3. Stage 2 - Survey of Library Technicians

3.1 Introduction

Stage two of this research project involved the development of a survey based on information obtained in the literature review. Library technicians were chosen as the sample group for the survey. The aim of the survey was to determine how current, accurate and useful job descriptions are in Australian libraries.

3.2 Methodology

Surveys were sent to library technicians in all states within Australia, the Northern Territory and Australian Capitol Territory and represented special, public, academic and school libraries. A total of 303 surveys were distributed. Names of survey participants were identified from the delegates' list of the 9^th National Library Technicians Conference held in 1997. Additional surveys were sent to willing participants identified through the Library Technician Discussion Group, LibTec. A maximum of three surveys was sent to each library, in order to gain as broad a representation of libraries as possible.

Participants were asked to complete the survey whether they did or did not have a job description. They were also asked to include a copy of their current job description if possible. A prize of $100 was offered to participants as an incentive to return their survey and to improve the response rate. Participants were given approximately one month to return the surveys.

The first three questions of the survey obtained background information regarding library technician status, experience in libraries and the type of library. Other questions in the survey focussed on the accuracy, updating, reviewing, uses and content of job descriptions. A copy of the survey is in appendix 3.

3.3 Results

200 surveys were returned including four surveys that were not completed because the respondents were educators rather than library technicians. This represents a 66 percent response rate. This is an excellent response rate as a statistical consulting firm indicated any response rate over 30 percent was a good result. The winner of the $100 was Bruce Lowth from Palmerston Library. Approximately 67 percent of respondents included a copy of their job descriptions, which provided valuable additional content information that is incorporated into the results.

The majority of respondents (83 percent) had completed a Library Technician qualification. 60 percent had more than ten years experience in libraries; 27 percent had 6-10 years; 12 percent had 2-5 years and 2 percent had 0-1 years.

The type of libraries represented in the survey are shown in Figure 2:

Academic Libraries- 81 surveys - 41 percent
Public Libraries- 34 surveys -17 percent
Special Libraries- 61 surveys - 31 percent
School Libraries- 15 surveys - 8 percent
Other libraries - 5 surveys - 3 percent

Surveys were returned from all states within Australia, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.

Figure 2: Type of libraries represented in the survey

Figure 2: histogram of library types represented in this paper

An overwhelming majority of respondents (93 percent) had job descriptions for their current position. Of these, 27 percent felt that their job description was very accurate; 46 percent felt they were mostly accurate; 22 percent felt they were somewhat accurate and 5 percent felt they were not accurate at all.

In relation to the updating of job descriptions, 24 percent had been updated in the last six months; 19 percent had been updated in the last 6 to 12 months; 23 percent had been updated in the last one to two years and 34 percent had not been updated for over two years.

Figure 3 illustrates when job descriptions are reviewed or updated. The main reasons for reviewing a job description are when a job becomes vacant (45 percent) or when a job is reclassified (30 percent). Only 15 percent of respondents reviewed jobs annually.

Figure 3: When job descriptions are reviewed

Figure 3: histogram showing job description renewal frequency from a survey of library technicians

The majority of job descriptions explained where the job fits into the organisation (69 percent) and the purpose of the job (83 percent).

Figure 4 indicates what job descriptions are used for. The main use of job descriptions is for selection and recruitment (74 percent). 55 percent used them in performance appraisals. 18 percent used them to identify training needs and 16 percent used them in the induction process.

For the majority of respondents performance standards (78 percent), time or percentages for each duty (86 percent) and goals, mission, vision or outputs (55 percent) are NOT included in job descriptions.

45 percent of respondents indicated that their library had a separate person/job specification; 32 percent said they did not and 23 percent were unsure.

A summary sheet indicating the number of responses for each question is in appendix 4.

Figure 4: Uses of job Descriptions

Figure 4: histogram showing uses of job descriptions from a survey of library technicians

Figure 5 illustrates the type of information included in job descriptions returned with the survey. These job descriptions ranged from half a page, which did not describe the purpose of the job or where it fitted into the organisation, to job descriptions that were four and five pages in length which gave a detailed overview of the job, how it fitted into and contributed to the success of the organisation.

Figure 5: Information included in survey respondents job descriptions

Job Description information	Percentage of job descriptions that included information
Organisational relations including reporting relationships	64 percent
Duties/tasks	59 percent
Job function/purpose	53 percent
Education/Qualifications/Knowledge	44 percent
Skills	36 percent
Responsibilities	33 percent
Experience	31 percent
Environment	25 percent
Selection criteria	21 percent
Accountabilities	20 percent
Authority	20 percent
Contacts	12 percent
Performance Standards	9 percent
Challenges	9 percent
Time/percentages/Frequency	9 percent

3.4 Comparison with survey conducted by the Association of Research Libraries

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) conducted a survey of librarian job descriptions in 1993 (Ray and Hawthorne, 1993). The aim of this survey was to capture background information on the currency, content and use of librarian job descriptions. Figure 6 compares survey questions that were directly comparable between this survey and the library technician survey.

Figure 6: Comparison between ARL Survey and Library Technician Survey

Survey Information	percent Result from ARL (1993) Survey	percent result from Library Technician Survey
Accuracy of job description Very accurate Mostly accurate Somewhat accurate	29 percent 56 percent 15 percent	27 percent 46 percent 22 percent
When job descriptions are reviewed? Annually	35 percent	15 percent
Uses of job descriptions Selection and recruitment Performance Appraisals Identifying Training Needs	85 percent 75 percent 60 percent	74 percent 55 percent 18 percent
Describe the purpose of the job Yes No	89 percent 11 percent	83 percent 17 percent
Are time/percentages used? Yes No	25 percent 75 percent	14 percent 86 percent
Are performance standards included? Yes No	6 percent 92 percent	22 percent 78 percent

Although the ARL survey was conducted five-six years ago it is interesting to note the comparison in results. The ARL survey indicates that respondents found their job descriptions to be more accurate. The reason for this may be due to the larger percentage of libraries reviewing job descriptions annually and using them in performance appraisals. It is also evident from this comparison that Australian libraries are beginning to incorporate performance standards into their job descriptions although this only represents a small percentage.

3.5 Findings

As the response rate from this survey was over 30 percent and represented academic, special, public and school libraries the following findings may be generalised to the library industry.

Job descriptions are developed and used by the majority of libraries and employees feel that they are mostly accurate (46 percent). This is not surprising considering firstly that the majority of job descriptions had not been reviewed for over two years and secondly the constantly changing library environment.
The greater number of libraries represented do not have a mechanism to regularly review job descriptions as the majority of job descriptions (34 percent) had not been reviewed in the last two years. Job descriptions are most commonly reviewed when a job becomes vacant or is reclassified.
Selection and recruitment appear to be the main purpose for which job descriptions are used in libraries. 55 percent of respondents indicated that they were used in performance appraisals, however, it is unclear if they are reviewed in this process. Job descriptions are not often used for identifying training needs or in the induction process.
The majority of library job descriptions do describe the purpose of the job and where the job fits into the organisation, although it is unclear how detailed this is as the majority do not indicate the goals, mission or vision of the organisation. For the question - Does your job description explain where your job fits into the organisation, it appears from the sample descriptions that it is mainly described through an organisational chart.
Time or percentages are rarely included in job descriptions (14 percent). Examples of descriptions that include percentages seem to be those that focus on duties rather than major responsibilities. Performance standards for the majority of libraries are also not included, although many include accountabilities.

Additional comments made by respondents indicate that the question regarding whether libraries have a separate person/job specification caused confusion and many respondents were unsure about what I meant. The aim of this questions was to determine whether details about the person's attributes or qualifications required to do the job were included in the same document as the job description or separately. For this reason it is difficult to generalise findings for this area. From the job descriptions returned with the surveys, some libraries label job specifications and person specifications separately while other libraries include both types of information in their job descriptions but do not label them.

Accountabilities in the literature refers to the results expected, however, when analysing the library job descriptions accountabilities were often a list of responsibilities or who the position was accountable to, very few outlined the results expected. Some libraries are beginning to use job descriptions as a performance management tool as they include performance measures or standards, although this is still only a small percentage (22 percent). Performance measures identified were both qualitative - 'polite, courteous and efficient client service' and quantitative in nature - 'number of complaints received each quarter'. Some job descriptions did not identify the standards but outlined that there was an expectation that they would be developed as part of the job - 'Performance standards will be negotiated between the incumbent and the Manger Library Services as part of the ongoing performance management program.' (Please note: these examples were taken from examples of job descriptions returned with the survey).

Some job descriptions included the selection criteria for the job in the job description and this is usually split into essential and desirable. This aids the library in using the job description as a tool in selection and recruitment as the criteria are clearly labeled for advertising, culling and interviewing applicants.

A a