Creating A Guiding Coalition

V o l u m e 2 9 , n u m b e r 2

Page 1

Leading change in libraries:

a case study

Catherine B. Soehner

Background

In September 2012, the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah was at a pivotal point

in its evolution. The Associate Dean (AD) for Library IT left for a new position as dean of a

library at another institution. As a result, we, the Library Administration, had an opportunity to

review our current IT personnel, services, and equipment, which led to the recognition of current

inefficiencies in our organizational structure. For example, over the years we placed IT

personnel in two different organizational departments. One department was labeled “Library

IT,” which focused on enterprise services such as the library catalog, website, and digital library.

The other department was titled “Computing and Media Services” (CMS), which focused on

internal desktop support for library employees and desktop support for four different student

computing labs throughout the campus. “Library IT” personnel reported to the AD for Library IT,

which was now vacant, and “CMS” personnel reported to the AD for Research and Learning

Services.

As can be expected, duplicate processes and services emerged. For example, each

department had separate processes and servers for backing up valuable library data. Both

departments began to develop a different version of a mobile view of the Library website without

knowing it. While an associate dean with IT experience supervised the Library IT department

the CMS department was supervised by an associate dean with little understanding of IT

systems and potential alternatives. This lack of IT knowledge meant there was limited high

level, critical review of decisions made regarding the implementation of desktop support

services.

As we discussed the future, it was agreed that a focus on digitizing, archiving, and providing

access to unique and rare collections would be a significant objective for the library; and that

this would be the main way to demonstrate the Library’s significance, contributions, and impact

V o l u m e 2 9 , n u m b e r 2

Page 2

on the research and teaching activities of the University and beyond. It was clear that

redirecting the efforts of our IT personnel would be needed to accomplish this goal as no new

staffing would be forthcoming. This moved us to begin the process of organizational change

that would bring the two IT departments – Library IT and CMS – together.

Implementation

After reviewing articles on organizational change (Burke, Lake, and Paine 2008; Geyer 2002;

Kinlaw 1989; Hawks 2013; Helphand 1997; Lubans 2009; Williamson 2008) and consulting with

a number of campus experts in this area, one article seemed most useful for the Library’s

needs: John P. Kotter, “Leading organizational change: Why transformational efforts fail”

(2007). We attempted to follow the paradigm for organizational change outlined in Kotter’s

article. In it, he discusses eight stages of change, the first three of which are: establish a sense

of urgency; form a powerful guiding coalition; and create a vision (2007, 1). According to Kotter,

getting these first three stages implemented properly will lead to the successful implementation

of the rest of the stages and a successful change process overall (2007, 1).

Stage 1: Establish a Sense of Urgency

To begin working on this first stage, we invited all library employees to participate in two open

feedback sessions to talk about what was working well in the current IT organizational structure

and what was not. Next, we held small group sessions with employees in the Library IT

department. We also arranged small group sessions with employees in the CMS department

and then with employees within Research and Learning Services and Special Collections. We

compiled a list of all comments into a SWOT analysis – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,

and Threats (SWOT Analysis, 2014).

The SWOT analysis was the basis of Kotter’s first stage, to establish a sense of urgency. In

order to provide this sense of urgency, we focused on the following weaknesses and threats:

difficulty working across organizational lines, lack of transparency regarding current IT projects,

lack of prioritization of IT projects leading to some projects making progress as the result of the

passion of one programmer, and a duplication of efforts between the two IT units. We also

focused on one of our main strengths as a leader in the state of Utah in digital collections and

identified opportunities to increase digitization efforts of our own rare materials along with

improving digital preservation efforts.

V o l u m e 2 9 , n u m b e r 2

Page 3

This combination of weaknesses and threats that could hold us back from using our strengths to

achieve new opportunities established the sense of urgency needed to make the changes to

combine the Library IT and CMS departments. Using the voices of library staff as the basis of

this analysis was especially helpful in meeting this initial stage of organizational change,

establish a sense of urgency (Kotter 2007, 1).

Stage 2: Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition

The second stage of change as described by Kotter was to form a powerful guiding coalition. It

was during this stage that we made our greatest strides toward change and our most significant

missteps.

At this point, we invited a known change leader on campus to help map out the necessary steps

to implement the merger of the Library IT and CMS departments. We decided that the powerful

guiding coalition would consist of the AD for Research and Learning Services, the Interim AD for

Library IT, and the campus change leader. To get started, the change leader recommended

that we request a report from each of the Library IT and CMS departments describing their

current work. The purpose of these reports was to obtain a baseline understanding of the

current work completed by these departments, their vision for the future, and possible changes

they could support, including a merger of the two departments.

In addition to the many thoughtful and insightful comments these reports contained, one of the

departments made a consensus statement that read, “The general feeling is that Senior

Administration is not listening to the concerns of those on the front lines.” Considering the

number of group meetings that took place and the careful collection of feedback from those

meetings, this statement seemed incongruent. Therefore, we invited another expert in change

management, this time a library employee, to meet with this department without anyone from

Library Administration present to obtain clarification regarding this inconsistency.

This meeting resulted in a better understanding between the department and the AD to whom

they reported. Additionally, someone in the group observed that not enough people from the IT

departments were included in the change process. This was an accurate statement considering

the composition of the original guiding coalition and a change in the merger process was made:

A task force of IT managers was created to play a pivotal role in assisting us with the merger.

This task force consisted of an equal number of managers from both the Library IT and CMS

departments. We called this new group “IT Managers” and they became the powerful guiding

V o l u m e 2 9 , n u m b e r 2

Page 4

coalition, thus accomplishing Kotter’s second stage in a way that was more inclusive of the

people directly involved in the change.

Stage 3: Create a Vision

During the first meeting of the IT Managers a self-assessment tool used in a previous library

reorganization was presented and the group was asked to adjust this tool to reflect IT tasks and

skills. When eventually distributed the self assessment tool would ask IT personnel to indicate

their strengths, weakness, and list the top five areas in which they would like to work. During

this first meeting of the IT Managers, an amazing change took place. They began a discussion

of norms and values of a newly merged IT department, which was the beginning of a shared

vision, Kotter’s third stage.

Observations

The process used to merge the two departments resulted in four observations.

First Observation

As stated above, many people have written about implementing change. For this organizational

change, we followed Kotter’s model with some modifications. Chief among these was dealing

with persistent resistance to change, which Kotter does not address in his article. It was

sometimes necessary to have very frank and candid conversations with individuals who were

persistent in their resistance to moving forward.

One example of this was our response to a person who continued to bring up concerns about

the ability of his staff to address the workload assigned. Throughout the process of the

reorganization, we took into account this person’s perspective and we made significant changes

to the process and the draft organizational chart to address his specific concerns. For example,

the first draft organizational chart moved four people from his unit into other IT units. When he

voiced concerns about this being too many people leaving his unit considering the workload, we

returned two people to their original unit. Additionally, we created agreements throughout the

new IT Services department for this person to request assistance from others during the busiest

times for his unit.

After the third conversation of concerns expressed and compromises reached, this person

continued to resist the change. At this point, we acknowledged the concerns, reflected on the

compromises made, recognized that there were still areas of disagreement, and then brought

V o l u m e 2 9 , n u m b e r 2

Page 5

the conversation to a close by indicating that the changes would move forward with an invitation

for assessment after six months. Though Kotter’s model was very helpful, he does not describe

how to deal with those who remain resistant to the proposed change. Obtaining skills to have

difficult conversations is a necessary component to finalizing a change, especially when there

are individuals who remain resistant (Soehner 2013).

Second Observation

A second observation was that some managers were not ready to act as leaders during this

process. Kotter states, “A paralyzed senior management often comes from having too many

managers and not enough leaders. Management’s mandate is to minimize risk and to keep the

current system operating. Change, by definition, requires creating a new system, which in turn

always demands leadership” (2007, 1). The IT Managers brought together managers from both

departments and we asked them to take on a leadership role. All members of IT Managers

attended a two-hour leadership seminar to introduce them to this new role of leadership. The

seminar emphasized how to communicate to others about the change in a positive manner,

even if the managers themselves disagreed with the new direction.

Later in the process, it was clear that we should have provided more of this kind of training and

that a 2-hour seminar was not enough to turn some individuals who were dedicated managers

into true leaders. For example, a couple of managers insisted that members of their staff would

quit if we continued with the merger of the two departments. We responded by suggesting that

quitting a job was a personal decision and, while we would miss anyone who left, the merger

would continue. Others benefitted a great deal from the seminar and their leadership skills were

obvious throughout the rest of the process.

Third Observation

The third, and most surprising, observation was that some IT employees did not believe Library

Administration listened to them during the change process leading to the merger. As stated

previously, considering the number of group meetings that took place and the careful collection

of feedback from those meetings, this statement seemed incongruent with reality. The

disconnect between their belief of not being heard and the fact that we made efforts to listen to

them led us to speculate that the IT employees were confusing “being listened to” with “being

agreed with.” In other words, did some IT employees believe that if Library Administration did

not agree with them, Library Administration was not listening to them? From our point of view,

V o l u m e 2 9 , n u m b e r 2

Page 6

we had heard their concerns, but simply disagreed that the concerns were enough to stop the

merger. Even though Kotter does not present this situation precisely, it seems the best solution

is to continue to keep lines of communication open and a neutral party can help facilitate this

open communication.

Fourth Observation

Finally, more communication might have made the process less contentious. For example,

once we established a sense of urgency, each member of Library Administration should have

made a point of stating this sense of urgency in all meetings we attended when library staff was

present. This would have increased the number of times all library staff, including IT

employees, heard the message of urgency for change and provided additional opportunities to

discuss it. As Kotter states, “Without credible communication, and a lot of it, the hearts and

minds of the troops are never captured” (2007, 6, italics added).

Conclusion

In creating organizational change, it is important to be flexible. Following the stages of

organizational change that Kotter outlines and applying these stages to academic libraries was

very useful. While we adjusted the stages based on cultural norms of academia in general, the

stages were a helpful way to organize the process and move forward. We also adjusted

Kotter’s model as the result of strong reactions from groups or individuals. Trust between

employees and Library Administration was improved when we remained open to employees’

concerns and adjusted the process based on those concerns. Additionally, communicating to

employees the need for change, the process to be used, and the vision for the new department

was crucial in resolving concerns and encouraging employees to come into agreement with the

new direction. Finally, frank and direct communication may be necessary to bring along

employees remaining resistant to the very end. These conversations may be difficult but are

essential to the change process and are an essential competency for leadership.

Acknowledgements

Several people were instrumental in this change process including Rick Anderson, Ann Marie

Breznay, Melanie Hawks, and Teri Olsen. Their assistance in the implementation of this change

process is deeply appreciated.

V o l u m e 2 9 , n u m b e r 2

Page 7

References

Burke, W. Warner, Dale G. Lake, and Jill Waymire Paine, eds. Organization change: A

comprehensive reader. Vol. 155. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Geyer, E. M. “IT enabled organizational change: A framework for management.” Journal

of Library Administration, 2002: 36(4), 67-81. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/57538615?accountid=14677

Hawks, Melanie. Coaching through change. Unpublished documents prepared for the

Marriott Library Management and Leadership Training Program. 2013.

Helphand, M. (1997). Leadership for Successful Change. Unpublished documents

prepared for a workshop with the United Way of Greater Salt Lake.

Jaguszewsk, Janice M. and Karen Williams. New roles for new times: Transforming

liaison roles in research libraries. Washington D.C.: Association of Research Libraries,

2013.

Kinlaw, Dennis C. Coaching for commitment: Managerial strategies for obtaining

superior performance. San Diego: University Associates, 1989.

Kotter, John P. “Leading change-why transformation efforts fail.” HBR Articles (2007):

1-10.

Lubans, John Jr., “The Spark Plug: A Leader’s Catalyst for Change” Library Leadership

& Management, (2009): 23(2), 88-90. Retrieved from

http://journals.tdl.org/llm/index.php/llm/article/viewFile/1771/1046.

Soehner, C. B. (2013). Be Brave: How to Have a Difficult Conversation Even if You’re

Terrified. Paper presented at the 2013 Utah Library Association Annual Conference,

Provo, UT.

“SWOT Analysis.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, 2014. Web. 5 July 2014

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis>.

Williamson, V. “Relationships and engagement: The challenges and opportunities for

effective leadership and change management in a Canadian research library.” Library

Management, 2008: 29(1-2), 29-40. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435120810844621

Published: February 2015

Catherine Soehner ([email protected]) is the Associate Dean for Research and Learning Services at the University of Utah’s J. Willard Marriott Library.

Copyright of Library Leadership & Management is the property of American Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.