# Presentation: 043354

## Training Issues Managers Face

- Matthew Beacom
- Yale University
- Friday, June 22, 2007

**Notes:**
The sub-title in the preconference agenda reads “Increasing awareness of Employer and Educator Needs” but you will see that I have not concentrated on that angle in my talk today. Instead, I have taken the title proper rather seriously and have considered the training issues that managers face given the current revolutionary environment.

## Training Issues Cloud

- Skill sets	RDA	non-Roman scripts 	 Web 2.0 	Web architecture
- 	 digital libraries	**new hires**		People
**Morale **	  	time	 	retirements
- 			 RLG->OCLC
- 		  metadata		expert/novice		PCC	long term staff
- 	Next Gen OPACs		google	 Cataloging courses Work Culture
- 	Change			Digital Asset Management Systems
- 				Vendors		NACO
- 		Convergences			LCSH
- 					Productivity

**Notes:**
Obviously, I’m trying to fake a tag “cloud” of issues and give some relative weight to them by size. It may work a little bit, but the obvious issues are pretty clear: People, Morale, metadata, the Web, Google, and all that, Work Culture, Change and Productivity. These are the big ones. I want to take the technological and social revolution in information use that is underway now for a decade or so as a given. It is driving a lot of change, creating a lot of stress on institutions and people, and offering many opportunities for new roles and increases in productivity, but it isn’t what I think we need to focus on today as we talk about the training issues we face as managers. The critical issues we face are those that come together as we develop ourselves, our colleagues and the institutions we work within to be highly productive as workers, colleagues and leaders, and to do so in the face of rapid and disruptive change. For me, individual and institutional morale is the key issue. Morale is both an indicator of success or failure and a driver of improvements in productivity through training. My thesis or rather my hunch is that by paying attention to morale we will be best able to manage the development of the kind of institution or workplace that helps its members thrive on change and grow in skill and productivity.

## Morale

- Individual Morale
- Good: happy, eager, growing, rate-buster
- Bad: miserable, resentful, stuck, deadwood
- Institutional Morale
- Good:	focused, supportive, directed, whole/collegial
- Bad: confused, exploitive, aimless, fragmented
- Morale is an emotional state (like *trust*)
- It is easy to offend people, so be careful how you manage morale
- It is not rocket science, so do the obvious things that others have done

**Notes:**
We need to be as smart about managing morale as we are about managing budgets, contracts, space, workflows, etc. Managing morale is part of motivating people and institutions to be successful.

Of course this is all mushy, and my personal inclinations show here rather than any objective or universal set of characteristics for good or bad morale. However, as a manager I am concerned with the morale of each of my colleagues and the morale of the unit and the institution overall. As mushy as this is, I know that I need to keep unit morale “up” to be in a position to attempt large goals or manage significant changes. 

Why this focus on morale in a session on training? Because people with poor morale will not take to being trained and institutions with poor morale will not be able to successfully apply any training its people get.

Training – learning– its all about change. And change—the degree of change we face now in libraries and similar organizations—is what has made me put morale first in my list of training issues. 

## Change

- Change can be incremental
- Easy to adjust to, but it is cumulative
- Change can be disruptive
- Difficult to adjust to, but it is intermittent
- Change can be responded to
- We can DENY or RESIST change
- We can MANAGE or CONTROL change
- We can THRIVE on change

**Notes:**
Change is our environmental constant. Change is always the state we live and work in. Change is complex, multiple and various. The two types of change—incremental and disruptive—are just two of the ways we can describe and classify change. But either kind of change challenges us and offers opportunities.

## People	and their skill sets

- People are not skill sets, but they need a set of skills
- Works well with others
- Manages self/follows directions/leads
- Solves problems
- Is highly literate
- Is adept with information technology
- Knows another language or two or more

**Notes:**
Generally, we need people who come to us with these skills; we are not well-positioned to train staff in these skill areas.

## People, skills, etc., cont.

- More skills in the skill set
- Knows subject area
- Trained in description
- Trained in subject analysis and assignment
- Trained in classification
- Trained in particular tools

**Notes:**
These are the skill areas that we can provide on-the-job training or support off-site training. But each of these skill areas is potentially huge. And people, the possessors of skill sets, are not infinitely expandable. They can only learn so much; they can only master so much. 

The question then becomes one of making choices. What skills does the institution need, to what degree of mastery, and in how many people? That question leads us to consider the institutional questions such as prioritizing the need for particular skills, allocating resources to develop those skills in people on their staff or use third parties to provide the skills (e.g. using a vendor to do some specialized work.) 

People have characteristics aside from the skill sets they can apply at work. I’ll mention just a few limiting factors. People have limited capacities for productive work, learning new skills, and solving problems. The limits are highly variable across individuals and highly consistent within them. As managers we need to be alert to these differences and work to optimize the conditions that reward success and work to avoid creating the conditions that punish it.

## Institutions and their Work Cultures

- People have their limits: *one* can’t do everything
- People need cohesive work units
- Cohesion depends on trust, communication, and productivity

**Notes:**
People have characteristics aside from the skill sets they can apply at work. I’ll mention just a few limiting factors. People have limited capacities for productive work, learning new skills, and solving problems. The limits are highly variable across individuals and highly consistent within them. As managers we need to be alert to these differences and work to optimize the conditions that reward success and work to avoid creating the conditions that punish it.

Work units are a critical element for everything from morale to productivity. People are social animals. Even the most introverted among us needs other people. Work groups may range from a partner to a small team to the whole library. The keys to cohesion is trust, communication and productivity. In order for people to work together most effectively, they have to trust each other. To trust each other they have to know each other, and to know each other they have to communicate with each other. With small groups communication may work well informally (but often do not), but in larger organizations formal communication must supplement and support informal communication. One consequence is that time, thought, energy, effort and money must be spent by the organization (and its members individually) on communication and building trust.  I am convinced that we all need to spend more thought, time, effort, creativity and money than we do on communication. Although people are pre-disposed to trust one another an organization can’t just expect that it will happen at work in productive ways. Success needs cohesion and cohesion needs success. 

## Productivity	

- We train to be more productive as individuals and as working groups
- Production is the measure of success
- Morale is an indicator of how well or poorly we are doing

## Thank you	

- Questions?