A Managerial/Leadership Approach to Maintaining Diversity in Libraries:
Accountability, Professionalism, Job Performance, Policies, and Standards
by Irene Owens
While diversity recruitment, retention, and placement are important in library education, they must be reinforced by sound management and leadership in the workplace. Progressive management upholds the integrity of diversity and maintains fairness on a long-term basis. This article addresses management and leadership practices that help maintain a healthy work environment so that all persons may contribute and grow and the organization can achieve its mission.
There are two major considerations for libraries: (1) libraries, as service organizations, must change both the nature of the workforce and their practices in providing services to customers; and (2) they must not separate issues of diversity from basic good management principles. Diversity and sound management are closely intertwined and should be integrated into one set of management practices. These considerations will become even more important because the workforce is expected to change at a rate higher than before the turn of the millennium.
There are two recent books whose research is instructive in this area: Voices of Diversity: Real People Talk about Problems and Solutions in a Workplace Where Everyone Is Not Alike (1994), and Discrimination, Harassment, and the Failure of Diversity Training: What to Do Now (1997).
The definition of diversity is often narrowly focused to include only gender and race. However, Helen Hemphill and Ray Haines (1997, 50) define diversity more broadly to include "all the ways we are different." This definition includes such things as "age, education, training, socioeconomic status, culture, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, military experience, and ethnicity." A major reason for renewed emphasis on diversity is the predicted change in workforce demographics, including such facts and forecasts as:
The signal piece of legislation barring discrimination in the workplace is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, broadened by the Civil Rights Law of 1991. This law makes job discrimination illegal. Employers cannot use race, skin color, age, gender, religious belief, or national origin as a basis for hiring; nor can these criteria be used as a basis for promotions, dismissals, pay raises, benefits, assignments, leaves of absence, or any other employment relationship from pre-hiring interviews to post-employment references.
Discrimination and the resulting lawsuits have proven costly, both economically and emotionally. The total losses due to lawsuits (with racial discrimination being the primary factor) are estimated in the billions of dollars. The emotional cost is inestimable. Further, there is the intangible cost of not having a diverse workforce (and a profession) that can "relate" well to the society "at large." To maintain the respect and top performance of all its employees, an organization must rid itself of discrimination and harassment. The debilitating effects of such behaviors permeate all aspects of work, and individuals deserve the right to be free of them.
Creating a fair work environment begins by approaching discrimination as a set of behaviors. Marilyn Y. Gandy and Joseph R. Steiner (1993, 19) describe four basic types of discrimination:
While some infractions are not always self-evident, understanding the organizational context of discriminatory behavior gives managers a means to correct that behavior in terms of institutional policies, perspectives, and goals. Although discriminatory practices are often so subtle that they are difficult to recognize, the well-being and productivity of staff are not.
The staggering number of lawsuits resulting from the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 forced organizations to give more thought to actions they could take to diminish the number of lawsuits and remove discrimination from the workplace. This act, signed into law by President George Bush in November of 1991, was enacted as a response to a number of Supreme Court decisions that limited enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and thereby created a heavier burden for plaintiffs. The 1991 Act reversed seven Supreme Court decisions; it creates rights to compensatory and punitive damages, including the right to a jury trial for individuals who are victims of intentional discrimination as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Several strategies were used to diminish the number of lawsuits (recruitment, internships, and diversity training, for example). Some or all of these factors are still being used, but the one that has generated the greatest amount of controversy has been diversity training. It is even believed that diversity training, in some settings, may have led to more divisiveness for several reasons, including: (1) the programs usually reflected a specific set of values that emphasized changing people's attitudes rather than dealing with their behaviors; (2) the programs were frequently guilt driven and contained endless examples of grave injustices which polarized people into victims and oppressors and created increased resentment; and (3) diversity awareness was often the sole theme of the program and concrete activities focusing on real-life situations were not presented, nor was diversity awareness integrated into other company training programs or policies (Karp and Sutton, 1993, 30) .
The initial purpose of diversity training was to help women and minorities, some placed in organizations as a result of affirmative action, adjust to the workplace cultureand to help the workplace culture adjust to them. The primary intent of diversity training was to raise human consciousness and to reduce and eventually eliminate discrimination and harassment practices toward women and minorities. Trainers expected to fulfill this purpose by teaching the value of human differences. It was thought that, if employees understood one another's differences, discrimination and harassment would be reduced. With this newfound understanding, sympathetic employees would work together more effectively and productively. These programs recommended applying individualized communication strategies based on every employee's group identity. One result of these programs was the relegation of minority individuals to stereotypical group identities. However, what persons within ethnic groups report over and over again, as documented in Renee Blank and Sandra Slipp (1994), is a desire to be seen first as individuals and then as a part of an identity group. Stereotyping is often an exaggerated group tendency, they report, that is usually negative and serves the function of labeling someone to justify the practice of discrimination. Moreover, it appears that there is little or no evidence that teaching about differences resulted in changing discriminatory and harassing behaviors (Hemphill and Haines, 1997, 6).
What may have been good about diversity training was that its failure, as perceived by many, motivated researchers to find out why previous "solutions" did not work. Hemphill and Haines describe some of these obstacles: (1) denial of the existence of discrimination and harassment problems (In their interviews, they report that women and minorities described discrimination and harassment practices as being "alive and well."); (2) formation of employee factions or alienation based on group loyalties, values, and belief systems relative to special interests within the organization; (3) the dominant group's control over the mores of the workplace culture; (4) the existence of the "Good Ol' Boys" network, in which important decisions are made in places where women and minorities are sometimes still excluded; and (5) general resistance and lack of commitment to change. Before any change can take place, the organization must realize that benefits will result from changing the status quo. Then, it must implement the policies and procedures necessary to move them forward.
As stated earlier, issues of diversity should not be separated from basic management principles; they are connected and should be integrated into a symbiotic relationship. A library, as a service organization, must consider the effects of its management decisions upon its staff and customers. Recognizing the limits of diversity training (in its current form), what then are some of the recommended solutions to the problems?
Hemphill and Haynes (1997, 10-11) recommend that we stop denying that discrimination and harassment exist, remove the diversity label, focus on behavior, and commit to a plan of action. What is that plan of action? Establish and enforce a zero tolerance policy for discrimination and harassment practices. Organizations cannot mandate what their employees believe and value, they state, but organizations can set a policy in place that makes their employees accountable for their unacceptable workplace behaviors. Organizations must also develop and publish company-wide workplace behavior standards. They must educate all employees about specific acceptable and unacceptable behaviors and establish a training program to teach skills in good relations in the workplace (Hemphill and Haynes, 1997, 65-75).
To the above list may be added the results of Blank and Slipp's (1994, 192-195)
research. These include:
Although it happened more than 30 years ago, the following Texas case symbolizes an approach to diversity (integration at the time, which was a precursor to diversity) that exemplifies many of the factors that should assist in instructing us today. The University of Houston Libraries combined a real commitment to diversity with important management principles. From emphasizing the individual talents of personnel to maintaining a progressive institutional culture, the University of Houston Libraries, at the time under the leadership of Dr. E. G. Holley, demonstrate the successful interplay between solid management practices and concerns for improving diversity.
With the retirement in 1967 of the much-admired Associate Director of Libraries Ruth Wikoff, Dr. Holley faced the challenge of finding a replacement. Holley, who is now the Kenan Professor Emeritus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes the task of finding a qualified librarian to take over for Wikoff as one made particularly complex in the light of two factors. First, there was a need to fill the vacancy of a highly skilled and respected member of the staff. Second, the University of Houston had access to substantial federal funds from the Great Society legislation and was well positioned to begin integrating its student body, staff, and faculty. In essence, Wikoff's replacement would not only have to be a qualified and skilled professional but would also take over a position that would play a crucial role in a university on the forefront of integration.
Dr. Holley reports that he had looked hard for a replacement but could not find one. While attending a conference he spoke with Dr. Charles Churchwell, an African-American librarian, with whom he had had some familiarity and who possessed both the skills and experience to fill the job. When he returned to the University of Houston, he approached the personnel office and his department heads with the possibility of bringing Dr. Churchwell to the campus for consideration for the post. Dr. Holley makes clear his mission: "I did not go looking for a minority assistant director. I sought a competent assistant director and, having located him, determined that he had the qualifications by which he could succeed" (Tucker, 1998, 131).
Dr. Holley attributes much of the success of the university libraries during those difficult years to Dr. Churchwell and the library personnel. "[Staff members] were dedicated professionals and they had served under Ruth Wikoff, whose dedication to the profession and to faculty status were articles of faith. Several were also 'liberal democrats' in the context of those times" (Tucker, 1998, 127). Moreover, he writes, "Most of us did believe in equal opportunity and welcomed the integration of the university, first with students, then with support staff and faculty, and subsequently with administration" (Tucker, 1998, 135). With a shared sense of values and a commitment to serving the university, Dr. Holley and his staff brought about the successful integration of the University of Houston Libraries.
Summing up the reasons why diversity worked in Houston (particularly during such a difficult time), Dr. Churchwell points to specific managerial practices. His remarks provide sound advice for both administrators and employees who are searching for the best environment for improving diversity. His insights are as applicable today as they were over 30 years ago.
As we strive to create greater diversity in the workplace, there is a lesson to be learned from the University of Houston experience: Clear direction and leadership must be provided by top administrators. Choose a place where there is a core of mature staff members who are competent and secure. Choose a workplace where a high premium is placed on trust and respect. Choose a workplace where decision-making is decentralized. (Tucker, 1998, 139)
We can learn not only from the University of Houston experience but also from research such as that presented in the work of Blank and Slipp (1994) and Hemphill and Haines (1997) about fairly distributed management practices. Given the current disenchantment with diversity training as it is commonly applied, how can a library change from discriminatory practices to a more fair and equal workplace? The major changes would be integrating diversity into basic management, broadening it to be inclusive of all persons in the workplace, establishing policies and standards designed to eliminate bad practices, and finally demanding and accepting only fair performance appraisals. These factors would help establish a more productive workforce for libraries and engender better customer service for library users as well.
Irene Owens is an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, The University of Texas at Austin.