Skip to content

Hanging Together

the OCLC Research blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Subscribe to Hanging Together
  • Cookies used on the OCLC.org website
Main Menu
Library Management / Research Library Partnership

Breaking down succession planning challenges with Metadata Managers

March 18, 2024March 18, 2024 - by Richard Urban

The challenges of transitioning to new metadata workflows have long been a concern to OCLC RLP Metadata Managers Focus Group members (What should metadata managers be learning?, Filling the bench, New skill sets for metadata managers). Recently, the group has asked me to facilitate deeper conversations about how to address these challenges. For the January 2024 session, I contacted Crystal Goldman, General Instruction Coordinator for the UC San Diego Library. Crystal’s research examines how staff in research libraries understand and apply succession planning. She notes that although there is some literature about the potential benefits of succession planning (and a call for more among library leaders/HR professionals), no comprehensive studies have been conducted across different libraries. In both her interviews and surveys, she has focused on three areas of activities (based on a framework from the Society of Human Resource Managers (SHRM)):

  • training and development
  • career planning and management
  • replacement planning or formal succession planning

To help us understand where Metadata Managers stand, we asked for responses to an informal survey using some of the questions from a previous instrument used in Crystal’s study of succession planning in ARL libraries.

Among both ARL libraries and Metadata Managers, formal succession planning (i.e. planning/preparing multiple individuals to potentially step into leadership roles) happens (if it happens at all) mostly at senior leadership levels. Like other ARL respondents, Metadata Managers were more likely to know about formal succession planning in their organizations if they were already managers in a leadership role. Metadata Managers identified that they engaged in replacement planning, often around key life events like expected temporary parental/medical leave and/or retirements. Even in these cases, identifying staff to fill gaps may happen in informal discussions with other managers while not directly engaging with staff who might see themselves in new roles. In the worst-case scenarios, Metadata Managers found themselves with unexpected vacancies, forcing them to promote “accidental managers” into leadership roles.

Metadata Managers reported slightly higher activity than most ARL respondents around training and development. Participants in our session felt this was unsurprising given the nature of metadata work and the changing landscape of technical developments that have been occurring. Similarly, Metadata Managers participate in some career planning and management, especially thinking about what kinds of competencies will be needed in the next five years. Forecasting those skills can inform decisions about hiring new staff members and/or providing opportunities for staff willing to seek new challenges.

During our discussion, I learned that a new revision of the Core Competencies for Cataloging and Metadata Librarians was just published. A recording of the authors speaking about the development of the revision is available from the ALA CORE interest group.

When the topic of succession planning has come up in the past, I sensed that Metadata Managers were responding to broad calls to do better in this area – and perhaps felt guilty that they hadn’t made more progress.  One of the most valuable things I walked away from the sessions with was a better way to tease apart the challenges we are all facing into structural, cultural, and agentive issues.   

Graphic illustrating the concept of structure (a house icon), culture (a group of three people icon), and agency (a thumbs-up icon).

Structure

In both our sessions, Metadata Managers acknowledged the challenges of working within organizational contracts, collective bargaining agreements, or other job classification criteria. At a time when metadata is changing, these structures can require additional effort to redefine a position’s required skills and experience. This may not be feasible due to time limitations and/or limited availability from human resources staff that are trying to fill multiple open positions. In these scenarios, it can help to focus energies toward longer-range thinking about competencies.

Several Metadata Managers noted that these structures can be especially frustrating in places where metadata is transitioning. Moving away from cataloging to other kinds of next-generation metadata work can be inhibited by structural agreements that classify staff differently. As hiring managers are already struggling against economic forces to attract people into libraries with the needed computer/data science expertise, this can require additional effort to navigate. Structures also limited Metadata Managers’ agency to provide professional development opportunities to staff with aptitude/attitude for new challenges because they fall outside narrowly defined positions.

Institutional policies requiring searches to be conducted in a specific way (e.g. external national searches) can also make it hard to elevate staff with an aptitude for leadership within the organization. In Crystal’s research and in our discussions, examples surfaced of promising leaders needing to leave their organizations to advance their careers. For other types of libraries, transitioning into a management role may come with risks due to the loss of contract protections.

Culture

In many ways, succession planning in academic libraries reflects the culture of academic institutions more broadly. In principle, these are organized around merit-based systems of advancement (i.e. tenure) that find corporate-style succession planning distasteful. In these contexts, seeking external candidates holds more value than advancing staff internally. These aspects of culture are often reified into structural policies that are difficult to change (either through practice or contractual obligations).

While there is value in adding new views and voices to an organization, this practice of preferring external hires can inhibit investments in developing staff leadership skills that are key to succession planning. This approach can also create self-fulfilling feedback loops, i.e. current leadership is reluctant to invest in leadership training for non-management staff because they will not be able to advance within the organization. This is reinforced by a fear that when staff do get this training, they are likely to find it easier to leave with their new skills to another organization. These kinds of cultural attitudes are also in operation around technical skills that create a Catch-22 for both managers and staff.

Agency

Within these kinds of structures and cultures, Metadata Managers have some opportunities to exercise their agency:

  • How can you embed future staffing needs into other strategic planning? Rather than focusing on the advancement of an individual (i.e. traditional succession planning), how can you have transparent conversations about how to advance as a group? In the process, you may find individuals who also want to advance their leadership/technical skills. This longer-range planning can also provide the time needed to navigate structural barriers and provide opportunities to redefine job descriptions that allow for growth with the right attitude.
  • As a Metadata Manager, you can cultivate a climate that supports discussions about career planning beyond immediate skills development. Even having a basic discussion with your team about planning can be a good way to start the ball rolling.
  • It may also be helpful to have a conversation within your organization about what it means to be successful regarding the different activities that make up succession planning. Is developing staff who leave to be successful elsewhere a win or a loss? If this is not the outcome you’re hoping for, how can you change the structural/cultural roadblocks to success?

An area that would be worth additional follow-up discussion is the relationship between diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in libraries and succession planning activities. This intersection was outside the scope of Crystal’s work and only briefly discussed during our sessions. On one hand, formal succession planning has been viewed as a detriment to DEI because it can reinforce systemic bias about who can advance in an organization. On the other hand, conscientious use of succession planning activities can help clear away these same obstacles. In our discussion, it was noted that the culture of external searches has been tied to DEI recruitment goals. As noted, this already creates tension when successful leaders need to change institutions to advance, potentially having a detrimental effect on the retention of diverse staff. If this is a topic that you’re currently working on in your library, please reach out about how we could facilitate a future conversation among the Metadata Managers Focus Group.

Richard Urban

OCLC Research

Hanging Together is the blog of OCLC Research. Learn more about OCLC Research on our website.

Stay Connected

Sign up to have Hanging Together updates sent directly to your inbox and to keep up with the latest news about OCLC Research.

Links

  • Next – OCLC Blog
  • OCLC Research
  • OCLC Research Library Partnership
  • WebJunction

Categories

  • Archives and Special Collections (228)
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) (18)
  • Born-Digital Special Collections (15)
  • Collaboration (30)
  • Collections (3)
  • Collective Collections (124)
  • Data Science (16)
  • Digital Preservation (70)
  • Digitization (25)
  • Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI) (99)
  • Evolving Scholarly Record (12)
  • Higher Education Future (9)
  • Identifiers (44)
  • Infrastructure and Standards Support (109)
  • Libraries (103)
  • Libraries Archives and Museums (136)
  • Libraries in the Enterprise (3)
  • Library Futures (11)
  • Library Management (14)
  • Linked Data (60)
  • Measurement and Behaviors (44)
  • Metadata (125)
  • Metadata Managers (7)
  • Miscellaneous (180)
  • Modeling new services (113)
  • MOOCs (7)
  • Museums (58)
  • New Model Library (2)
  • Open Access (21)
  • Renovating Descriptive Practice (131)
  • Research Data Management (31)
  • Research Information Management (52)
  • Research Library Partnership (227)
  • Research support (69)
  • Resource Sharing (11)
  • Searching (38)
  • SHARES (11)
  • Social Interoperability (35)
  • Supporting Scholarship (69)
  • Systemwide Organization (42)
  • User Behavior Studies and Synthesis (18)
  • Visual Resources (17)
  • Web Archiving (14)
  • WebJunction (8)
  • Wikimedia (43)

Share Buttons

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
Linkedin

Recent Comments

  • Trenton James on Navigating the future of special collections metadata by using insights from the past 
  • Jackie Dooley on Research rewind: reflections on hits from our back catalog
  • Merrilee Proffitt on Futureproofing library teams
  • Eleanor Johnston on Futureproofing library teams
  • Jackie Dooley on Advocacy and resourcing in special collections: Priorities, challenges, and advice from an OCLC RLP leadership roundtable

Categories

Archives

More about OCLC Research

Visit our web site.

Recent Posts

  • Artificial intelligence to support metadata workflows: an OCLC RLP working group
  • Timeless lessons on collaboration from OCLC Research  
  • Reimagine Descriptive Workflows in the UK and Ireland: An OCLC RLP community-informed discussion
  • Open research as a strategic priority: Insights from an OCLC RLP leadership roundtable
  • Linked data for metadata operations: An RLP Product Insights session summary

Policy Links

  • Code of Conduct
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement

Admin.

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
© 2024 OCLC || ISSN 2771-4802