SPEC Kit 331: Changing Role of Senior Administrators · 15
mass of position restructuring occurred between
2010 and 2011, which co-incidentally aligns with the
Transforming Research Libraries work that was being
undertaken by ARL. Library administration reorga-
nization, changes to library operations, and strategic
planning were cited as the top three drivers for chang-
ing position responsibilities.
Redesigned Newly Created
2012 3
2011 5 5
2010 8 1
2009 3 3
2008 5 4
2007
2006 1
It appears that there was little change in reporting
structure, despite redesign or creation of adminis-
trative positions. In 28 of the 38 cases (74%), largely
the same units and departments that reported to the
original position report to the new one. The number
of direct reports to senior administrative positions
varies considerably, and it is not clear from the data
whether respondents provided the number of direct
reports or all reports in a senior portfolio.
A review of the case study data suggests that some
trends are emerging in ARL libraries. New positions
in traditionally named areas such as public servic-
es and technical services seem clearly on the wane,
though the dearth of these identifiers could be at-
tributed to the fact that such positions already exist
in many of the reporting institutions so are not now
being created. The same can be said for information
technology, a term used in just four (11%) of the new
position titles. Interestingly, however, public services
skills and responsibilities are cited as important in
five cases (13%) and technical services in eight (21%).
User services is an emphasis in eight new positions
(21%). Outreach is a focus of six positions (16%), which
include responsibility for communication, public rela-
tions, and marketing. Four new positions (11%) have
substantial responsibility for teaching and learning
three more (8%) focus on undergraduates. Only one
(3%) mentions distance education. Scholarly com-
munication is a focus of seven positions and digital
collections of eight (18% and 21%, respectively). Open
access is noted as a responsibility in just three of these
cases (8%) e-publishing in just one (3%). Nine posi-
tions (24%) include responsibility for strategic plan-
ning, policy development, or assessment. Managing
data is a component of six positions (16%), though the
term “data” is used in a variety of ways. Of those,
two positions (5%) include some responsibility for
work on grants. Human resources is a focus of five
positions (13%), though organizational development,
staff development, and staff training are mentioned
just once each.
The range of other areas emphasized in senior-lev-
el positions seems to suggest that libraries are under-
going much individual transformation and that they
are restructuring positions in ways designed to meet
local needs and capitalize on in-house talents. For
example, a reduction in senior-level administrative
positions led to vesting responsibility for all branch
libraries in a single branch head (Case 30) a plan-
ning and assessment officer was created to centralize
operations that had previously been dispersed (Case
38) restructuring to eliminate silos and facilitate suc-
cession planning led to increased responsibilities for a
senior associate dean position (Case 22). Because case
studies by their nature provide specific information
that is unique to a particular environment, it is most
useful to review the data provided by individual insti-
tutions, compiled in the tables on pages 35 through 51.
Conclusion
While it is clear that ARL libraries have been busy re-
thinking senior administrative positions in the past
five years, there is no single trend or direction emerg-
ing from the changes reported by survey respondents.
Positions are being carefully reviewed as they become
vacant or as they are created, and the manner in which
the position is filled clearly depends upon the needs
and strategic direction of the particular institution.
Senior jobs still tend to be highly specialized and there
doesn’t seem to be evidence of job rotation administra-
tors continue to be defined by their particular role and
seemingly don’t move laterally into other senior posi-
tions. Organizational structures remain centralized
Previous Page Next Page