzalez-​Smith, I. (2018). Lived experience of academic librarians of color. College and Research Libraries, 79(7), 876–​894. https://​doi.org/​gswz Tang, Y. (2013). Distance education librarians in the United States: A study of job announcements. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 500–​505. https://​doi.org/​f5k​z6k

94  Erica Lopez

Tewell, E. C. (2012). Employment opportunities for new academic librarians: Assessing the availability of entry-​level jobs. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(4), 407–​423. https://​ doi.org/​f4c​b7n Thornton, J. K. (2001). African American female librarians: A study of job satisfaction. Journal of Library Administration, 33(1/​2), 141–​164. https://​doi.org/​bgk​pb9 Togia, A. (2005). Measurement of burnout and the influence of background characteristics in Greek academic librarians. Library Management, 26(3), 130–​138. https://​doi.org/​bv7​pbb Tokarz, R. E. (2019). Creative, innovative, and collaborative librarians wanted:The use of personality traits in librarian job advertisements. Library Philosophy and Practice, Article 2463, 1–​20. https://​bit.ly/​3z5G​uKP Towers, G. W. (2019). The precarious plight of American working-​class faculty: Causes and consequences. Journal of Working-​Class Studies, 4(1), 98–​115. https://​doi.org/​gsww Triumph,T. F., & Beile, P. M. (2015).The trending academic library job market: An analysis of library position announcements from 2011 with comparisons to 1996 and 1988. College and Research Libraries, 76(6), 716–​739. https://​doi.org/​gp3k Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse and Society, 14(2), 191–​220. https://​doi.org/​ ccm​zrp Tuitt, F. A., Sagaria, M. A. D., & Turner, C. S.V. (2007). Signals and strategies in hiring faculty of color. In: J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 22, pp. 497–​534). Springer. https://​doi.org/​dsj​rt9 Vaillancourt, A. M., & Ersin, O. H. (2021, April 21). Is it time to eliminate recommendation letters? (Hint:Yes). Chronicle of Higher Education. https://​bit.ly/​3t27​Nl4 Wheeler, R. E., Johnson, N. P., & Manion, T. K. (2008). Choosing the top candidate: Best practices in academic law library hiring. Law Library Journal, 100(1), 117–​135. White-​Lewis, D. K. (2020). The facade of fit in faculty search processes. Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 833–​857. https://​doi.org/​gk74 Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management, 23(3), 513–​530. https://​doi.org/​b3c​stb Womack, K. (1997). Applying for professional positions in academic libraries: Meeting minimum requirements. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(3), 205–​209. https://​doi.org/​ d89​gh8 Yorks, L., & Kasl, E. (2002). Toward a theory and practice for whole-​ person learning: Reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(3), 176–​192. https://​doi.org/​dn9​hgj Zemon, M., & Bahr, A. H. (2005). Career and/​or children: Do female academic librarians pay a price for motherhood? College and Research Libraries, 66(5), 394–​405. https://​doi. org/​gswk Zettervall, S. K., & Nienow, M. C. (2019). Whole person librarianship: A social work approach to patron services. Libraries Unlimited.

4 PRECARITY DOESN’T CARE Precarious employment as a dysfunctional practice in libraries Adena Brons, Chloe Riley, Ean Henninger, and Crystal Yin

Introduction Precarious employment is a phenomenon typically involving “an inadequacy of rights and protection at work” characterized by “lower wages, less access to benefits ... and greater uncertainty about future employment income” as well as employer misconduct (Topp & Lubowitz, 2019, pp. 11, 13). Stress and instability leave precarious workers especially vulnerable to negative health effects exacerbated by a lack of health insurance, sick days, and sick pay. Precarious workers also face long-​term financial disadvantages due to income volatility, pay gaps, and a lack of access to employer pension and retirement plans. To an extent, whether a person experiences precarity is subjective and dependent on context. Someone working in a temporary on-​call position with inherited wealth or involved with a life partner who has a high-​paying job may not experience precarity associated with their work, but a person in a job that appears stable may suddenly face precarity in the face of funding cuts or staff reductions due to a global pandemic. However, certain material employment structures are inherently precarious and substantially increase the chance that workers experience precarity, and research into precarious employment often focuses on these structures. These structures may include contract, grant-​ funded, part-​ time, or on-​call work, as well as other staffing structures that limit workers’ stability and access to benefits. Wildenhaus (2019) uses the metaphor of a ladder (Table 4.1) to describe a possible sequence of job classifications from most precarious to least. Precarious employment is on the rise across many sectors of society and libraries are no exception. A recent analysis of a nationwide Canadian library job board found that 42% of all jobs posted from 2017 to 2019 were precarious, with year-​over-​ year increases in the overall proportion of precarious jobs, as well as significantly higher proportions among some subsets of job postings, such as those requiring DOI: 10.4324/9781003159155-4

96  Adena Brons, Chloe Riley, Ean Henninger, and Crystal Yin TABLE 4.1  Job classifications from most secure to most precarious

(↑ most secure) Tenured or continuous appointment positions Nontenured but permanent/​indefinite positions Long-​term (>1 year) or renewable contract positions Short-​term (