Organizational Behavior and the Consumer Gods

1-27-2007

It is interesting to note the use of organizational behavior (Or, industrial organizational psychology) in libraries. Most often, libraries are thought of as independent organizations that are a part of a larger institution of knowledge. Still, intense organizational and managerial aspects go into sustaining individual libraries, in particular, and the institution of librarianship, at large.

It is important to accept and embrace change (Especially in our contemporary rapidly changing world). And, this change must be accompanied by proactive organizational practices. One ought not to be apathetic to change, scared of change, or simply content; still, one must not fully want to accept and embrace all the changes that may come our way—Including change in the field of information access and librarianship.

In a world that is rapidly changing, we must be aware of what we are being changed by. More often than not, we are not being changed by the wisdoms of our ancestors, nor are we changing our behaviors based on the futures of our children’s children. Instead, we find our attitudes and actions changed by materialism, consumerism, and hurried behaviors.

Libraries are sacred grounds and libraries should not be eaten alive by the consumer gods. Because I am interested in academic libraries, allow me to suggest, for instance, that if universities aid students to see that the local/national and global/international narrative which socialization has centered is an open-ended one, then it follows that academic libraries ought to be the stimulus of such thoughts. Academic libraries, because they are, by their very nature, the hub of a vast amount of intellectual activity, point toward the need for socialization but, more importantly, to the need to remove the barriers that socialization inevitably imposes. Library faculties are not instrumentalities that can be ordered to a purpose. Instead, the task of the library, in general, and librarians, in particular, should be to enact freedom before the very eyes of students. Institutions and individuals, in a liberal society, move forward, not through strict socialization, but via relationships that foster self-creation and communal-creation.

I agree with Amanda Cain in Musings, Meanderings, and Monsters, Too, when she describes academic libraries as “Slipping Sanctuaries.” She writes at length:

In its history, the university—with its classical, monastic, or natured settings—has always served as a quintessential space for thought. Expressly, it has been an ivory tower where a student might look up and look down, alone, and take his or her bearing on the universe. But this function is slighted more and more in an age that demands material results: the utilitarian, the legislated, the countable, the visible, the noisiest in the bustle and stir. Mankind’s future does not beg for hasty and showy improvements, however. If new generations are to arrive at new perspectives and realize better realities, they must face the future with the ability to cultivate long-standing love and deep-rooted wisdom. Developing abilities for untrammeled and full-capacity thinking and imagining is the primary duty of a university; all other university activities should grow out of this enterprise (2003, 11).

Libraries are full of books, and books are read in order to enlarge the sense of what is important and possible for individuals and for society. The libraries social function, then, is not necessarily teaching, research, or the latest fad. It is not necessarily the communication of knowledge. It’s role takes shape in stirring things up. The role of the librarian is not to direct students into a particular frame of thought. The role of the librarian is to instill doubts into students’ own self-images and the society to which they belong. After all, the moral consciousness of each new generation is always up for grabs.

Still, there remains a tension between public rhetoric and a private sense of mission. So, there are gaps between strict socialization and self/communal-creation. How then, in a liberal society, does an academic librarian address information needs? First, students ought to have access to common reference points with people and thoughts from previous generations and in other social classes and regions of the world. Second, academic librarians should be able to relate, to students, the books that have shaped and inspired them. The first need brings together individuals across both generations and geographical boundaries through similar historical accounts and through similar narratives. The second need addresses individuals and communities at a relational level that goes beyond paper and pen, extending, further, into the realm of intellectual imagination and curiosity.

This entry has not addressed management, per se. However, it does address the concern of change and the library’s role in a rapidly changing world. Our understandings of management and organizational behavior will be deeply persuaded by the ways we understand and view the changes that are happening around us. The ways in which we view change will shape the ways in which we accept and advance change in our libraries. One should not swear off any and all change. Instead, condoning positive change should be pursued-- Change that does not forsake our past for false wisdoms. This entry condones change that embraces our past, our present, and our future. In a Western world that is too quick too follow prescription fads, perhaps we ought not forget Michael Moore’s confession, “I really didn’t realize the librarians were, you know, such a dangerous group…They are subversive. You think they’re just sitting at the desk, all quiet and everything. They’re like plotting the revolution, man. I wouldn’t mess with them” (Raish 2003, 124).

Sources:

Raish, Martin H (Ed.). (2003). Musings, Meanderings, and Monsters, Too: Essays on Academic Librarianship. Lanham, Maryland and Oxford: The Scarecrow Press.