Achieving Transformational Change in Academic Libraries

Stephen Mossop

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781843347248
• eBook ISBN: 9781780633909
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Library & Information Science
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Academic libraries undergo episodes of strategic change. Transformational change may be seen as fundamentally different from other kinds of change. A part of this process is often deep level cultural change. At the individual level this may be traumatic, but at the strategic level, such change can prove essential.Achieving Transformational Change in Academic Libraries explores the purpose and nature of 'Transformational Change' and its exponents, and discusses the benefits and limitations of its place in an academic library setting. The title is divided into five chapters, covering: a definition of transformational change; drivers of transformational change and its place in a strategic change agenda; selling the vision of cultural change; human resource issues and cultural change; and the nature of change as a constant. - Provides innovative interdisciplinary research - Offers context-free, practical examples of the role of transformational leadership in achieving cultural change and strategic organisational development - Explores the sometimes ambiguous relationship between transformational and transactional leadership

Part 1

Transformational Change: Planning, Processes and People

1

So what is ‘transformational change’?

Abstract:

This chapter explores the nature of transformational change in the context of organisational culture, and its relationship with and difference to other change management styles; and considers the motivation, skills and behaviours of those who would act as change agents to bring about organisational transformation.

Key words

transformation

transformational leadership

organisational culture

organisational change

change management

charismatic leadership

strategic leadership

strategic vision

Defining transformational change

Language is a powerful medium, and its meaning is in constant flux. In common with many such terms, ‘transformation’, ‘paradigm’ and others have been diluted by overuse, since their adoption for use in management circles, to the point where they are in danger of losing their strength and usefulness, in the context of strategic change, as descriptors of fundamental shifts in understanding and dramatic movements in organisational behaviour and direction. As Tosey and Robinson (2002) demonstrate, these once grand concepts are commonly paraded by management consultants and business advisors as their stock in trade, often being ‘posed as an imperative, a necessity for survival and the only alternative to corporate oblivion’ (p. 100), to the extent that they have become the necessary language and claim for almost any change programme. Little wonder, then, that when confronted with such terms an unprepared, world-weary and probably unwilling staff might regard them as just so much ‘management-speak’, and so of little interest or consequence in their experience and circumstances, and regard those who propound them with caution and wariness – as unwelcome troublemakers intent on bringing the misery of change in their wake in their vain attempts to force theory into practice. Surely, in their eyes, such characters are to be distrusted, and the theories they expound treated with contempt and indifference, if not with outright resistance?

Not terms to be trifled with, then, and like any form of language they need to be used with some care when initiating change if the desired end results are not to be scuppered at the outset by a negative reaction instigated simply by the careless use of such inflammatory terminology.

My definition, somewhat cautiously arrived at, given the background described above, would be that while ‘transformational change’ may well be envisioned from the outset, and will guide and form the central pillar of a full change programme, it is just as often only truly recognised in hindsight, at a moment in time when the current state can be clearly compared to the former state – and recognised as being profoundly different. In reality, there may well be no individual intervention, no single moment in time, that one could point at as having been the point of transformation. It is often, therefore, a hidden goal, recognised only in its achievement.

In nature, we might perhaps offer the life cycle of the butterfly as the supreme example of transformational change. Here, change and difference are obvious and startling: the dull, crawling insect is transformed into a delicate, graceful, vibrantly coloured flying creature. We can clearly see the former and current states – the actual moment of change – but its nature, however, is hidden in secrecy. We are unable to observe the myriad of changes that take place within the chrysalis, and we certainly cannot see the most fundamental change of all – what it is that both drove and inspired the earthbound insect to fly.

So it is with organisations: ‘transformation’, whether initially intended or realised as a by-product of a wider programme, will have come about almost unnoticed for many participants, through an accumulation of operational and organisational changes, each one building on, influencing and taking sustenance from the others until, looking back, the difference between the way we were then and the way we are now can be clearly seen and recognised. In my view, however, the key factor that moves operational and organisational change, no matter how profound, from the incremental to the transformational has to be the degree to which cultural change has taken place. To stretch the butterfly analogy a little, what makes an organisation fly or crawl is its culture: the predominant attitudes and behaviour that characterise its functioning, and what Denison (1996) asserts is ‘the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs and assumptions held by organizational members’ (p. 654).

Where the extant culture is unambitious and overly conservative there is little incentive for staff to seek out and initiate change, and the stagnation that unerringly follows becomes in itself an active disincentive to innovation and entrepreneurialism, leaving the organisation on the back foot and unable to adapt and evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities. The challenge for change agents faced with this caustic combination, therefore, is not just that of designing, implementing and embedding the changes and improvements necessary to allow the organisation to progress; they must first disrupt and change the culture which underpins the ancien régime, and which otherwise will threaten the success of any change initiative, and cultivate in its place a more fertile environment in which the seeds of change can take root and flourish.

I would suggest, therefore, that while ‘transformation’ may be an overused and perhaps even abused term in the general parlance of business gurus and management consultants, it is difficult to find a more appropriate alternative to describe the experience of those organisations that have emerged successfully from episodes of fundamental and wide-ranging organisational, operational and cultural change – nor yet to find such an organisation that could not, in honesty, be described as having been ‘transformed’.

How transformational change differs from other change management styles

Porras and Silvers (1994) have it that ‘OT [organisational transformation] has emerged over the last decade as a distinct form of planned change. It is an advancement over OD [organisational development] owing to its focus on precipitating more profound change in organizations’ (p. 95).

‘Change’ comes in many shapes and sizes, some more welcome and more palatable than others, and almost always following the three general steps identified by Lewin (1951) of unfreezing, changing and refreezing organisations, where the existing status quo is disrupted sufficiently to allow change to take place before allowing a state of new normality to settle in. How much change takes place, and how deep and radical the unfreezing and change steps need to be is very much a matter of degree and circumstance. By no means does every organisation need to ‘transform’ itself in order to become or remain competitive (or, in the case of an academic library, to ensure that it meets or exceeds its responsibility to support the institution and its students), and much can be achieved, under the right circumstances, by taking small and measured steps rather than the lurching strides and abrupt change of direction that ‘transformation’ tends to represent.

I would suggest that there are, essentially, four main types of change:

1. Organic: a natural progression from one state to another, often founded on a local initiative rather than centrally directed, and usually linked to but not necessarily always in direct support of an overall strategic direction.

2. Incremental: a planned series of mutually supportive changes derived from and in support of an overarching strategic impetus.

3. Organisational: strategically designed changes, often involving modifications to staffing structures, and intended to deliver substantial changes in service or to create capacity for new services to be introduced alongside existing ones.

4. Cultural: undertaken in order to reinvent or reinvigorate the underlying organisational ethos, to instil a beneficial capacity to accept the need for and actively support a fresh strategic direction.

As described above, ‘transformational’ change is essentially the result of a planned strategy of change, combining cultural, incremental and organisational change. However, if the underlying organisational culture is already one in which flexibility, innovation and a general readiness to change are in place, great and rapid progress can be achieved without the added disruption and angst that accompanies a fundamental change in culture.

If there is one development in recent years that might be considered common to many libraries, it has been the adoption of self-service equipment to handle their basic issue and return transactions. Indeed, the use of self-issue and self-return machines is now so widespread as to be almost ubiquitous, and it is difficult to imagine how most libraries could operate successfully without them. The experiences of early adopters, however, might serve to illustrate how various styles of change management can affect the pace, if not the long-term success, of a change project.

These two elements, ‘pace’ and ‘success’, are, of course, relative terms in their own right. For early adopters of library self-service equipment, the ‘pace’ of implementation was dependent on several factors, but chiefly the level of investment they were able to make, and the attitude of staff and customers to new technologies. Measures of ‘success’, on the other hand, were dependent on the strategic objective to be achieved. For many library managers, the concept of self-service was an attractive one. For some, it was simply enough that their library would be seen by others as leading the field, and they themselves as far-sighted investors in cutting-edge library technology. Most, though, took the more pragmatic view that self-service would offer them flexibility for the future, bringing opportunities that might otherwise be very difficult to achieve: either for service improvement, by releasing valuable staff resources to more interesting and rewarding customer-support roles; or for service maintenance in the face of planned savings, by ensuring that basic library ‘circulation’ functions could continue without the need for traditional levels of staff involvement.

While operational issues, such as compatibility with the library management and security systems, could be tested and eliminated through normal purchasing processes, staff and customer reaction could only truly be judged during the implementation stages. Given the high initial costs involved at that time in terms of equipment purchase, it is clear that creating a self-service environment was not a risk-free proposal. Understandably, in many instances libraries chose to mitigate some of this risk by encouraging change to take place slowly and organically, by maintaining their full complement of staff at issue desks, and assuming that customers would very soon tire of their customary queuing so that a mixture of impatience and curiosity would very quickly encourage a widespread migration to self-service. While initially the lure of technology certainly did attract attention from some of the more inquisitive and adventurous customers, in general the overall experience for many libraries was a little disappointing. The pace of change achieved was too slow to create the impetus needed to ensure success within a reasonable time frame, and while circulation statistics revealed very low usage of the self-service machines, issue desks were as busy as ever, leaving managers frustrated that their expensive investment in the future might be destined to become an embarrassing white elephant.

Better success rates were noted by those libraries that adopted, or migrated to, an incremental approach to implementation. When the University of Central Lancashire, for example, had realised only limited success in encouraging the take-up of self-service through organic change, they adopted a more structured, proactive approach to achieving their goal. Previous experience was not wasted, however, and an analysis of the preceding phase revealed a combination of factors that had conspired to slow the pace and diminish success. It was realised that use of the machines was adversely affected by a low success-rate in achieving fault-free transactions, in that self-service customers ex...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Dedication
• List of figures
• List of abbreviations
• Acknowledgements
• About the author
• Introduction
• Part 1: Transformational Change: Planning, Processes and People
• Part 2: Transformational Change: Case Studies
• Bibliography
• Index