Libraries and the Importance of Being Ambidextrous by Jill Markgraf (Director, McIntyre Library, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire) <MARKGRJS@uwec.edu>
A
pandemic was the furthest thing from our minds five years ago when we began a series of staffing changes to become more lean and agile. At the time, we naively believed that a severe state budget cut to the state university system would be the greatest challenge our library would face. Our challenge was not simply to survive in austere times, but to continually anticipate and meet the evolving needs of our communities. To meet these challenges, we refined existing services while simultaneously exploring new initiatives. We had unwittingly become an ambidextrous organization. An ambidextrous organization, according to R. Jantz (2015), “is characterized by the ability to simultaneously conduct exploratory activities while also supporting and enhancing current services” (p. 516). To meet immediate budgetary challenges, we consolidated services, reduced hours, and ramped up efforts to identify and increase efficiencies. Simultaneously, we had the audacity to begin exploring and planning for a library makerspace. Our progression toward becoming ambidextrous can be described in three stages: Cross-pollinating, cross-training, and cross-functioning.
Cross-pollinating Like many libraries, we were traditionally divided into separate and distinct units such as Access Services, Research and Instruction (including reference), and Technical Services. Our staff of 30 was small enough that everyone knew each other, but aside from some staff meetings, communication was largely within units. Challenging times can ignite distrust and defensiveness where divisions are built into the structure. We took steps to encourage and enable cross-pollination, or the opportunity to talk and share ideas across units: • We conducted a committee inventory, where we disbanded legacy, inactive, and stale committees and replaced them with action and outcome-oriented teams. Our old structure was a source of frustration: it was unclear what authority each committee had to make decisions or how committee work was balanced with unit work, and there was a lack of consistency among unit leaders in supporting committee work by staff. In the new teams structure, we made functionally appropriate appointments to lead the teams and empowered them to make decisions. We invited staff to serve on committees in areas of interest to them, with an eye toward distributing opportunities for participation among all faculty and staff. We clarified with unit leaders that team activity was not taking people away from their jobs; rather it was an essential component of their jobs. Teams — such as communications, EDI (equity, diversity, and inclusivity), assessment, and space planning — drew volunteers from across the library. A new content promotion team, was charged with strategizing ways to better highlight our collections. Staff from five units comprised the committee, pooling their creative skills, interests, and areas of expertise to create ongoing series of displays that resulted in increased circulation 30 Against the Grain / September 2020
of featured collections. In addition to providing a valued service for library patrons, team members reported that their content promotion work had become the favorite part of their jobs. They appreciate working with people from other parts of the library, exercising their creative muscles, having ownership of a project, and contributing in a meaningful way. • In 2017, still reeling from budget cuts, it may have been prudent to focus on maintaining and surviving with reduced resources. We did that, but being unintentionally ambidextrous, we also chose this moment to explore the idea of creating a makerspace. The library systems coordinator, an ardent proponent of the maker movement, led the charge. The shift of some technical support responsibilities to our library consortia’s centralized team made space in his workload for this new endeavor. As with other teams, interested library staff volunteered to serve, along with other interested parties on campus. Over several months, the task force developed a plan, and startup funds from student senate were secured. The library then had to figure out how to staff the space with no hope of additional personnel. An invitation to be part of the makerspace team went to all staff. We asked for a minimum commitment of two hours per week. Seven expressed interest: two systems staff, a cataloger, a circulation desk/equipment checkout supervisor, a research and instruction assistant, and two library faculty. Collectively they brought an array of skills — from computer programming to quilting — that would launch the space and guide initial programming. Their enthusiasm and shared vision forged a productive, innovative, and cohesive team.
Cross-training As staff developed professional relationships outside of their traditional units, we noticed growing trust among units, less territorialism, and more grassroots collaboration taking place. This created a culture that had previously eluded us, in which staff were receptive to more cross-training among units and functions. • The makerspace team pooled their knowledge, training each other in sewing, 3D printing, soldering, crocheting, etc. They offered workshops not just for students, but also for colleagues during summer retreats and staff development days. Empowering library staff to share their interests and skills and teach others helped build appreciation for colleagues. It also served to dismantle some of the hierarchical divisions among library faculty and staff, as well as among units. • The growing popularity of the makerspace necessitated expanding its hours of operation. Doing so would require staffing adjustments elsewhere. Fortunately, we were ambidextrously assessing and refining the traditional and essential services provided at the circucontinued on page 31
<http://www.against-the-grain.com>
