Today I want to loop back to an issue I mentioned in an earlier piece: the problem that arises when a library leader finds herself in a state of principled opposition to the position of either the library (if she’s a middle manager) or the university (if she’s the library director).

Let’s return to the hypothetical example I used earlier: a library director is under pressure from staff to offer remote work options. However, university policy is clear that remote work is only allowed under highly exceptional circumstances, none of which applies to anyone who works in the library. When the library director communicates this back to her staff, the reaction is strongly negative, with some employees saying she should simply disregard the campus policy on the basis that it’s wrongheaded and out of date, and others arguing that even if breaking campus policy is a bad idea, simply saying “sorry, campus policy won’t permit it” is an insufficient response – she shouldn’t just be telling them what the policy is, but actively advocating on their behalf for the policy to change to what they believe it should be.

This scenario will be familiar to anyone who has served in a leadership or management position in a library. Invariably, at some point you’re going to find yourself in a situation in which your obligation to advocate downwards on behalf of leaders above you conflicts with your obligation to advocate upwards on behalf of the people you manage.

Our last three articles talked about the importance of keeping the library aligned with its host institution’s priorities and strategic directions, as a matter of both sound strategy and institutional ethics. But what about when the conflict a library leader experiences arises not from misalignment between her staff and the host institution, but between herself and her host institution (whether that’s the library or the university)? In other words, what if she finds herself genuinely in opposition to the institution’s priorities or directions, and wants both to follow her conscience and fulfill her obligation as a leader to be supportive of her employing institution?

Intellectual humility is an important principle for anyone, but it is an essential characteristic for those who are in a power position that allows them to impose their views on others.

In considering this difficult question, it’s important to keep perspective in mind. Not all disagreements between a leader and her institution are equally significant. If you’re a department manager in a library that charges overdue fees, and you believe that doing so is a bad idea, that may not represent a principle important enough to lead you to wonder whether you can continue in good conscience to work in that library. (Though I suppose it may.) However, if your library had a practice of allowing political groups with which you profoundly disagree to reserve and use its public gathering space, and if your expressed concerns about that practice have led to no policy change, then you might have a tougher decision to make: can you continue working for an organization that provides a space for such groups? If so, what form should your opposition to that policy take? Should you register your objection, or keep it to yourself, or refuse to abide by the policy (either explicitly or quietly)?

Or suppose that you’re the library director whose staff want to be able to work remotely, and you believe strongly that the campus policy should change to make remote work an option. What should you do with that disagreement? And to what degree should you communicate the fact of your disagreement to your staff (thereby demonstrating your solidarity with them but also demonstrating your lack of solidarity with your shared employer)? 

While it’s not possible to prescribe the correct approach for every situation (and there is sadly no way I could prescribe a single correct response to the remote-work scenario), there are a few principles that I believe can and should be applied regardless of the situational details:

• Speak freely up; speak carefully down. A manager in a library, or a library director at a college or university, needs to be able to speak frankly and openly with her supervisor. Such exchanges should always be mutually respectful, of course, but there should always exist a relationship between the manager and the administrator that allows for candid and open discussion of differences and concerns. When speaking about areas of institutional conflict with those she herself supervises, however, the manager or director needs to be more circumspect, explaining the issue clearly while also avoiding any language or framing that might communicate a more fundamental lack of support for the institution and its priorities. 
• Be clear on what is and is not a fundamental issue for you. In negotiations, we talk about “walking points” – issues on which we can’t compromise, and that if not resolved to our satisfaction will result in us walking away from the negotiating table and abandoning the deal. In a way, our employment is a matter of ongoing negotiation between us and our employers – there is always the possibility that a disagreement will arise that can’t be resolved to our mutual satisfaction. This may result in the employee being fired, or in the employee resigning. As managers and leaders, we need to always be clear on what principles are “walking points” for us. What areas of institutional disagreement can we tolerate and work through, and what issues would lead us no longer to be able to stay?
• Acknowledge and respect differences of perspective and opinion. The more fundamental an issue is for you, the harder it will be to recognize and acknowledge that others may see it differently, and perhaps with equal justification. Intellectual humility is an important principle for anyone, but it is an essential characteristic for those who are in a power position that allows them to impose their views on others.

None of these principles will magically resolve situations of conflict between the leader and her institution. But they can provide important guidance in navigating such conflicts in both a productive and an ethical manner.

Takeaways and Action Items

• Make a list of policies at your institution that your staff don’t like. For each one, ask yourself: Can I explain why this policy exists, and can I defend it honestly and coherently? If the answer to that question is no, consider discussing the list with the person to whom you report.
• Are there any policies at your employer with which you fundamentally disagree? Ask yourself what the prospects are for changing them. If the prospects for change are dim, how are you dealing with that?
• Try to explain an institutional policy with which you disagree in a way that communicates neither support for that policy nor objection to it. Can you do it?