12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
remaining the same during the 2007 to 2012 study
period. Position titles are also being recast anew, using
descriptive language such as digital content, collections,
learning, instruction, and user services, rather than the
more generic “public services” or “technical services”
that were used more frequently as recently as five
years ago.
New titles also reflect changes in scope and fo-
cus. Positions with responsibility for scholarly com-
munication and publishing have more than doubled
during the five-year period studied, and a significant
increase in positions with responsibility for digital
content and services is apparent. While public and
technical services titles seem to be on a downtrend,
the survey finds that administrative service roles are
being defined more broadly in terms of organizational
development and planning, with evidence of a slight
increase in positions with direct responsibility for as-
sessment. The majority of positions identified as being
redesigned or new since 2007 primarily emphasize
the areas of education, user services, scholarly com-
munications, and collections. Positions dealing with
collections are now often being paired with other re-
sponsibilities such as scholarly communication, user
services, or access services. Eight of the 25 new posi-
tions identified in the survey have responsibility for
scholarly communication, publishing, or copyright.
Seventeen of the responding libraries (44%) have
at least one position that took on either supervision of
areas or specific functions that were previously under
the director’s purview. Over half of these stated that
other senior-level positions took on primary super-
visory responsibilities for areas that previously re-
ported directly to the library director. Other changes
included taking on direct responsibility for functions,
such as strategic planning, budget, development, and
human resources, previously within the director’s
domain.
Future Plans for Administrative-Level Positions
Almost half of the respondents (19, or 45%) indicated
that they anticipate redesigning or creating a new se-
nior administrative position in the next three years. Of
those institutions, a few could not foretell the primary
area of responsibility for the redesigned or newly cre-
ated role. Three institutions reported it is simply too
early to know another three are in the midst of reorga-
nizing or awaiting the arrival of a new library director.
Those institutions that could declare primary areas of
focus for new senior positions most often mentioned
strategic planning, followed by public services, col-
lections, and organizational development. Also men-
tioned were senior positions in the area of facilities,
fundraising and development, planning, assessment,
and statistics.
Over three quarters of the respondents (33, or 79%)
indicated that if a vacancy in a senior administrative
position were to occur, it would prompt a redesign of
the position before further recruitment was contem-
plated. Positions are most often redesigned to meet
evolving or unmet needs within the organization,
such as changes in service delivery or emerging tech-
nologies and their impact on access to information
and learning. Redesign of positions is also prompted
by changes in and the need to re-align with the strate-
gic planning priorities (both in the library and on the
campus) and, in some cases, to balance workloads and
capitalize on existing knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Only one response indicated that senior portfolios are
regularly shifted if vacancies occur. Seemingly, lateral
shifts in responsibilities of senior administrative posi-
tions are uncommon. While some responses indicated
that senior staff members work as a team to ensure
smooth internal functioning, there is also the sense
that positions are highly specialized. Soft skills, such
as communication or the ability to work with change
are clearly valued in all senior positions specialized
technical skills still seem to be highly associated with
some specific senior roles.
Overall, in the event of a vacancy or the creation of
a new senior administrative position, the responding
libraries expect to recruit from other research libraries
(39, or 91%). Internal candidates are viewed favorably
by a majority of institutions (29, or 67%). A few librar-
ies indicated that it really depends upon the position
as to whether they would go outside of research li-
braries (12, or 28%) or even outside the library profes-
sion (8, or 19%) in order to recruit into a new senior
position. While these findings are not unexpected,
it seems clear that the pool of potential candidates
for senior-level positions is relatively small and that
few research libraries expect to invest in candidates
remaining the same during the 2007 to 2012 study
period. Position titles are also being recast anew, using
descriptive language such as digital content, collections,
learning, instruction, and user services, rather than the
more generic “public services” or “technical services”
that were used more frequently as recently as five
years ago.
New titles also reflect changes in scope and fo-
cus. Positions with responsibility for scholarly com-
munication and publishing have more than doubled
during the five-year period studied, and a significant
increase in positions with responsibility for digital
content and services is apparent. While public and
technical services titles seem to be on a downtrend,
the survey finds that administrative service roles are
being defined more broadly in terms of organizational
development and planning, with evidence of a slight
increase in positions with direct responsibility for as-
sessment. The majority of positions identified as being
redesigned or new since 2007 primarily emphasize
the areas of education, user services, scholarly com-
munications, and collections. Positions dealing with
collections are now often being paired with other re-
sponsibilities such as scholarly communication, user
services, or access services. Eight of the 25 new posi-
tions identified in the survey have responsibility for
scholarly communication, publishing, or copyright.
Seventeen of the responding libraries (44%) have
at least one position that took on either supervision of
areas or specific functions that were previously under
the director’s purview. Over half of these stated that
other senior-level positions took on primary super-
visory responsibilities for areas that previously re-
ported directly to the library director. Other changes
included taking on direct responsibility for functions,
such as strategic planning, budget, development, and
human resources, previously within the director’s
domain.
Future Plans for Administrative-Level Positions
Almost half of the respondents (19, or 45%) indicated
that they anticipate redesigning or creating a new se-
nior administrative position in the next three years. Of
those institutions, a few could not foretell the primary
area of responsibility for the redesigned or newly cre-
ated role. Three institutions reported it is simply too
early to know another three are in the midst of reorga-
nizing or awaiting the arrival of a new library director.
Those institutions that could declare primary areas of
focus for new senior positions most often mentioned
strategic planning, followed by public services, col-
lections, and organizational development. Also men-
tioned were senior positions in the area of facilities,
fundraising and development, planning, assessment,
and statistics.
Over three quarters of the respondents (33, or 79%)
indicated that if a vacancy in a senior administrative
position were to occur, it would prompt a redesign of
the position before further recruitment was contem-
plated. Positions are most often redesigned to meet
evolving or unmet needs within the organization,
such as changes in service delivery or emerging tech-
nologies and their impact on access to information
and learning. Redesign of positions is also prompted
by changes in and the need to re-align with the strate-
gic planning priorities (both in the library and on the
campus) and, in some cases, to balance workloads and
capitalize on existing knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Only one response indicated that senior portfolios are
regularly shifted if vacancies occur. Seemingly, lateral
shifts in responsibilities of senior administrative posi-
tions are uncommon. While some responses indicated
that senior staff members work as a team to ensure
smooth internal functioning, there is also the sense
that positions are highly specialized. Soft skills, such
as communication or the ability to work with change
are clearly valued in all senior positions specialized
technical skills still seem to be highly associated with
some specific senior roles.
Overall, in the event of a vacancy or the creation of
a new senior administrative position, the responding
libraries expect to recruit from other research libraries
(39, or 91%). Internal candidates are viewed favorably
by a majority of institutions (29, or 67%). A few librar-
ies indicated that it really depends upon the position
as to whether they would go outside of research li-
braries (12, or 28%) or even outside the library profes-
sion (8, or 19%) in order to recruit into a new senior
position. While these findings are not unexpected,
it seems clear that the pool of potential candidates
for senior-level positions is relatively small and that
few research libraries expect to invest in candidates
