Working Paper #8: Continuous Organizational Development—Teamwork, Learning, Leadership, and Measurement
April 28, 2005
Prepared by Charles Lowry, Sue Baughman, and Maggie Saponaro
Adapted from a piece that appeared in the January 2005 issue of portal: Libraries and the Academy (Vol. 5, no. 1).
“Success is not a place at which one arrives but rather…the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey.” Alex Noble
- Introduction
- Background
- Human Resources
- Teamwork
- Learning
- Leadership
- Measurement
- Conclusion
- Endnotes
The age of access in which we live today has left us with diminished power to define our future—without significant support from allies outside our organizations. [1] Libraries must be resilient organizations that have the strength to sustain themselves as partners in the learning and scholarly enterprises. Among other things, this means paying attention to the critical importance of the human side as an essential feature of coping with our challenges. As has been argued before:
The management literature to which we so often look for guidance fundamentally emphasizes the role of managers and leadership. As important as… these are, …the external challenges to academic libraries are so great that to achieve great success in meeting them means the intelligence, energy and commitment of all staff must be mobilized to find our way. In effect, every staff member must, in some measure, become a manager and a leader—and the organization must treat them as though they have a brain in their head. I am not suggesting a lock-step mentality or a monolithic organizational vision is desirable—or, for that matter, achievable. I am suggesting that there is afoot in academic libraries what may be called an 'organizational development movement' that has as its goal the creation of the 'learning organization.' In my view, this is an encouraging sign that we have recognized the only way to be successful in the current environment. [2]
There are many strategies that are part of this movement. At the very least, this means that those of us who work in the University of Maryland Libraries must cope with the very real fact that the kind of work we do today is unlikely to be what we will be doing in the future. We must embrace the notion that part of the job is to change the job. The purpose of this working paper is to provide a retrospective for new and current employees on the history of the ongoing development of the UM Libraries as an organization. This is important not only to remind us of the progress we have made thus far, but also to reinforce why continual development is important to the success of the Libraries.
The Libraries are engaged in a process known as Continuous Organizational Development (COD). What does this process look like? Some key features of COD that must somehow be reflected in library programs and its culture should include, at the very least, the components of teamwork, learning, leadership, measurement, and the people to execute the effort through activities, such as planning, systems design, process re-engineering, assessment, skills training, and performance review. While there is no standardized form for COD, except to say that it should be structural and continuous not incidental and episodic. The challenge for us has been to imbed these features in a COD program that is appreciated as a part of operations like any other and is accepted as part of everyone’s job. This latter condition has been the hardest to achieve and continues to be a challenge.
By way of background, the University of Maryland Libraries started out on the path toward COD around 1997; albeit, we confess, we probably did not know it at the time. We started this process by acquiring the necessary human/organizational resources and emphasizing teamwork. In time, we came to realize and give equal emphasis to assuring that learning, leadership and measurement fit into our COD program. Learning is important for individuals, teams or workgroups and the organization as a whole. This must be accomplished in a number of ways, first and foremost through leaders who are in a key position to coach and help staff develop valuable skills that ensure their success as members of the organization. Secondly, assessment of how we are doing helps us improve in positive directions.
One of the major milestones along our COD journey was the appearance in June 2000 of the first in a series of working papers, “Team Management: The Vision of a Team-Based Organization." This working paper grew out of a sense of urgency to change our organization to better meet the needs of faculty, staff, and students. It reflected elements of change that had already begun and helped galvanize our view of the general direction we were taking. It has been followed by six more such papers (http://www.lib.umd.edu/groups/learning/workingpapers.html) that demonstrate the critical features of our continuous effort to improve our organizational performance. Thus by 2000, we had realized that this vision of COD needed focus on the whole organization as well as the various parts of the whole, in other words, be systemic and systematic.
Prior to the publication of Working Paper 1, two key events had occurred which created the foundation for our COD program. They were the creation of a directorate for planning (1997) and the formation of self-managed teams (1998). The directorate for planning has since incorporated other functions and now operates as the Division of Planning and Administrative Services. Establishing the capability for continuous planning was vital for our organizational development. Additionally, the self-managed teams were our initial foray into doing work in a different way, while focusing on several important elements such as sharing leadership and decision-making. These were important first steps.
Another key milestone along the COD path was the creation of the Staff Learning and Development Office (1997), whose role was to develop and implement a training program for staff. Subsequently, two more positions were added to guide us in the work of COD —the assistant dean for organizational development (2000); and the coordinator of personnel programs (2001). These three programs work closely together to advance the development of human resources, teams and leaders, and to support continuous learning. The Facilitators Team (2001) is a key agent in support of their work.
Having the committed staff resources is, of course, an enormous step in the direction of building a rigorous program, and we are at least part of the way to that goal. Together, the three aforementioned programmatic areas support the libraries' individual and organizational advancement and work closely together to provide resources and tools for library staff. The Organizational Development Office supports the efforts of the team-based learning organization through the planning and design of systems and processes, and training and facilitation for teams, units, and workgroups. The Staff Learning and Development Office provides educational programs and resources for the libraries, under the umbrella of the Learning Curriculum (described in more detail later). The Library Personnel and Budget Office (LPBO) provides human resource management programs and services to library faculty, staff, graduate assistants, and student employees. These include orientation, telework, and mentoring programs. The LPBO helps the libraries maintain a diverse population of motivated and skilled staff. These programmatic areas also collaborate with other individuals and groups in the libraries to create and implement programs/services.
The first teams established in the UM Libraries were three subject discipline based teams that integrated the functions of reference service, user education, and collection management. These teams laid the foundation for improving services to faculty and students. This new structure led to a future focus on other parts of the Libraries. Over the next several years, the structure was gradually extended to most services and working units. Teams are asked to develop annual work plans that outline key goals and strategies for fulfilling the mission of the Libraries. The use of teams for problem solving and decision-making has become established practice.
Three documents, "Working Paper #2: Advancing the Team-Based Organization" (2000), “Working Paper 5: Establishing a Self-Managed Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team” (2001), and "Working Paper #6: Technical Services Division in a Team-Based Learning Organization" (2001), outline specific actions taken to further develop the organization.
Teamwork is further supported through training. We recognize that establishing an organizational structure is no assurance that we actually do our work any differently, in spite of our commitment to becoming a team-based learning organization. As part of the continuous organizational development process, guiding principles emerged
- Valuing the importance of learning and education that will lead to improved service to customers
- Assessing and improving work processes through process re-engineering
- Fostering shared decision-making and accountability among library staff
- Forming self-managing teams
- Developing shared leadership by strengthening the leadership skills of all library staff
- Changing the culture of the organization by creating and nurturing a shared vision and set of values by which all staff can live
To fulfill the goals of becoming a team-based learning organization, we have gradually implemented what would normally be viewed as a comprehensive training system—learning by another name. We have adopted Peter Senge's definition of learning organizations, which is "organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together."[3] All library staff are key participants in becoming a learning organization. This requires a commitment to the ongoing process of learning, growth, and development; and its basis is the Learning Curriculum, which was launched in May 2001. Since its inception, 109 sessions have been held, with a cumulative attendance of 1,748. A program to evaluate the long-term impact of sessions on work practices using outcomes based evaluation methods was piloted in 2004. This evaluation method will be expanded upon in the future and applied to additional learning activities. Another key factor is the support of a variety of learning methods and opportunities where staff are encouraged to participate in eight hours of learning per month (Administrative Memo #40).
Advancing leadership as a principle that applies to everyone in the UM Libraries presents serious challenges. We have made considerable efforts to develop the concept of leadership, which is comprehensively addressed in "Working Paper #7: Shared Leadership Development in the UM Libraries" (2003). This plan outlines specific steps towards developing the leadership capabilities of library staff, such as sponsoring library staff members to attend the campus-wide Leadership Development Institute (LDI), or creation of workshops targeted to supervisors called the “Summer for Supervisors” series.
The idea of leadership is usually shaped by the view that it is associated with organizational hierarchy, and that effective leaders have characteristics first described by James McGregor Burns’ concept of the "transformational leader." In this case, “leaders engage other people in a journey. The leaders then lead in such a way that everyone on the journey helps shape the course of change.”[4] We do not gainsay the value of these ideas. On the other hand, we have emphasized that there is a time and place for all staff to exercise leadership. This is emphasized by our Learning Curriculum and in the shared-decision model we have adopted. The plain fact is that individuals, groups, or teams make decisions every day. Some decisions are very important and affect a lot of people or processes, whereas other decisions are small and affect only one or two people and a few processes. A decision-making process based on data leads to good decisions. That brings us to the last component of COD—measurement.
The Management Information Systems (MIS) office was established in 1998 to provide statistical information about the UM Libraries and our Association of Research Libraries (ARL) peer libraries. This office plays a critical role in leading our participation in national programs such as LibQual+TM and SAILS. Equally important, MIS implements and provides analysis for library surveys in support of our decision-making and process improvement. As organizational development in the libraries has evolved, MIS has played a critical role in helping shape a fact-based model for decision-making. Teams and managers turn to the office for a variety of work, and MIS is currently collaborating with the Masters of Information Management (MIM) program to implement “Balanced Scorecard” assessment techniques. In 1999, the Library Assessment Review Committee (LARC) was established to assist the office in helping extend its services to other units. This Committee reviews and analyzes library related statistics, recommends areas of library activities needing additional assessment, and develops strategies for gathering needed data.
Several key assessments for COD have been implemented in the Libraries. The first was the "Organizational Culture and Diversity Assessment" (OCDA) survey conducted in 2000. Working with the University of Maryland Industrial/Organizational Psychology Program, this survey was developed, tested, and grounded. It provided critical information for understanding the obstacles to implementation of our organizational development efforts. This survey was repeated in the spring of 2004, and the subsequent results gave us a good picture of the COD progress to date, as well as recommendations for the future. Work has continued since to review the results and determine appropriate interventions.
Similarly, the Organizational Development Office has implemented the use of the Individual-Team-Organization (ITO) Survey, and has applied it for several years. The ITO instrument is intended to measure the extent to which a group understands how a team works and is able to function as a team. The periodic application of the ITO Survey has helped us assess the progress of teamwork as a central principle in our organizational work. Apparent in the survey results is the fact that no two teams are alike. What is a strength for one team is an area needing improvement in another. Also apparent is that teams have evolved over time. Teams feel their role in the libraries are clearer and they have improved their abilities to solve problems. Team members feel positively about their working relationships. On the other hand, the ITO Survey revealed that continued development of leadership and decision-making skills are needed. Work continues in this area.
The gradual emergence of a program of COD in the UM Libraries can be seen as a natural process in which we progressively identified needs and responded by supplying human resources and establishing the necessary organizational structures. In all, there are four FTE professionals engaged in this work full time and an equal number of graduate assistants out of an FTE staff of nearly 300—or about 2% of our staff total. We call on the resources of the university to assist us, as well as external resources. We also have gradually come to realize that this work will never be finished—and that is a central concept for COD. Old attitudes and resistance to change will always make progress uneven—faster in some areas than others. Staff turnover will bring new individuals into the libraries, and they will bring different experiences that may or may not be in accord with our efforts. Acculturation is essential, but so too is a willingness to revisit what we have done and change it over time.
There is something intrinsically unsatisfying about the idea of creating an organizational attitude of constant "self checking." It runs the risk of conveying the notion that we just cannot get it right and that we are constantly tinkering for no purpose other than for tinkering itself. Countering this sense is a vital part of COD. The truth is that not tinkering constantly is a very risky way for an organization "to be"—risky because it leads to stasis and entropy. The organization, the system, simply winds slowly down and begins to evince the signs of atrophy that mean it cannot effectively do its job. Such a state may be comfortable for a time; indeed, it may be really the normal state of human affairs. It is not a responsible way for us to work, however, and makes long-term success impossible.
As is the nature of COD, the Libraries will continue along its journey in promoting teamwork, learning, leadership and measurement activities. At the beginning of this essay, we quoted Alex Noble’s notion of “success”. We believe that it is through those efforts towards COD described in this essay that the Libraries will truly achieve the success suggested by Noble. Our journey thus continues forward.
- Charles B. Lowry, "Re-Positioning Libraries: A Consideration of the Obstacles," portal: Libraries and the Academy 3, no. 2 (April 2003): vii–xi.
- Charles B. Lowry, "The More Things Change . . ." portal: Libraries and the Academy 1, no. 4 (October 2001): vii.
- Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, (New York: Doubleday, 1990): 3.
- Sue Baughman, Johnnie Love and Maggie Saponaro. “Shared Leadership Development in the UM Libraries.” Working Paper #7 (November 23, 2003): 8.
