One of the very wise things my library did long before I arrived as university librarian a few years ago was to create a guidelines document for administrative decision-making that includes definitions of various levels of “stakeholder” in a program, policy, or activity:

Steward – Someone whose job description includes oversight for the focus of the program or activity

Directly affected – Someone who is not a Steward, but whose essential job functions are significantly affected by the program or activity

Advisor – Someone who can provide particularly valuable input regarding the program or activity because of their job description or special expertise

Interested Party – Anyone else who has a personal or professional interest in the program or activity and wishes to make suggestions and/or stay informed

These categories reflect two important principles of decision-making in the library organization:

• Everyone should have a voice: no matter how distant they may seem from a particular process, position, or event, any employee may have valuable and relevant insights – and they certainly have the right to express their views.
• Not everyone can have a say: there are different kinds and degrees of “stakeholder” status, and the ability to directly shape policies and programs in the library needs to vary by role and assigned portfolio.

These two principles may seem to be somewhat in tension with each other, but in fact they are two sides of the same coin: a healthy organization recognizes that different people should have different levels of influence over policies and proposals, depending on their organizational function. If you make every library decision an organization-wide referendum, the result will be terrible outcomes, because those who have no skin in the game and no particular expertise in the topic will have just as much influence over the decision as those who do.

If every organizational decision is made democratically, the result will be terrible outcomes.

Of course, almost no one thinks that the library should be run entirely by democratic processes – most people intuitively understand that both relevant expertise and organizational role should confer greater influence according to the details of the specific case. However, too often leaders let themselves be swayed inappropriately by those who should have a voice but should not have a say. Sometimes they want to do a favor for an employee they particularly like (and perhaps want to keep); sometimes they let themselves be worn down by very persistent employees with particular axes to grind; sometimes they let themselves be swayed by employees with particularly strong personalities.

Wise library leaders remember that a leader’s work consists, to a significant degree, in saying no to people who want them to do the wrong thing. In the context of decision-making, this often means explaining to people why it is that although their voice matters, they still don’t have a say in a particular decision.

Takeaways and Action Items

• Everyone’s voice should be heard, but not everyone in the organization can or should have an equal say in every library decision.
• The degree to which any employee has a say in decision-making should be based on reasonable principles, communicated clearly and applied consistently.
• As a leader, when was the last time you said “yes” to someone when you really knew you should have said “no”? Did that lead to a bad decision? What will you do differently the next time you are faced with a similar situation?