A common critique of the scholarly humanities is that it’s a system under which a very small number of tenured and tenure-track faculty turn out a large number of new PhDs every year, thus creating a constantly growing number of aspiring humanistic academics for whom there are no academic jobs available – or, at least, no tenure-track professorial jobs.

But this isn’t just a problem in academia – I think it’s a problem with American culture generally when it comes to leadership. I have long been uncomfortable with the assumption, which seems pervasive to me, that everyone should aspire to higher and higher positions of leadership – that this represents “growth,” and in fact the only meaningful manifestation of growth. That assumption is baked into statements of educational mission that proclaim the organization’s goal to turn all of its students into leaders, and into cultural rhetoric that treats leadership as the assumed goal of all self- and professional development.

Obviously, if everyone becomes a “leader” then they’ll run out of people to lead. Of course, people can lead in different ways and not everyone who has the qualities of a leader is going to use those qualities in a formal professional role as a manager or administrator. But if everyone who graduates from a university does so with the expectation that he or she is going to be a professional leader, there will be a lot of disappointed people in the workforce.

One possible response to this reality might be to say “Well, we need to create more leadership opportunities.” And maybe we do – but we’ll never create enough formal, professional leadership opportunities to accommodate everyone who wants them (or even everyone who is qualified to hold them).

What if, instead, we were to take a step back and say “Not everyone needs to aspire to leadership; it’s okay to be happy as a follower, if that’s where you’re most comfortable”?

Let’s step back from the macro question, though, and focus more on the issue of library leadership. What I want to suggest today is that just because you work in a library, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you need to aspire to being a library administrator or director. If that role sounds interesting and exciting to you, then great – by all means, pursue it. But if it doesn’t, don’t feel guilty. Most people who work in libraries won’t ever direct a library. And there’s no reason for them to feel like they should.

If you’ve been thinking about pursuing library leadership, but you’re not positive it’s the right thing for you, I would suggest asking yourself some questions that might help you get a better sense of whether library leadership really would be a good fit. These include:

• How much do I like meetings? We tend to assume that everyone hates meetings, but that’s actually not true. Everyone hates bad meetings, of course, but meetings themselves are not unpleasant for everyone. In fact, there are lots of people who find meetings invigorating and energizing, who love the opportunity to talk through problems and challenges in person with colleagues, and who think better through conversation than through quiet individual reflection. If that describes you, then you’re likely to enjoy one of the major features of library leadership, which is participating in (and usually leading) meetings. Which brings us to the next question:
• How much do I like running meetings? This is a very different issue: even for people who enjoy meetings, always being the one in charge of the meeting can be exhausting. If you hate running meetings, you will hate being a library leader.
• How much do I like fundraising? If you’re the leader of an academic library, chances are good that a significant chunk of your time will be spent raising funds to supplement your library’s budget. This means lots of time spent cultivating relationships with rich people – holding receptions, going out to dinner, managing advisory groups, etc. This kind of work is some people’s personal definition of heaven; for others, it’s a perfect hell. If you fall into the latter category, library leadership may not be for you.
• Am I okay with people being mad at me? One of the tough realities of leadership is that if you’re a leader, someone will almost certainly be mad at you at all times. Not necessarily because you’re doing things wrong (though of course you might be), but simply because two people in an organization will sometimes want mutually exclusive things and only one of them can win, and it will be your job as leader to pick the winner. Often, of course, you can resolve disputes with compromise or restructuring – but not always. And it’s also true that whenever you do the right thing as a leader, some people will agree with it and be happy, and others will disagree and be angry, even if it’s indisputably the right thing. Good leaders don’t enjoy making people angry – but they have to be able to accept people being angry. That can be really, really hard, and there’s no shame in saying it’s not for you.
• Can I have hard conversations? One of the worst things about being a leader is having to tell people things they really, really don’t want to hear. Things like “it’s not working out and we’re going to have to let you go,” or “I know you worked really hard on this project, but it’s become clear that we need to give it to someone else” or “you are going to have to find a way to work constructively with your colleague or else you’ll have to start looking for another position.” Being a good leader means not just being able and willing to say those things, but also being able to say them in a way that is kind and empathetic and firm and consistent. Not everyone wants to do that. Not everyone should want to do it.
• Can I control my emotions? Being an effective leader requires the ability to not get visibly upset even when someone is yelling at you or when someone is accusing you unfairly or when something disastrous has happened and everyone is looking at you to see what they should do next. To be clear: I’m not saying that leaders shouldn’t show emotion; I’m saying that leaders have to be able to control themselves, even when feeling extreme emotion. Among other things, this means being able to refrain from responding in kind when someone else is yelling or accusing; it means being able to swallow the sarcastic or cutting response to someone who is making deeply ill-informed criticisms of you or your organization, and instead respond calmly and respectfully; it means being able to think clearly when your heart is pounding and sweat is breaking out on your forehead. To some degree these skills can be learned, but, like music and art and public speaking, they come more naturally to some people than to others.
• Can I keep my mouth shut? Keeping your mouth shut is one of the most important skills of leadership – both in the context of self-control (see above) and also in the context of confidentiality. I’ll be very blunt here: if you can’t keep a secret, you can’t be a library leader. In a leadership role you’ll become privy to highly sensitive and confidential information that simply can’t be shared, or that can only be shared in a very limited way. Some of it will be institutional information that you can’t share with your library team; some of it will be personnel information that you can’t share with anyone except your human resources manager; some of it will be sensitive financial information or intellectual property.

The above is not an exhaustive list of the questions you should ask yourself when deciding whether or not to pursue leadership positions in libraries, but it hits some of the most important issues. Next week I’ll share some thoughts on characteristics and orientations that make a great leader.