This is may be a post which I’m going to regret and will hope that future employers don’t find during next my job search. But all I’m doing is asking questions – there’s no harm in that, is there?
I have noticed that there is a lot of inertia in the management of libraries. It is very hard to get something started or stopped during the regular decision-making process in libraries. This can be extremely frustrating to people who are sick to death of unproductive staff meetings and Committees.
What would happen if we just bypassed that system? Just do the work without approval.
It’s quite possible that the people in charge would not notice the change for some time. Maybe it would take so long, that if the unauthorized action was stopped, library users would notice and demand it to be reinstated. Maybe the formal process of shutting down the project would be so cumbersome that it would be easier to let it continue.
Is it better to spend your energies battling to get ideas implemented via a committee and get nothing done (or a few things done badly, which is even worse), or have a few things done well – only to risk them being shut down because you did not follow the right process?
I would not normally examine another librarian’s work issues unless he or she had already broached the topic in a post, as the ADHD Librarian did last month.
In a nutshell, he got into trouble for creating a myspace page for his library – without asking for authorization from a superior.
If I had to choose, would I rather be somebody who saw a need for something and tried to respond to that, only to be told off for not going through official channels? Or would I play it safe and not do anything until I had approval signed in duplicate? I know, I’m setting up a false dichotomy. Why am I discounting the likelihood of being able to use the formal processes and get things done?