Just about every academic library has one: an employee who has figured out that he or she (I’ll just say “he” from now on, for simplicity) can get what he wants by making life miserable for everyone else unless he gets it. In politics this is called the “terrorist’s veto” — basically a strategy that says “Give me what I want or I’ll wreak havoc.” In libraries, where actual terrorism and murderous threats are relatively rare, the milder term “heckler’s veto” is probably more apt. But in both cases, the fundamental strategy is the same. It may be the last recourse for a person who realizes he’s not winning the argument in a group deliberation or a democratic process, or it might be a way of extorting a manager or leader when the heckler disagrees with her about goals or priorities. Just as a single heckler in the audience can completely disrupt a performance or speech, a single heckler in the library can significantly disrupt the organization’s work.

So one of the most important functions of a leader is to ensure that the heckler doesn’t get a veto.

But how?

Obviously, the answer depends on how the heckler’s veto is being wielded, so to answer that question, we have to look at common manifestations of this gambit in the academic library, and some suggested ways that a leader can deal with them.

The Filibuster

Manifestation: The heckler attempts to essentially take over a meeting or a discussion, addressing his concern at length and refusing to cede the floor to someone else. Regardless of the specifics of the concern, the underlying message is usually “This issue is more important than observing the niceties of meeting etiquette. Leadership is not giving this issue the serious attention it deserves, and I’m commandeering the floor in this meeting in order to convey the issue’s seriousness and force everyone to listen.”

Management Response: In this scenario, there are usually two issues: first, the heckler tries to take up more time than is reasonable; second, the heckler starts repeating himself. If you’re in charge of the meeting, it’s the repetition that will give you the most natural opportunity to short-circuit the heckling. If he’s not repeating himself, but instead following a single long line of argument, you’ll have to wait for him to take a breath, and then simply interrupt: “Fred, I hear the point you’re making. We have other agenda items that we need to address today, but let’s make an appointment for you and me to talk more about this issue.” (Of course, in some cases the heckler will already have talked to you, and/or submitted a proposal, and is upset that doing so hasn’t led to him getting his way. But you can still offer to meet with him again. The point is to interrupt the filibuster, and to demonstrate publicly your willingness to hear him out in a more appropriate forum.) The heckler will not usually refuse outright to stop talking once told to do so, but if he does, the leader may have to ask him to leave. In an extreme scenario, where the heckler refuses to stop and refuses to leave, the person in charge of the meeting may have to dismiss everyone else. The heckler’s misbehavior, by this point, will have risen to the level of requiring some degree of formal discipline.

Refusal to Drop the Issue

Manifestation: This strategy is related to the filibuster, but it has an important difference. Refusing to drop the issue tends to be iterative; the heckler brings up the same issue in every meeting, refusing to accept the answers given. The heckler may not take an inordinate amount of time on the topic in any given meeting, but will insist that it be addressed over and over again and will express frustration that all he ever gets are the same unsatisfactory responses. Along with this strategy will often come an unwillingness to discuss the issue one-on-one or in a smaller meeting: “No,” the heckler might say, “I want you to answer these questions in a public forum.”

Management Approach: This situation calls for deep reserves of patience on the leader’s part. Just as the heckler is frustrated that he’s not getting satisfactory answers, the leader will likely be frustrated that her answers (which may be the only answers available) are never satisfactory. Here the heckler has an advantage: he can show his frustration openly, while the leader needs to be very careful to hide hers. The first few times this happens, a wise leader will simply respond, truthfully and candidly, as if each were the first time. But after, say, the third time, the leader can say “I’ve answered this question multiple times already. If you’re still not satisfied with the answer, let’s talk further one-on-one instead of making everyone else hear the same question and answer over and over.” If the heckler is unwilling to have a one-on-one conversation, that’s his choice.

Harassment

Manifestation: Hecklers who have become particularly frustrated with normal processes and procedures may resort to behavior that amounts to harassment: encouraging multiple people from outside the library to contact a library decision-maker in support of his cause; following the leader or manager out to their car; yelling at them in their offices or in public spaces of the library; leaving them anonymous notes; etc. It’s rare, but I have even seen instances of vandalism.

Management Approach: Harassment is where the heckler’s veto starts becoming more like the terrorist’s veto. Library leaders cannot permit harassment in any form, and must treat it as a disciplinary issue from the moment it arises. When the leader becomes aware of this kind of behavior, she should immediately involve the library’s human resources manager and meet with the heckler promptly, making clear the expectation that the behavior stop immediately and laying out the consequences (as per both library and campus policies) if it does not.

Circumvention

Manifestation: Sometimes the heckler will exercise his “veto” by circumventing the leader and taking the issue up one or more organizational levels — most likely to the person to whom the library leader reports, but sometimes all the way to the institution’s top leadership. Campus administrators are used to this happening, and (except when the heckler is making an accusation of genuine malfeasance) will invariably refer the heckler back to the library leader.

Management Approach: If this happens, prompt action is (again) essential. The leader should explain the inappropriateness of such circumvention to the heckler, explaining that not only does it constitute potentially actionable insubordination but that it also undermines the library itself in the eyes of campus administration. Involve HR, document the behavior, and make clear to the heckler that further instances of it may lead to disciplinary action.

Undermining

Manifestation: Undermining can be subtle, and therefore challenging to deal with. The line between appropriate critique and actionable insubordination can be fuzzy and, to some degree, subjective; in my experience, wise library leaders give those they lead broad latitude to speak critically of the organization and its leadership. But there are limits, especially when it comes to external communication. It’s one thing to badmouth the library’s leadership or practices internally, among library colleagues; it’s another to do so with student patrons, campus faculty, or members of the broader community. Such a strategy can be tempting to a library employee who feels strongly that the library should be doing something differently and has become frustrated at his inability to convince leadership to change course.

Management Approach: As noted above, wise library leaders do not try to clamp down on internal dissent; instead, they try to work with the dissenters both to give a good-faith hearing to their concerns and to help them keep their expressions of dissent appropriate and professional. But undermining the library and its leadership with external constituencies calls for a firmer response. A leader who learns about such behavior should meet promptly and one-on-one with the person responsible, ask careful questions to ensure that she genuinely understands what was done and said, and then be clear in her expectation that it not happen again, documenting the meeting and keeping the documents on file. Repeated manifestations of this behavior should be treated seriously as a disciplinary matter.

Final Note

Some of the above behaviors (notably harassment) should be treated as disciplinary matters immediately. But leaders need to be careful not to overreact when a heckling behavior is more annoying than genuinely disruptive or abusive. In most cases, formal disciplinary action is only justified when the behavior is persistent and the heckler is not responding appropriately to informal counsel and guidance.