As I’ve discussed previously, policy creation is a bit of a two-edged sword: on the one hand, if you’re going to hold people accountable for certain practices and behaviors (or for refraining from certain practices or behaviors), it’s only fair to document those expectations clearly so that everyone knows what the expectations are. On the other hand, if you try to create an organizational policy to account for every possible eventuality, you’ll end up driving everyone crazy with unnecessary constraint — not to mention with trying to keep the policy library updated as things change.

With all of that in mind, though, let’s address an issue that every library has probably encountered: resistance to policy creation based on the argument that “we don’t need that policy because people are reasonable and can work out these issues for themselves.” Versions of this argument often arise when one or both of the following are true:

1. The purpose of the proposed policy would be to resolve conflict between two individuals or departments (the person objecting to the policy will usually be the one who has historically prevailed in the conflict), or
2. Someone has benefited from ambiguity that the policy is intended to resolve.

Examples of situations in which this kind of argument is likely to arise might include:

• One department’s workflows is in conflict with those of another department, and a policy is proposed to resolve that conflict.
• It’s not clear who is responsible for a particular area of work, and a policy is proposed that would clarify stewardship boundaries.
• Resource-allocation decisions (such as for travel or student hiring) are being made according to the whims and preferences of an individual, not according to clear and strategically formulated policy.
• An individual has become the sole source of authoritative information about a workflow or practice, with the result that the only way for others in the organization to learn what is expected is to ask that individual.

In all of the above circumstances, it’s easy to see why a person or an organizational unit might resist the creation of a formal policy. When two departments’ workflows are in conflict, it will usually be the case that one of the two departments has historically prevailed; that department may not be happy about a new policy that resolves the conflict in a way that doesn’t favor them. The same is true when stewardship boundaries are ambiguous; resolving that ambiguity may not be equally welcome to both parties. When an individual has become either the sole source of authoritative information about a workflow or has become the person to whom others must appeal for funding, that situation vests power in the individual that he or she will probably not want to give up.

One of the salutary things about policy is that it takes power away from individuals and vests it in the organization. This can also be a downside of policy.

One of the salutary things about policy is that it tends to take power away from individuals and vest it in the organization. This is a benefit when policies are created strategically and with reasonable restraint — but it can be a problem when policies are created in a haphazard way or to account for personalities rather than for larger organizational needs. And, of course, we often don’t want to disempower people — we want our folks to feel fully empowered to act within the scope of their stewardship. But this also means we need to make sure everyone fully understands where their stewardship ends and someone else’s begins, and we don’t want individuals creating de facto library policy without appropriate organizational oversight.

A key principle that I believe can be very helpful in threading this needle is: make policy based on principles, not personalities. A policy isn’t less necessary just because the people it would affect are good and reasonable people who can be trusted to act appropriately — for one thing, even good and reasonable people have bad days; for another, the people who will be in those positions one or two or ten years from now may not be as reasonable as the ones in place today. A policy is needed when the library and its patrons would benefit from clear and consistent expectations; the more important the program or service, and the more people it affects, the more important it will be to have clear and principle-based policies that apply to it.

What should those principles be? Tune in to the next post for some discussion about that.