Home Montgomery book review

College and Research Libraries
November 2005, Vol. 66, No. 6

Book Review

Montgomery, Jack, and Eleanor I. Cook. Conflict Management for Libraries: Strategies for a Positive, Productive Workplace. Chicago: ALA, 2005. 207p. $42 (ISBN: 083890890X). LC 2004-30722.

You might be surprised to hear that working in a library is like working in the post office, but that’s the case according to Jack G. Montgomery and Eleanor I. Cook in Conflict Management for Libraries. They have several reasons for advancing this claim: (1) the work is repetitive and detail oriented, (2) layers of bureaucracy distance employees at many levels from decision making leading to profound feelings of helplessness, (3) library job skills are often not transferable to the nonlibrary business world, and (4) the "jobs for life" syndrome (as in all civil service or civil service–type environments) changes how managers deal with, and attempt to solve, serious HR matters. The logical conclusion that one might draw from this—that library staff might "go postal"—is one of the reasons for the existence of a study of workplace conflict aimed specifically at the library market.

This book is based on a survey distributed during the summer of 2000 to fifteen library electronic discussion lists. Over 500 individuals made responses, 455 of which were complete enough to be used in the writing of this book. The authors explain that they were not interested in bean counting; instead, they identified a number of themes that appeared frequently in the responses and from these they drafted seventeen "conflict scenarios" intended to be used as case studies. The intention was to convey information about the nature of conflict and the paths to resolution while never losing sight of the personal nature of these stories.

Each scenario begins with a description of the type of library in which the conflict occurred and the area/department within that library. The story itself then follows, after which two "conflict experts" (consultants who work outside the library framework, but who have experience working with libraries) weigh in with their assessments. Finally, the authors round out the story by providing their comments on what went wrong and how the problem might be prevented.

I must admit I was a bit skeptical about the whole notion of scenarios until I read the first one and discovered that it was squarely within the realm of my own experience in the workplace: the case of the internal candidate whom most employees (including the candidate) believes will be the logical person to fill a vacancy; but then the administration fills that vacancy by hiring an outsider. The internal candidate is angry and feels betrayed; the external candidate walks into a job not knowing there is immediate resistance from staff as well as from the rejected internal candidate, and administration does nothing to help either party.

Many of the scenarios that followed looked equally familiar: the staff person with private problems, the micro-manager, the office romance, the "dead wood." I suppose there is some comfort in knowing that one is not alone in the library world in terms of working with these types of problems. Whether a few pages on how to solve them is useful, except to the most socially and managerially inept amongst our ranks, is another question.

This book reminds me a little of the things my grade-school teachers used to say to the class again and again: "Grow up," "Act your age," "Stop fighting," "Say you’re sorry," "Quit picking on him or her," "Show some courage." Yes, the world is more complex as an adult, but the directives for employees and administrators are consistent: to practice some courtesy, emotional intelligence, and courage in confronting and sorting out problems. Can a book of this sort help inculcate such common sense? I think it’s a start. The voices of my grade-school teachers echo throughout the pages, but in a much more sophisticated way. Perhaps this book’s true value lies in reassuring us that we are not the first to encounter these types of problems and that the hardest thing to do in our efforts to resolve them may also be the simplest.—Nancy McCormack, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.