1. Competing values:
an examination of library
administrators’ perceptions and
behaviors in competitive and
performance measurement information
use in developing strategic responses
and reporting strategic impacts and
value for their organization
Presented by
Larry Nash White, PhD

2. Libraries tell great stories…

3. Background of problem

4. Research Question
Competitive or not?
Competitive info used?
Overarching Research Question:
PM info used?
How do head library administrators in
North Carolina use competitive and
performance information in
generating their library’s strategic
responses and reporting their
strategic value?

5. Research Questions - Context
“The government are extremely fond of
amassing great quantities of statistics. They
are raised to the nth degree, the cube roots
are extracted, and the results are arranged
into elaborate and impressive displays.
What must be kept in mind, however, is that
in every case, the figures are first put down
by a village watchman, and he puts down
anything he damn well pleases.”
Josiah Stamp,
English economist and banker (1880 – 1941)

6. Research Sub-questions 1-3
Michael Porter  What competitive perceptions do head library
administrators in North Carolina have about
Thomas Davenport themselves, their fellow head library
Does counting count? administrators, and their library?
 What types of competitive / performance
measurement information do head library
administrators in North Carolina use to perform
administrative functions in their library?
 What types of competitive / performance
measurement information / data do head
library administrators in North Carolina use to
address strategic value questions posed by
stakeholders?

7. Research Sub-questions 4-5
 How do head library administrators in North
Carolina allocate resources to perform
performance measurement?
 How do libraries in North Carolina compete to
recruit / retain strategically important staff and
administrators?

8. Methodology
Response rate: 39 % (73/194) The research design is a three stage, mixed
15% use Escape question! methods research design involving:
Al Capone method used… Stage 1: surveys of academic and public
library administrators’ perceptions and
practices in using competitive and
performance measurement information to
generate strategic value (addressing sub-
questions 1 - 5);
Stage 2: interviews with key informants
(addressing sub-questions 1-4); and
Stage 3: case studies (addressing sub-
questions 1 – 3, 5).

9. Participants Information
F/M ratio: 2.5:1
The study population included all of the Head
Average respondent age: 54 Library Administrators (HLA) of North Carolina:
MLS awarded: 1970-2008
 77 public libraries
 58 community college libraries
 59 academic library (private and public funded)
 194 respondents.
Response Rate by Library type:
(37.7% PL, 39.3% AL)
Pub Lib HLA note: All public library directors must have
completed a library administration course in their MLS /
MLIS professional education in order to be certified: 1)
as a public librarian and 2) as a library director in order
for their library to receive State Aid.

10. Findings: Sub-question 1
HLA Exp 19 years (1,39) Competitive or Not?
In-library admin exp. 6+ years (1,39) Comp or Answer Response %
not?
84% have no prior administrative Yes 44 75.86%
experience before becoming HLA
No 14 24.14%
Total 58 100.00%

11. Findings: Sub-question 2
Comp / PM information used to perform administrative functions?

12. Findings: Sub-question 3
Comp / PM information used to address strategic value questions?

13. Findings: Sub-question 4
No strong correlations to experience!
Over $2,000,000 in costs!
Academic costs pending!
Resources to perform PM?

14. Findings: Sub-question 5
Compete to recruit / retain strategically important staff
Compete to recruit / retain strategically important admin?

15. Other Findings: Sub-Q 1
Few key informants known! No case study volunteers! Libraries feel small!
Competitive Perceptions
Quest 16 17 18 19 20 21
Self desc Others desc as Self rate comp at Rate other HLA Rate other HLA
Quest comp? Self comp rate comp work comp comp
4 Gender (0.058) (0.349) 0.065 (0.204) (0.150) (0.013)
5 Age (0.099) 0.141 (0.009) 0.026 (0.032) 0.246
6 Library Setting 0.096 (0.130) (0.104) 0.359 (0.267) (0.152)
8 Year MLS awarded 0.181 (0.142) 0.113 (0.014) 0.030 (0.099)
9 2nd degree 0.006 (0.145) 0.050 0.121 (0.122) (0.252)
11 HLA exp total 0.103 (0.010) 0.173 0.171 (0.064) 0.244
12 HLA exp current library (0.269) 0.186 (0.205) (0.009) 0.027 0.059
13 Prev admin exp before MLS – Gov’t 0.015 (0.267) 0.060 0.050 0.128 (0.515)
13 Prev admin exp before MLS - For $ (0.093) (0.115) (0.027) (0.048) 0.139 (0.006)
13 Prev admin exp before MLS - Non $ (0.024) 0.108 (0.287) 0.151 0.036 (0.169)
15 Yrs exp before 1st HLA position (0.241) 0.118 (0.273) 0.046 0.055 (0.092)
No significant correlations to resources; recruitment or retention practices; nor to the types of
metrics uses or which admin functions they are used in!

16. Other Findings: Sub-Q 2
Competitive / PM information collected by your library is used to
address which types of accountability / value questions?

17. Other Findings: Sub-Q 3
Question Inputs Outputs Outcomes RIO, ROA, Valuation of Learning / Quality Efficiency Effectiveness Other
or CBA staff educational measures measures measures
experience or outcomes (i.e. BSC, (i.e. 6
knowledge Baldridge) Sigma, etc.)
1 Assessment 18 18 29 10 16 18 3 2 15 2 131
2 Budgeting 19 20 21 17 9 8 3 4 9 4 114
3 Decision making 19 19 24 10 14 10 3 2 13 6 120
4 Decision making - in 18 19 28 13 13 14 3 3 14 5 130
strategic decisions
5 Developing new 18 17 30 12 19 15 3 2 17 1 134
services, programs,
or delivery methods
6 Environmental 11 11 13 7 9 7 3 2 9 14 86
scanning
7 Fundraising 9 8 18 9 9 8 3 3 12 12 91
8 Marketing / Public 9 11 23 9 13 10 3 3 10 6 97
Relations
9 Organizational 12 10 19 5 19 19 3 3 13 7 110
learning
1 Planning programs 19 17 27 12 14 11 3 3 13 2 121
and services
0
1 Planning - strategic 20 20 30 14 14 12 3 4 14 2 133
or long range
1
1 Planning - 9 8 18 11 10 9 3 2 11 13 94
competitive response
2
1 Retention of staff 9 7 19 9 22 14 3 4 11 9 107
and administrators
3
1 Staff Development 10 10 21 8 21 18 3 3 10 6 110
4

18. Other Findings: Sub-Q 3
Question Inputs Outputs Outcomes RIO, ROA, Valuation of Learning / Quality Efficiency Effectiveness Other Responses
or CBA staff educational measures measures measures (10x14x73=10,220
experience or outcomes (i.e. BSC, (i.e. 6 Possible)
knowledge Baldridge) Sigma, etc.) 1,578 Provided =
15.4%
1 Assessment 18 18 29 10 16 18 3 2 15 2 131
2 Budgeting 19 20 21 17 9 8 3 4 9 4 114
3 Decision making 19 19 24 10 14 10 3 2 13 6 120
4 Decision making - in 18 19 28 13 13 14 3 3 14 5 130
strategic decisions
5 Developing new 18 17 30 12 19 15 3 2 17 1 134
services, programs,
or delivery methods
6 Environmental 11 11 13 7 9 7 3 2 9 14 86
scanning
7 Fundraising 9 8 18 9 9 8 3 3 12 12 91
8 Marketing / Public 9 11 23 9 13 10 3 3 10 6 97
Relations
9 Organizational 12 10 19 5 19 19 3 3 13 7 110
learning
1 Planning programs 19 17 27 12 14 11 3 3 13 2 121
and services
0
1 Planning - strategic 20 20 30 14 14 12 3 4 14 2 133
or long range
1
1 Planning - 9 8 18 11 10 9 3 2 11 13 94
competitive response
2
1 Retention of staff 9 7 19 9 22 14 3 4 11 9 107
and administrators
3
1 Staff Development 10 10 21 8 21 18 3 3 10 6 110
4

19. Other Findings: Sub-Q 5
 There is a potential negative impact on the library organization’s ability to use
competitive / PM information to develop strategic responses due if the current
internal focus and recruitment over retainment emphasis continues. This will make it
difficult for library organizations to keep attract / keep experienced HLA / staff with
experience in using competitive / PM information to make strategic decisions in
place.

20. Conclusion: Overarching Question
How do head library administrators in North Carolina use
competitive and performance information in generating their
library’s strategic responses and reporting their strategic
value?
 the overall levels of respondent interest, organizational capacity and ability to
use competitive / PM information in the areas of developing and reporting
strategic impacts / value and addressing stakeholder strategic value questions
is sporadic in use; is primarily internally focused; and is more reporting than
responsive in nature
 there is little / no alignment between the competitive / PM information
available and how it is used by HLA / libraries in admin functions or to address
stakeholders questions regarding strategic value
 resource allocations (e.g. $/staff/admin time) to support competitive and PM
information use activities are perceived as limited yet HLA seem to have high
expectations for the results of these activities
 staff / administrators retention practices focus more on recruitment than
retention, inferring there is less experience / ability available within the library
organization for use in the competitive / PM information process to generate
strategic responses and values.

21. Implications
Research! Results additionally suggest that:
Education!  I now have more questions than answers…
 research is needed to better document and
Responding will be harder! understand the use, alignment, expertise, and
effectiveness of competitive / PM information by HLA
in developing strategic responses and reporting
strategic impact and values.
 educational opportunities and resources are needed
by North Carolina HLA in order to more effectively
develop strategic responses and report strategic
impacts and value for their libraries.
 North Carolina libraries have limited potential in
employing organizational intelligence and analytics to
convert competitive / PM information into strategic
responses or address questions of strategic impacts
and values.

22. Limitations & Future Actions
Need replication, larger sample size! This study’s conclusions are limited to the
academic and public library administrators in
Knowledge / interest needed! North Carolina who are participants and
presently serving in HLA positions in their
“This survey is a hoax!”
libraries.
Future actions will pursue determining how to
better understanding and explain the results of
this study. Additional actions will include
replication of the study in another state in the
coming year to determine validity of findings and
reliability of the study instrument; and extended
efforts at conducting the key informant
interviews and case studies to further examine
and understand the problem and HLA
information behaviors.

23. Closing Thoughts….
“You’ll never have all of the information you
need to make a decision. If you did, it would be
a foregone conclusion, not a decision.”
David Mahoney

24. Closing Thoughts….
“You’ll never have all of the information you
need to make a decision. If you did, it would
be a foregone conclusion, not a decision.”
David Mahoney
There was a man who dreamed….

25. Questions?
Contact information for questions,
collaborations, or copies of the
presentation:
Larry Nash White
Department of Library and Information Studies
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
534 Baldy Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1020
Email: lnwhite@buffalo.edu
Office Phone: 716.645.1473
Office Fax: 716.645.3775