Do We Organize for Success?
Take a look at library organizational charts.
Surprisingly, in spite of the many changes in the nature and delivery of our services, the “org charts” haven’t changed in decades.
Surprisingly, in spite of unique local circumstances and community-specific strategic plans, the “org charts” are surprisingly similar.
Most (there are a couple of notable exceptions) have a body at the top, sometimes with a deputy, then there’s the body for the central library and the body for the branches (we are still organizing around buildings?), then the body for the front of the house (sometimes the same person, “public services”) and the body for the back of the house (usually “technical services”), and off to the side the finance and facilities people (sometimes with HR and a few other “corporate services”). Usually further down, but sometimes at the same level, there might be a specific users coordinating body (typically children or “youth”) and an IT body.
Are we all the same? Are we all about books and buildings?
If the strategic plan has any meaning wouldn’t the organization reflect this, deeply and substantially, rather than just adding a line to someone’s job description or performance plan this year?
If neighbourhoods have any meaning, wouldn’t we encourage some diversity and specificity and innovation in different branches rather than continuing to hide behind some elusive standard and commonality?
Shouldn’t our organizational structures be subject to local plans, local priorities and thus changing over time, rather than being the same as 1953?