AARL

Collaborating with Warren Horton: a personal view

Peter Scott

Abstract The former national librarian of New Zealand reflects upon his 11 year collaboration with Warren Horton and the National Library of Australia.

Warren and I shared an increasingly close working relationship over 11 years from the time of his appointment as director-general of the National Library of Australia in 1985 until the completion of my term as national librarian of New Zealand in late 1996. We believed at the time that we had created a form of collaboration that was unique among national libraries. Our collaboration extended beyond the organisational bounds of our libraries into international library activities. It also formed the foundation for the increasing contribution Warren came to play within the wider New Zealand library community.

Our collaboration was founded on a history of co-operation that had been built between the two national libraries and between other libraries across the Tasman. One pertinent example of this tradition was Harrison Bryan's direct support to the National Library of New Zealand which was critical to the successful implementation of the New Zealand Bibliographic Network. This was the foundation for later technology co-operation.

Some external factors facilitated co-operation. Our terms of office occurred in a period when there was increasing co-operation and harmonisation of government policies between the two countries. Our business and economy had also become closely linked. So there were precedents for conducting commercial and public joint ventures across the Tasman.

The watershed that occurred in communications technology was another major contributing factor. Distances and time shrank; we were no longer dependent on time consuming travel between Wellington and Canberra as the main form of communication. It is now difficult to remember the world before email, but its immediacy was crucial to the early solution of problems. I learned from watching Warren in his office that he could not resist responding to emails as they arrived. The advent of teleconferencing and videoconferencing was also vital.

There is a significant amount of shared values and history, including sporting rivalries, between the two countries that assists co-operation. However, there is mixed current of similarity and difference that runs through trans-Tasman relations. This is reflected in the functions of our national libraries, their culture and the way they were managed. This tension or juxtaposition interested both of us, partly because it helped to highlight our own individual characteristics. Warren, for instance, could read significance into something as minor as our different styles of email address, which he believed exemplified his more formal style of management.

But the major impetus to collaboration was the commonality of issues both in a library and a government context. Key issues for both libraries were the role and directions of a national library as we developed strategic management, collection development, the coordination of national resources, our relations with international library organisations, preservation priorities and the development of technology based services. We also experienced a time of intense social, economic and technological change. At the very time that the National Library of New Zealand was establishing itself as a unified organisation with widened public services within its new building, it entered a prolonged period of management change, as the result of a government driven public sector revolution. Both libraries faced significant financial constraints - Australia with the efficiency dividend and New Zealand with down sizing caused by budget pressures.

It is a truism that national libraries have a great variety of forms and functions dependent on their particular history, government and the development of other libraries within the country. There was no exact counterpart for the National Library of New Zealand, but we shared a significant amount of common core national functions, values, processes and issues with the National Library of Australia - certainly more than with others. When both national libraries later came to consider the possibility of setting up a formal strategic alliance, there was agreement that we were sufficiently in the same business to undertake shared services.

One of the limitations of leading a national library then, as in any unique national organisation, was a lack of easy access to a peer group. Again, communications and the ability to access a web community have improved this situation. In addition, the structure of the New Zealand public sector from 1988 onwards as very autonomous organisations did not encourage peer support among chief executives. There have been changes since, but I was not alone in believing that it was easier to co-operate with an Australian peer than with fellow government departments.

Collaboration was not an inevitable and necessary outcome of these facilitating factors. The National Libraries did not have to collaborate and partnership would bring its own restraints, complexities and conflicting interests. Although it is probably fair to say that the National Library of Australia did not need New Zealand, this was not a view that Warren endorsed or encouraged. Collaboration was made to happen by Warren's commitment and leadership.

Despite some inevitable trans-Tasman jokes and observations at our expense, Warren always made us feel as if we were an equal partner, despite the disparities between us. He might have scoffed to me about the All Black's departure parade he witnessed in Auckland which preceded a Wallaby rugby world cup victory or point out that there was provision in the Australian constitution for New Zealand to join as another state, but he treated us on the same terms as his own library and listened to our views, even when they were at odds to those of his own organisation. The only instances I can recall of the likelihood of a prevailing Australian view arose from differences in Australian government policy, which he would have been found to follow. From a New Zealand perspective this continuing goodwill and sense of working together on common directions was critical to sustaining long term co-operation.

The reasons that we chose to collaborate were similar, although there may have been differences in emphasis between us. We both believed that the libraries had complementary strengths and expertise that could be drawn on for the benefit of both. A related factor was the ability to tap into a wider range of views and perspectives. I believed at the time that New Zealand was under greater financial pressure, but cost sharing in technology was a major driver for both. We also believed that there was scope for common services and activities in areas such as document supply, exhibition programs and staff development.

In international library activities, one of those areas of Australian strengths, we shared a common view on increasing the relevance of international library bodies to the region. We believed that best practice in national library management was not confined to the northern hemisphere and that we could and did make contributions on national library issues. We supported each other, sometimes with the National Library of Canada, to the point where we could have been perceived as a bloc. Warren would egg me on at meetings or in conferences with an innocent 'I am sure my colleague from New Zealand has views on this.'

Our collaboration gave us the ability to discuss issues openly with each other and to sound out the views of a trusted colleague who had no vested interest in your outcomes. Sometimes these discussions approached an informal mode of management coaching. I certainly received much personal support from Warren and I hope that he felt the reverse.

Finally, and probably the most important factor of all, we enjoyed working together and grew to respect each other despite some very real differences in style and approach.

These differences, especially in leadership style and functions, were of continuing interest to Warren. Close collaboration, which brought participation in common meetings and events and close contact with a large number of National Library of New Zealand people, meant that he had the opportunity to observe a related library at first hand. So there were often questions or remarks to me on organisational dynamics, hierarchical as opposed to informal management modes, the exercise of authority, freedom to manage and the relationship of the National Librarian to the profession.

Warren was essentially a very political leader, and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. Political qualities are essential to managing collaboration across borders. He was fascinated with politicians and how they acted whether it was his own minister or the French Minister of Culture or a New Zealand MP. He would engage with New Zealand politicians as a matter of course at National Library receptions in Wellington as he 'worked the room.' Warren shared many of their qualities. We both met with each other's ministers. On my visit to Canberra I attempted to take the bureaucratic approach of defining the purpose of the meeting and what could I do to help Warren. 'No need for that,' said Warren, 'he just wants to have a good look at you.' At the meeting it was difficult to tell the difference between the minister and his official.

He shared the politician's interest in the exercise of power and influence. His public performances were more than demonstrations of his self professed ability as a 'show pony.' He used them to position the National Library of Australia and to stamp his personal authority on an issue.

His interest in people also had a political dimension, although this was only part of his interest. He quickly formed views on people's effectiveness and their ability to influence whether by intelligence or the force of personality. This happened not just in our own institutions but also in an international context. He paid great attention to those people in the National Library of New Zealand whom he described as 'your stars' and would often ask after them and their progress. He closely followed the formation of the N Strategy; partly because of interest in it as a joint mechanism between the National Library and the association in forming a strategic agenda, but also because it was the brainchild of a group of younger librarians from both organisations. He kept in touch with many of them later. Whenever Warren visited he did not confine himself to the formal contact of meetings, but would chat with a wide range of people.

This was more than a political or managerial interest in succession - it reflected Warren's real interest in people, their strengths, how they worked and how they responded to challenges.

I am certain this interest helped to drive the collaboration. But this personal approach to management meant that Warren had to have confidence in the people with whom he was dealing. He trusted 'good people' to perform and to provide informed advice. He extended this approach to us and the creation of this trust was a major factor in his commitment to collaboration.

The other political characteristic that Warren exercised was the emphasis he placed on symbols and perceptions. An international setting probably encouraged this tendency. It was his idea and his insistence that New Zealand chaired the steering committee for the NDIS technology project. He placed great importance upon this arrangement, because it gave a strong message that this was a truly joint project. The two single votes on this committee which were exercised only by Warren and me also helped to reinforce this perception.

He was also careful about perceptions of his role and that he would not be perceived as intruding upon the New Zealand environment. I remember him stressing his observer role at the N Strategy based library conference. He took a similar approach within National Library settings and wider international activities. He once warned me off pursuing the reform of the Conference of Directors of National Libraries in Asia and Oceania, as he was clearly concerned about perceptions of our muscling into what he saw as essentially Asian interests.

Warren had a particular commitment to collaborating with New Zealand that went beyond policy and institutional reasons. He seemed to welcome the opportunity to participate in library activities. He became to be seen as a natural choice as a conference speaker - especially as someone who could lift a conference and give a wider perspective. Of course he rose to these occasions, as he responded to his audience.

Warren and I shared some other leadership beliefs and characteristics which underpinned our collaboration, especially in our technology project. We believed fundamentally in the idea of collaboration and that shared effort would bring benefits to both libraries. We also recognised that close collaboration between two national libraries that had differing objectives and types of users was never going to be easy and would involve compromises or accommodations to succeed. It also required a sense on both sides that the interests of collaboration transcended technical issues.

Large amounts of persistence were also necessary in tackling the myriad of obstacles that we both encountered. A collaborative project multiplies the obstacles, as you experience not only your own problems but also those of your partner organisation and its jurisdiction. We had to cope with approval delays caused by elections, the effects of government policies, internal resistance and the financial effects of a delayed project. Neither of us could afford a laissez faire leadership style in this environment.

We also shared an ability to tolerate and manage a level of risk. These risks were not solely technological. When we entered the project we commissioned a risk assessment study which identified the partnership with Australia as the greatest risk to the project. No doubt Warren had his own thoughts on the equivalent risk of working with us. We took care to make contractual arrangements that mitigated some of the risk of co-operating with an agency from another government, but in this type of co-operation there is always the possibility of being affected by differing policies or national interests. Even years later with the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult as a participant to judge whether we were too risk tolerant in our pursuit of a vision.

My last task with Warren, after I had taken up another appointment, was to rake through the ashes of the project and prepare our successful case for compensation against the vendor. This is not how our form of collaboration should have ended.

Peter Scott (please remove '.nospam' from address) was national librarian, National Library of New Zealand, from 1982 to 1996. He is now a free lance management consultant.