Showing posts with label managers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label managers. Show all posts

Thursday, June 4, 2026

Who Is a Library Leader? | Editorial; Library Journal, May 4, 2026

 Hallie Rich, Library Journal; Who Is a Library Leader? | Editorial

"Lessons from 25 years of Movers & Shakers

In Library Journal’s 150th year, I find myself stepping back in time to reflect on the wisdom of many “library greats” who advanced the profession to where it stands today. Sometimes their work was highly visible, other times it was a quieter continuation of learning, iteration, and innovation.

In Library Journal’s 150th year, I find myself stepping back in time to reflect on the wisdom of many “library greats” who advanced the profession to where it stands today. Sometimes their work was highly visible, other times it was a quieter continuation of learning, iteration, and innovation.

I’m inspired both by lessons from past library leaders and those who excel at different levels today. This month we celebrate LJ’s 2026 Movers & Shakers, our 25th class. Many who were previously recognized have gone on to lead in the traditional sense of the word. Among our cohorts, we have Movers who became major library system directors, state librarians, school library district administrators, respected academics, ALA presidents, and a few SLJ and LJ Librarians of the Year.

Others have delivered excellent work, charting a path within librarianship that aligns with their individual interests and local, sometimes urgent, needs. Their efforts reflect a form of leadership that emerges while performing their duties with passion.

In his editorial announcing the first class of Movers & Shakers, the late John N. Berry III celebrated the librarians who lead through practical action and a dedication to professional values. He believed that leadership isn’t a skill to be taught nor guaranteed by fancy accolades. Rather, he wrote, “the best of us achieve leadership or have it thrust upon us.” I share his words from March, 2002:

Currently the library field is afflicted with yet another rash of initiatives devised to discover, identify, educate, and/or train leaders. When self-anointed leaders design such efforts, they usually mean ‘we need more librarians like us.’ When those who are not leaders do it, they usually mean ‘more people like us should be leaders.’ That’s why I’m suspicious when some library organization or group sets out, again, to identify ‘up-and-coming leaders,’ or claims it will train or educate the next generation of library leaders. My suspicions deepen when any group refers to itself as ‘the leadership.’

The activities and exercises they invent for developing leaders make me suspicious, too. They have all the earmarks of elites aborning or being strengthened. When they set up ‘retreats’ in the desert of Arizona, or climb to a leadership ‘institute’ on some mountainside in Utah, or gather for a ‘leadership weekend’ at some prestigious campus, I watch the results and wonder where the ‘leaders’ they found went afterwards. I notice that too often what is taught at these gatherings frequently mistakes management and/or administration for leadership. That is probably the most common mistake in leadership education, and it leaves me questioning if it is really possible to ‘educate’ or ‘train’ people to be leaders....

Of course, you can identify the smart, the just, and the articulate. Sure, you can teach the techniques of public speaking. You can explain the fundaments of fairness and justice. You can run courses and offer degrees in management and administration. None of these guarantees leadership or greatness. Indeed, if recent events are any indication, going to the best schools, earning the most money, and holding the top jobs don’t ensure legitimate or legal leadership....

So, when you receive the Movers & Shakers supplement with the March 15 [2002] issue of LJ, look only for ‘potential’ leaders and possible greatness. We have profiled more than 50 library staffers and library-industry workers who surely possess that potential. We’ve noticed them in action, heard about them from colleagues, or seen the results of their efforts. We think many of them are already library leaders, and more will become leaders....

What distinguishes them and what distinguishes leaders from the rest of us is that not only do they have strong convictions, they pursue them on the job. They have the potential for library greatness because they hold passionately strong beliefs about libraries and library service. They are driven by their professional concern that no one should be denied information because of his or her point of view, age, or the nature of the information. In short, their work is defined by our professional core values and our ideology. That is what will make them leaders and great librarians."

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

This Woman's Boss Kept Taking Her Work, So She Added A Hidden Signature To Her Presentation, And It's Deliciously Petty; Buzzfeed, March 7, 2022

Alexa Lisistza, Buzzfeed ; This Woman's Boss Kept Taking Her Work, So She Added A Hidden Signature To Her Presentation, And It's Deliciously Petty

"In hindsight, she said, "I think [managers passing off work as their own is] common because in this field of work, it’s like a lion cage. You need to fight your way up. Literally. No matter who gets hurt."...

Sometimes people forget that they work with people, for people," Cristina concluded. "It doesn’t always have to be a competition. We can work together to grow. We don’t need to steal from each other. We can learn from each other and be better — create a better [workspace]...where everyone is supported and appreciated. But sometimes, I feel like that’s just a dream.""

Friday, February 4, 2022

Where Automated Job Interviews Fall Short; Harvard Business Review (HBR), January 27, 2022

Dimitra Petrakaki, Rachel Starr, and , Harvard Business Review (HBR) ; Where Automated Job Interviews Fall Short

"The use of artificial intelligence in HR processes is a new, and likely unstoppable, trend. In recruitment, up to 86% of employers use job interviews mediated by technology, a growing portion of which are automated video interviews (AVIs).

AVIs involve job candidates being interviewed by an artificial intelligence, which requires them to record themselves on an interview platform, answering questions under time pressure. The video is then submitted through the AI developer platform, which processes the data of the candidate — this can be visual (e.g. smiles), verbal (e.g. key words used), and/or vocal (e.g. the tone of voice). In some cases, the platform then passes a report with an interpretation of the job candidate’s performance to the employer.

The technologies used for these videos present issues in reliably capturing a candidate’s characteristics. There is also strong evidence that these technologies can contain bias that can exclude some categories of job-seekers. The Berkeley Haas Center for Equity, Gender, and Leadership reports that 44% of AI systems are embedded with gender bias, with about 26% displaying both gender and race bias. For example, facial recognition algorithms have a 35% higher detection error for recognizing the gender of women of color, compared to men with lighter skin.

But as developers work to remove biases and increase reliability, we still know very little on how AVIs (or other types of interviews involving artificial intelligence) are experienced by different categories of job candidates themselves, and how these experiences affect them, this is where our research focused. Without this knowledge, employers and managers can’t fully understand the impact these technologies are having on their talent pool or on different group of workers (e.g., age, ethnicity, and social background). As a result, organizations are ill-equipped to discern whether the platforms they turn to are truly helping them hire candidates that align with their goals. We seek to explore whether employers are alienating promising candidates — and potentially entire categories of job seekers by default — because of varying experiences of the technology."

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Patent office workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds; Washington Post, 8/31/16

Lisa Rein, Washington Post; Patent office workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds:
"Thousands of employees who review patents for the federal government potentially cheated taxpayers out of at least $18.3 million as they billed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for almost 300,000 hours they never worked, according to a new investigation...
The investigation scheduled for release Wednesday by the independent watchdog for the Commerce Department, the patent office’s parent agency, determined that the real scale of fraud is probably double those numbers..."
Investigators also found widespread time and attendance abuse at another Commerce agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, where employees in the small hiring office overcharged the government for thousands of hours of time they never worked. The fraud, also carried out by supervisors, involved 40 employees, more than half of the staff of the small office."