Bulletin 4.1

Collection Management Division

George A. Smathers Libraries

Performance Standards Bulletin 4.1

October 10, 1986

General Performance Standards
Administrative and Management Responsibilities
for Bibliographers and Selectors

Performance Standards are established by a group in order to permit an assessment, not only of the level of one person's accomplishment but, collectively, of a program's achievements or failures, and its progress toward a goal.

Performance Standards provide a group consensus regarding the responsibilities inherent in a particular position. Consequently, a bibliographer or a selector can define the collection management program by reviewing and understanding the programmatic responsibilities and expectations and judge his/her accomplishments according to the values established by the group. Performance Standards are a social contract.

Performance Standards will assist a bibliographer's or selector's judgment concerning the definition of needs, which is the first step toward defining what change should be made in order to provide better support for the academic program. When a need is perceived and the bibliographer or selector reaches a decision to change something in order to eliminate the need, then an objective is established. If, for instance, a person's performance of a particular responsibility is "poor," then that bibliographer or selector, working with a supervisor, is obliged to determine the cause of the poor performance and define what should be done in order to improve the performance in that particular area of responsibility. Since the program's success is to a large measure the success of the individuals working in the program, all individual improvement will contribute to the overall improvement of the program.

Essentially, bibliographers and selectors must become astute judges of need--their own needs, the academic program needs, and the collection management program needs. Performance Standards will help bibliographers and selectors make these judgments, since they will provide a consensus for what level of accomplishment equals success or failure.

Data Gathering:

Unacceptable	No data is gathered. Undefined approach. Guesses.
Poor	Very General data. Few sources explored. Poorly defined approach. Little useful information.
Acceptable	Data is pertinent. Most sources explored. Defined approach. Useful information.
Good	Data is significant. All sources investigated. Clearly defined approach, worth reporting at the state or regional level.
Excellent	Data is significant at the national level. Unusually creative and useful approach to sources. Approach is worth an article in a refereed journal.

Defining Needs:

Unacceptable	Needs undefined or unrelated to library and departmental goals. No delineation. They can not be used to set goals or objectives. No consensus. Staff is not involved in the process.
Poor	Broad and only vaguely connected to library and departmental goals. Difficult to program within resources--no feasible strategies can be formed. Limited staff involvement in definition.
Acceptable	Related to library and departmental goals. Can form only long term objectives. Budget requirements are not clearly related to resources. Reflect a limited understanding of the academic program, with little faculty involvement. Staff involvement, but limited understanding.
Good	Totally related to library, departmental, and academic program goals. Can be defined in both long and short term objectives. Resources are defined and related. Extensive faculty and staff involvement and support.
Excellent	Definition of here-to-fore unperceived need which reorients library and departmental goals, establishing a new approach to academic program support. Reportable at the national level, because it expands the professional definition of collection management. Short and long term objectives capable of producing extra-library resource support, with wide endorsement on the part of the staff and faculty. Staff very involved and supportive.

Establishing Priorities:

Unacceptable	No organized priorities. No understanding among staff of relative importance of various tasks. No focus, and no connection to the academic program.
Poor	General and barely defined priorities with little connection to library and/or departmental goals or the academic program. Staff feels programmatic problems are undefined.
Acceptable	Well-defined priorities. Connected to library goals and objectives and the academic program. General staff support and understanding of values behind the priority order.
Good	Well-defined priorities. Priority is recognized by the faculty, librarians, and staff as important. Priorities are understood as a vital support for the academic program.
Excellent	Exceptionally well defined priorities which are recognized on the local, state, and national level as a question which ought to be addressed. Strong and enthusiastic staff and faculty support. University understands and supports priorities.

Defining Goals and Objectives:

Unacceptable	No defined goals. No defined objectives. No maintenance objectives. Staff feels as if they are drifting, and workflow moves from crises to crises with no reflection of priority.
Poor	General goals but no defined objectives or maintenance objectives. Little progress and long, undefined timelines. Resource allocations are made on an ad hoc basis, and staff workflow only occasionally reflects library priorities.
Acceptable	Defined goals and objectives which reflect program and library priorities. Defined timelines which reflect available resources. Goals and objectives are understood by the staff and accepted as important.
Good	Goals and objectives closely reflect programmatic priorities. Maintenance objectives and objectives are carefully related to available resources. Timelines are understood and accepted by the staff. There is an excellent sense of team work. Objectives are seen as important for the library as a whole and the product is worth reporting at the regional level.
Excellent	Goals and objectives not only reflect programmatic priorities but become University goals and objectives, generating support from extra-library resources. The definition of the objectives reorients library goals and objectives. Worth reporting on the national level and establishes a new programmatic concept. General support from University, faculty, and staff. There is a sense that an important change is taking place which will improve support of the academic program. Maintenance objectives are accomplished within the extra workload.

Assigning Personnel Resources:

Unacceptable	Barely defined assignments. Ad hoc tasks, which give personnel no sense of direction. No negotiation and no staff involvement. Personnel strengths and weaknesses are ignored.
Poor	General annual assignments. Largely ad hoc tasks. Staff has little idea of departmental goals and objectives and little direction. Some negotiation, but little understanding of personnel strengths and weaknesses.
Acceptable	Annual assignments are clear and well negotiated. Individual strengths and weaknesses are considered and balanced. Staff feels assignments are fair, carefully considered, and important, as well as tied to library goals and objectives.
Good	Annual assignments are clear and closely tied to library goals and objectives. Staff understands direction and contributes ideas. Few ad hoc tasks. Strengths and weaknesses are considered and used creatively. A team feeling is built.
Excellent	Annual assignments closely follow strengths and weaknesses, resulting in creative team work and close support of library goals and objectives. Full negotiation and staff involvement. Each staff member understands the part played by others and cooperates fully. Assignments are models for other programs and should be reported.

Allocating Resources:

Unacceptable	No allocations are requested. Equipment is not used. Staff needs are not understood or supported. Ad hoc allocations are made with no plan. There is a great deal of waste. Excessive resources remain at year's end. Allocations do not support objectives.
Poor	Resources are distributed without consideration of needs or priorities. There is some attempt to plan resource allocations. Equipment is underutilized. Little consideration of staff needs and there is waste. Allocations only barely support objectives.
Acceptable	Staff needs and objectives are considered. Allocations are planned. Requested allocations are in balance with needs--year end is balanced. There is a clear relationship between objectives and resources, which come from within the library's budget.
Good	Allocations are balanced with objectives and staff needs are fully considered. There is no waste. Resources are obtained from both the library and other University resources, thus improving the library's resources. There is high efficiency. Budget and allocation plan are worth reporting.
Excellent	Resources to be allocated are drawn from extra-University resources; i.e. grants. Objectives and staff needs are fully considered and balanced. Added resources make a substantial contribution to the library's resources.

Training and Staff Development:

Unacceptable	No program. Vacancies remain unannounced and new staff are expected to learn on the job. No definition of staff weaknesses and, therefore, no attempt to help staff improve performance. Unavailable to staff and little interest shown in their work. Staff has little understanding of their place in the library system.
Poor	General training program which does not address individual staff responsibilities or tasks. Little consideration of staff weaknesses. No staff development planning. Generally unavailable to staff. Rigid reaction to staff suggestions for improvement. New staff given little help--teach yourself model.
Acceptable	General training program with individual programs associated with specific position responsibilities. Continuing consideration of personnel weaknesses and planning to overcome the weaknesses. Generally available to the staff and welcoming staff suggestions for improvements. Staff understands responsibilities, tasks, and contribution to the library system as a whole. Staff keeps interest in improving their work.
Good	Training programs produce highly efficient and recognized staff, sought out by the faculty and other librarians because of their knowledge. Staff feels a definite pride in understanding their work and are actively involved with the supervisor in developing programs to improve their work and themselves. Staff as a whole cooperates with each other and members can back up each other when the need arises. The training program is worth reporting.
Excellent	Training program is reported at the national level because it is a model for developing an extremely successful staff which gains wide recognition for excellence. Training strategies are tailored to individuals within a general plan and there is broad staff involvement. A clear sense of responsibility and contribution is defined, and new staff members reach peak performance quickly. Older staff members renew themselves and are prepared to accept greater responsibility. The staff is generally receiving job offers from other libraries.

Supervision:

Unacceptable	No supervision. Little interest in staff. Unavailable. Staff has little sense of whether they are doing what they ought to be doing.
Poor	General "once a year" guidance. Little understanding of the workflow or the tasks involved. Generally unavailable. Staff has little understanding of how their strategies are moving the program toward an objective or whether they are accomplishing tasks correctly.
Acceptable	Strategies are defined, taught, and refined on a continuing basis. There is an understanding of the workflow and negotiated work methods, as well as a willingness to listen and advise. The staff generally continues to seek out a "better way to get the job done." There are regular meetings at which work related problems are discussed.
Good	Strategies reflect resources available and are clearly defined and taught. Staff understands responsibilities and tasks and has a clear understanding of how to accomplish the work. There is a complete understanding of the "work process" and the interrelatedness of the staff, as well as a willingness to share and teach different methods. There is a balanced and sympathetic understanding of the staff's strengths and weaknesses. The staff generally accomplishes objectives and is capable of backing each other up.
Excellent	Generally seen as having a highly productive and efficient staff who fully understand the jobs. Because of the clear understanding, the staff makes continuing suggestions to improve their productivity. The supervisor is sought after as an expert because of his/her knowledge of the field and success at teaching his staff. Staff generally accomplishes objectives and produces a "better way to get the job done."

Evaluation:

Unacceptable	None. No understanding or knowledge of whether objectives were accomplished or resources were wisely utilized. Ad hoc reactions to needs. No assessment of successes and failures. A "got through the year" attitude. Staff has little idea of whether or not they did a good or bad job.
Poor	There is a general sense of successes and failures but little understanding of the possible causes. Little understanding of how activities may have contributed to a certain outcome. Staff has little understanding of their own successes or failures and no clearly defined needs or priorities can be established as a result of the "process."
Acceptable	Clear understanding of successes and failures. A good sense of why certain strategies failed and, therefore, a good idea of what new needs have arisen and a good sense of what priorities ought to be established. The staff has a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and has been actively involved in the evaluation. The "process" has generated interest in the questions: "Did we accomplish what we set out to do? If yes, why and how? If not, why not, and should we try it again differently?"
Good	Staff and supervisor are involved in the process, interested in assessing successes and failures, and determining the causes of each. There is a clear understanding, with hindsight, of what strategies went wrong or right. The process provides a good basis for developing new objectives and requesting resources. The process provides a feeling of accomplishment, as well as a recognition of where improvements ought to be made. It leads to a creative definition of needs which are widely understood and accepted not only by the program staff but the library as a whole. The process is a good beginning.
Excellent	Programmatic evaluation is worth reporting for both its successes and failures because it is an important assessment on the national level. Evaluation process reorients previously accepted concepts, defines new needs, and results in a basis for new objectives which alter library goals. The staff is deeply involved in the process and makes a major contribution to defining the causes which affected the accomplishment or failure to accomplish the objective. Staff has a very clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and a determination to improve their contributions to the program. The process results in very creative suggestions for the following year's work.