The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0888-045X.htm
BL
22,4
An examination of the pay policy
line in New Jersey libraries
106
Long Branch Public Library, Long Branch, New Jersey, USA
Beatrice Priestly
Received March 2009
Revised May 2009
Accepted June 2009
Abstract
Purpose – Over time, management theory has shaped the structure of libraries. No matter the
current view of management by matrix, when it comes to library organizations, there is always going
to be a hierarchical structure. The object then is for transparency to be in place, and a recognized sense
of fairness and equality. This study aims to address this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews the concepts of the literature on management
and organization theory, and details the literature on valuing human capital and its recent application
to knowledge management work. It then discusses how the literature and its deployment over the
years have resulted in the formation of pay policies, and shows the application of Fay Hensen’s
predictive validity testing to the pay policy line in the field of libraries through the study of the New
Jersey Library Association’s Guidelines for Minimum Recommended Starting Salaries for Library
Staff from the years 2007 and 2008.
Findings – By measuring for internal job values at libraries through one or more of the measures
discussed here, one can arrive at an analysis of the pay policy of the institution. Using trendline
analysis, the paper was able to calculate just what the value, worth or salary of the positions should be
in order to have a predictive, orderly, hierarchical representation of salaries within the library
organization structure.
Originality/value – By measuring for internal consistency in job values at libraries, one can be
assured that there are fair demarcations among positions, and yield consistent expectations which are
transparent to employees, who will then know what must be done to advance within the organization.
A consistent organizational structure, with clearly delineated jobs and equal compensation lets a
library know where it stands and where it needs to go from there. By periodically creating a pay policy
line study for the organization, human resources personnel can make executives aware of how they
may or may not have strayed from balance in fairness and transparent compensation.
Keywords Librarians, Pay, Pay policies, Management theory
Paper type Research paper
The Bottom Line: Managing Library
Finances
Vol. 22 No. 4, 2009
pp. 106-122
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0888-045X
DOI 10.1108/08880450911010924
Introduction
Over time, management theory has helped to shape the structure of library
organizations. The author is not speaking of current management philosophies about
managing by matrix or team, or the concept of empowering employees from which
these current philosophies are derived, even though the author recognizes that this
matrix method has served to open communication throughout organizations and has
facilitated the gathering of input from various personnel levels or business specialties.
It is true that earlier manifestations of a similar management philosophy empowered
employees to make on-the-spot decisions when dealing with customers.
When it comes to organizational structures, however, there are and have always
been persons to whom responsibility for task accomplishment and management of
workflow falls. These persons supervise work in their capacity as business unit heads
concerned with the gathering and analyzing of various statistical measurements.
These managers report to other managers who oversee more than one business unit. In
turn, those managers must gather reports, statistical and textual, regarding the
functioning of their divisions. After these division managers report to the executives,
the executives compare this data with research or corporate intelligence reports they
have received from the corporate librarians on suppliers, competitors, industry leaders,
and businesses in related fields. It does not matter how many managers are at each
level. What is key is that each is responsible at his or her level and that together they
form a hierarchy. Even in companies that claim to follow a flat management or matrix
management structure, the fact of the matter is that there is always a hierarchical
pattern.
In any firm, salaries move steadily upwards as a person progresses in educational
attainment and level of responsibility. Each position leads to a higher level in the
organizational chart. This progression generally resembles a ladder. The individual
employee may not realize that great care has gone into evaluating the worth of a firm’s
human capital and the requirements for a particular position. If an organization’s pay
policy is arrived at in a thoughtful manner, however, it requires evaluation of many
factors and produces a ladder-like pay scale that roughly follows the attainment of
increasingly specialized educational degrees, from high school to the PhD, as well as
increases in practical knowledge, skills, abilities, and responsibilities.
This business model can be applied to knowledge work performed at libraries. Over
the years, the study of knowledge management has delineated clear forms of
measurement of value to the organization. By assigning monetary worth to library
positions, one can build a value chain from entry-level library assistant to librarian to
director. The author will not provide an extensive discussion of the application of
management theory to the formation of organizational structure or to the valuing of
library work, even though some information regarding pertinent theories and their
application to the role of the librarian who serves as a department head will be
examined, which is equivalent to a product manager in the corporate world.
This article will discuss the literature on management and organization theory, and
will detail the literature on the valuing of human capital and its recent application to
library or knowledge management work. It will then discuss how the literature over the
years has resulted in the formation of pay policies, and will show the application of
predictive validity testing to the pay policy line in the field of libraries through the
study of the New Jersey Library Association Guidelines for Minimum Recommended
Starting Salaries for Library Staff from the years 2007 and 2008.
A review of management literature
By examining organization literature, organization structure and the readily available
knowledge measures of educational attainment, one can get a measure of the external
competitiveness of the positions at a firm or library.
Two of the first management theorists were Adam Smith (1776) and Charles
Babbage (1832). It was not until the work of Max Weber, however, that one sees the
beginnings of the management model that informs twenty-first century organizations
(Morgan, 1996, p. 384). Noted sociologist Max Weber presented his theory on economic
organization as a bureaucracy which he thought should work smoothly like a machine.
(Weber, 1947) He felt this view provided an “ideal type” to which society should aim.
His work helped to establish the principle that each subordinate should have a boss.
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
107
BL
22,4
108
Frederick Taylor began the scientific movement or the search for measures (Taylor,
1911). Taylor’s motion study developed out of his desire to find the best and fastest
way to perform tasks and initiated the concept of the necessity for “functional
foremanship” (Morgan, 1996, p. 385). Taylor’s studies of measurements led eventually
to Henry Ford’s creation of the auto assembly line.
Another ground-breaking theorist was Abraham Maslow. Maslow’s work on
motivation led to a recognition of the need to weigh the individual’s needs along with
the organization’s needs, and led to an understanding of employee motivation (Maslow,
1943).
The concept of the organization as an organ affected by open systems theory is
codified by Gareth Morgan in his work, where he states:
The early development of systems theory was very much influenced by perspectives
emphasizing equilibrium and homeostasis (Morgan, 1996, p. 387).
The concept of the matrix organization was described by J.R. Galbraith in a welldiscussed treatment of how to combine the functional and “project” forms of an
organization (Galbraith, 1971). This approach is described by Morgan as a
“contingency approach to organizations” (Morgan, 1996, p. 388).
Argyris and Schön (1978) brought attention to the concept of the learning
organization by introducing the “single loop and double loop of learning.”. In
organizations using the single loop of learning, information is passed down from the
chief executive through the hierarchy, but there is not much feedback from the
employees to the chief executive. In organizations that use the double loop of learning,
employees interact with customers and get feedback from them. The employees in turn
relay customer feedback to the executives frequently, along with recommendations as
to how to best meet the expressed needs of the customers. Management changes
decisions about services and processes as a result of this feedback and communicates
the changes through the hierarchy.
Block expanded upon this concept of feedback coming from employees in
developing the concept of “employee empowerment”. Block was the first to use the
term “empowered manager” (Block, 1987). Nonaka (1988) and Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995), who were also interested in employee empowerment, studied companies in
Japan involved in “knowledge creating” (Morgan, 1996). Morgan, in describing their
work, states:
Their studies [. . .] illustrate how holographic principles of requisite variety, redundancy, and
learning processes driven by shared visions, and “minimum specs” can help to create
powerful systems of information exchange that allow groups of people to reinvent their
relationships with the environment and develop new services and products (Morgan, 1996, p.
396).
In other words, people are exposed to inputs and events which they interact with and
somehow internalize this new knowledge, then go out and react to other encounters in
the world with this new data and begin the interaction process once again.
Throughout the 1990s, theories and discussions of chaos and complexity led to the
resultant “self organizing” views of organizations (Morgan, 1996). This resulted in a
period of free spilling of organizations and management via “minimum specs”
(Morgan, 1993), in which it became increasingly difficult to determine who was in
charge.
It may be time to recognize that the free-flowing period of viewing an organization
as a free-flowing entity should be reigned in for optimum business function. As Herbert
Simon described in his 1962 work, “the hierarchy is a form to which groups do revert in
the event of high complexity” (Simon, 1962). Hierarchies are adaptive and provide
stability. Hierarchies can ensure smooth running of an organization. Morgan states:
“we must also take into account the organizational data that has proceeded on
unpredictable feedback loops”. In that case, while Morgan recognizes the need for
hierarchies, he says “hierarchies evolve”; in other words, “the hierarchical pattern must
emerge” (Morgan, 1996, pp. 415-16).
The current organizational model of the organization as matrix should be
supplanted by a new model in which business unit managers and company specialists
report to the executive director. These specialists also need cross-company access to
staff to enable them to collect data, so that their reports to the executive director will
reflect an understanding of all departments, which they will analyze with the benefit of
their MBA or other specialized training. Specialists would include the marketer, the
accountant, the human resources specialist, the research and development specialist,
logistician (sometimes in some cases the building manager) and the operations
manager. With knowledge gained from the entire staff, the director can make a great
plan for the future of the company.
Education gets librarians all on the same page
Over the years, the institutions of higher learning through their teachings have
awarded progressively higher academic degrees in recognition of accomplishment and
mastery of various fields. These degrees have signaled the possession of a breadth and
depth of knowledge in the recipient’s subject specialties. It is this progressive hierarchy
of the high school degree, the Bachelor’s degree, the Masters degree, that has allowed
the business community to rest assured that a certain level of educational attainment
has been reached, so that all managers who have earned the masters of business degree
can be assumed to share exposure to a certain level of knowledge. The employee’s
educational attainment of a specific degree level has been presumed by the business
community to indicate possession of knowledge and skills required for any position for
which that degree is required. This works to help one see the hierarchy that has
emerged.
Public library positions
Public library positions range from the page (some high school), to library assistant
(high school degree, next to library assistant supervisor or library associate (Bachelor’s
degree), then to librarian (Master’s degree), and finally to library director (who may be
expected to have an additional Master’s degree in business administration, or a
certification as library administrator). Many times there are several specialists on
board who may have an expertise in HR, or marketing, etc. The hierarchy is similar in
academic libraries, except that a full-time librarian is generally expected to have a
second Master’s degree in a subject specialty, and in some cases an additional PhD.
The Director or CEO creates an organizational structure. Charles Hill states that
organizational structure refers to three things:
First, the formal division of the organization into subunits such as product divisions, national
operations, and functions (an organizational chart would reflect these); second, the location of
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
109
BL
22,4
110
decision-making responsibilities within that structure (e.g. centralized or decentralized); and
third, the establishment of integrating mechanisms to coordinate the activities of subunits
including cross-functional teams and or pan-regional committees (Hill, 2005, pp. 441-2).
In many libraries, business units have been created to reflect the overall function of the
majority of the job duties performed by the unit. Members of the Technical Services
Department will concern themselves with cataloging or copy cataloging and
processing materials. Computer Lab staff may concern themselves with supervision of
this room and the creation of the web pages of the library (webmaster), or some
computer instruction. The Outreach specialist will be involved with publicity and
programming. The staff of Circulation will be concerned with the circulation of items
and the supervision of pages responsible for shelving and re-shelving. The Children’s
Unit will be concerned with children’s programs and materials. The Teen Librarian
will be responsible for teen materials and programs. The Reference Department will be
responsible for reference materials, including electronic databases, for non-fiction
materials, sometimes overseeing interlibrary loan, and may jointly oversee public use
computers with the Internet Technology staff. The staff in the Administrative Offices
will be responsible for the building, for accounting, will serve as human resources
liaison, and will be responsible for the administrative needs of the Director. In some
libraries interlibrary loan is assigned to the reference department. In others it is part of
Circulation. In others it stands alone.
Library Departments may be led by librarians due to their educational and skill
level. An alternative to organization by function may be organization by proximity in
physical location of various business units. This is sometimes done for ease and
centralization of supervisory efforts.
There are arguments to be made in favor of vertical differentiation or centralization
of management responsibilities and the tasks involved in the decision making.
Centralization can help with coordinating more than just scheduling. Centralization
can help coordinate consistency of purpose and ensure that decisions are made that are
consistent with the organization’s objectives. Also, by centralizing power in a
management team, the director can give the managers the power to bring about
organizational changes. Centralization can also prevent a duplication of effort (Hill,
2005, p. 444).
There are arguments to be made in favor of horizontal differentiation or
decentralization of management to the business unit or department head. If an
organization exists where power is controlled by one central manager, then there is
always the problem that that person may be taking on more work than one person can
do. Poor decisions can be made. Or decisions may not be made at all because that
person is overworked. By delegating some concerns to other department heads, routine
issues can be dealt with effectively. Decentralization gives the organization the ability
to have greater responsiveness. Also, the decentralization of the management structure
from a flat organization to one with department heads can provide greater control.
Business unit managers and department heads can be held accountable for the
performance of their department (Hill, 2005, p. 445).
There are various methods for integrating the organization structure that are
necessary as coordination between areas of the organization help with the transfer of
core competencies and skills between departments. There also is a need to coordinate
and transfer the information product (book, data, DVD, CD, etc.) between departments
and people in libraries. It is true that each unit must respond locally to issues. There is
a need to coordinate all of the activities to facilitate the smooth flow of supplies, and
informational materials from ordering to processing to deliver to the customer, with the
addition of value at each station, for the optimum use and enjoyment of the customer:
There can be issues in coordination between departments due to different orientations,
different goals, lack or respect, or other issues often reinforced by distance. Some methods
used to coordinate integration of departments into a cohesive structure over the years have
included direct contact between managers, assigning some employees liaison roles or go
between roles, and the rise of the matrix or management team (Hill, 2005, pp. 454-5).
Requiring the Master’s degree in library science ensures that the department head is
well grounded in the history and value systems of libraries and library work. A
Master’s degree in library science also prepares the department head manager to
manage tasks, operations, and workflows. It also gives the librarian the background to
enable him or her to understand statistical measures of library processes so that he or
she can report measurable successes and areas of concern to the Director.
Some businesses are already returning to a hierarchical structure. The hybrid
matrix-hierarchical structure is best, where the hierarchy of the department heads lead
upward and then there is a additional cadre of business specialists on the par of the
department head with direct access to the director but able to move matrix style across
all business units while turning their attention to the business specialty.
This hierarchical structure or the model suggested here – the hybrid structure (with
business specialists on the same level as operations or business unit managers) for an
organization such as a library – can be done by very capable and well-placed
librarians and others with the appropriate Master’s degree. Holding close to the
charters and norms and values and expectations learned in library school and in
workshops, conferences, and classes beyond school prepare librarians to stay on the
same page and work towards efficiency and quality of service. Librarian department
managers, who are really information product managers, should be empowered by the
Director’s, Board of Trustees’ and funding authorities’ support and backing.
Examining positions for matters of pay and compensation
Factors that may affect an organization’s pay policy include external methods of
evaluating the organization and its staff positions, and internal methods of evaluating
individual job positions and the structure of the organization. External methods of
evaluation include examination of salary standards in the industry and in similar
industries, and comparison of the organization to others of a similar size. The pay
policy should also reflect the cost of living in that area. For example, job hunters expect
higher salaries in the New York metropolitan area than they would in a community
with a lower cost of living. Internal methods of evaluation include managerial levels or
differences among job descriptions, number of people supervised, and/or length of
experience. Most businesses combine these factors to determine the business’s pay
policies. When increases have been determined to exist in these areas, it may lead to
across-the-board increases or to increases at a certain level of responsibility. Increases
in inflation may also lead to across-the-board increases in pay. Merit increases in pay,
on the other hand, are a reflection of management’s perception of an individual’s
accomplishments, which may be affected by personality conflicts. These should be
avoided unless tied to measurable or definable accomplishments, such as the
publication of an article, or the acquisition of an accredited degree.
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
111
BL
22,4
112
Compensation literature discusses a means of evaluating the fairness of
compensation within an organization. Early discussion of the topic in commonly
used US English language databases shows its birth in the study of discrepancies of
pay among genders. A test for predictive validity can be used to evaluate pay scales.
The test involves a comparison of variables, such as the ones listed above, to see if
there is a hierarchical linear relationship between increases in education, skills,
responsibility, and knowledge, on the one hand, and increases in pay.
The above factors that are used to determine pay policies in business can be applied
to libraries. This understanding of the way businesses arrived at pay policies enables
one to appreciate the way the New Jersey Library Association Personnel Subcommittee
analyses salaries in libraries.
On completion of its Guidelines for Recommended Minimum Starting Salaries
the subcommittee presents its recommendations to the NJLA Executive Board each fall
to be voted on by the Executive Board. These are posted on the Association website.
This saves the individual library director from having to do his or her own research
and analysis data from a broad spectrum of resources. The New Jersey library director
can rely on this data to easily make the most appropriate salary recommendations to
the library’s board for his or her library.
Valuing library work
The overwhelming majority of interactions between employees of the library and
library patrons involve value-added services. A library is more than just a warehouse
of books, magazines, movies, and databases. Library staff help to prepare information
resources for the customer, and help the customer use these materials in various ways.
For this reason, a library is a business that depends on intellectual capital (Snell et al.,
1998), human capital (Becker, 1964), and knowledge management (Hiebeler, 1996),
because of the contributions of staff to the customer’s experience.
The first item, intellectual capital, has been addressed with a previous discussion of
levels of educational attainment and the knowledge to which the employer can assume
staff members at various levels have been exposed by virtue of the degree(s) they have
earned. Now an examination of human capital is in order.
There is some overlap between intellectual capital and human capital, as different
experts draw the line between the two in different places. Ulrich et al. (1999), in their
book Results-based Leadership, entitled one chapter “Employee results: investing in
human capital” (pp. 53-80). In this chapter they explain that human capital makes a
very real contribution to the value of an organization. Stewart (1977; as cited in
Morgan, 1996) defines human capital as the “knowledge, education, experience, and
creativity of the workforce”.
Ulrich et al. (1999) offer a rudimentary measure of human capital: “Human
Capital ¼ Employee Capability multiplied by Employee Commitment”. This
measurement is obtained by multiplying each employee’s capability, or skill level,
by that employee’s commitment, as measured by longevity or years of experience. The
human capital of the department or organization can be determined by adding the
figures for all the employees for that unit. Ulrich et al. (1999) state that “the resulting
human capital index would likely be a useful predictor of other positive outcomes for
the given unit, including customer loyalty, employee productivity, and profitability”
(p. 55).
Ulrich et al. (1999) noted several features that matter. They state that “human
capital is a unique type of business asset”. First, they point out that it is one of the few
assets that can appreciate in value. Second, they note that “human capital is portable”.
Finally, they point out that “Human capital is aligned with the customer perception of
the firm”. According to Ulrich et al. (1999), human capital asks one to look at careers a
little differently. They discuss something librarians have been noticing for many years.
As they phrase it, “human capital draws everything else together” (Ulrich et al., 1999,
pp. 55-8). In spite of the benefits it brings to an organization, Ulrich et al. (1999, pp. 55-7)
found that human capital is underutilized, mismanaged, and under managed.
The high regard business theorists have for human capital can be supported by a
look at how human capital enhances libraries. Almost all jobs in libraries are more
technical in nature now, since the advent of the computer. In virtually every industry,
most jobs today require a fairly high degree of productivity. Not only is this true of
libraries, but the library worker must also be able to work well with a myriad of
computer programs, perform well in extended bursts of detailed work, and multi-task
continually.
Most people do not realize that, in addition to specialized training, librarians must
have what Goleman (1998, p. 3) terms “general intelligence, cultural intelligence,
technical intelligence, and emotional intelligence”, and a demonstrated ability to learn
new skills and to develop new ways to present information to patrons in terms they can
understand, when they need it. Public librarians are generalists who are well versed in
a variety of subjects. Their library school training has given them knowledge about the
scope, authority, and timeliness of various library resources so that they will have a
good idea where to look first to answer a patron’s query.
The librarian must be able to discover the question underlying the initial reference
question. This is not as straightforward as it may seem, since some patrons do not
really know what they need while others phrase their question too broadly. Only after
determining the real question can the librarian provide a timely and accurate answer to
the patron’s question. As Mayer and Terrill (2005) point out, while the librarian may
not hold an advanced subject degree, each librarian has acquired knowledge about one
or more subject specialties. He or she may have acquired this knowledge either through
personal interest and reading or through on-the-job training in such areas as statistics,
archives management, or work with teens. The librarian will be able to converse with a
patron who is interested in this subject and will be better equipped than the other
librarians on the staff to recommend specific sources, either to the patron or to
materials selectors. Librarians top off the presentation of information to the patron
with a dash of good customer service, but don’t be fooled: there is more here than a
customer service representative.
A third way of looking at the value of employees is by considering knowledge
management, or the employees’ knowledge of the organization’s business processes
and their knowledge of the organization and its history. Baskerville and Dulipovici
(2006) wrote an excellent article in which they delineated the theoretical foundations of
the study of knowledge management. In this work, they separate the written works on
KM theory, dividing them into three main themes. Their article includes a useful table
that summarizes the literature on each of these themes.
The first theme was the “rationale” of an institution, that is to say why the
institution exists and how it contributes to society (Baskerville and Dulipovici, 2006).
When one examines library work, the first thing noticed is that public libraries provide
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
113
BL
22,4
114
free access to books, magazines, and audiovisual materials for all the residents of the
community. However, this is only the beginning. More importantly, libraries contribute
to the growth of literacy in both adults and children and encourage the free flow of
ideas in society. Libraries are essential for the least privileged in society. This is
demonstrated by the fact that libraries help immigrants learn English, acculturate, and
prepare for their citizenship examinations, as well as helping to bridge the digital
divide, or the gap between rich and poor in the availability of access to computers and
technology.
The second major theme Baskerville and Dulipovici (2006) found in the knowledge
management literature is “process definition”. Process definition is the codification of
procedures, after examination of the industry’s best practices. In a library culture, the
core competencies and standards of various library duties and functions have been
routinely discussed in library literature and at workshops and conferences. Many
libraries have undergone improvement projects in which process key task sheets have
been developed for a library process. Some library assistants have gone for training in
library work as well.
The third theme Baskerville and Dulipovici (2006) discovered when examining
knowledge management literature was “evaluation”. Evaluation is measurement of
organizational performance.
Measurement
In his analysis of human capital in the article entitled “The kaleidoscope of
possibilities”, Larry Nash White (2007) updates the formula for measuring human
capital. White notes:
The ranges of human capital investment (i.e. staff expenditure) as modeled [. . .] represent the
largest allocation within the library’s comprehensive/annual budget and create a considerable
long-term investment commitment for the organization, yet in most traditional library
accounting systems, there are no human capital (or other intangible) assessments or metrics
to determine the value or performance of this major organizational allocation (i.e. investment)
(White, 2007).
White also reviews some measures of human capital, such as earnings capacity
(Haveman et al., 2003), education (Center for Educational Research and Innovation,
1996), and return on investment (Blair and Wallman, 2001). Another measurement of
human capital is the personal growth statement (Bukh et al., 2005), which is often used
as part of personnel evaluation forms. Larry Nash White reviews Davenport’s human
capital equation: human capital ¼ ðability and behavior) multiplied by effort
multiplied by time (White, 2007, citing Davenport, 1999).
Blair and Wallman (2001), who find return on investment a useful measurement for
analyzing a company, do not recognize the point made by White in “A kaleidoscope of
possibilities” when referring to an equation posited by Davenport, that many times a
small change can make a difference such as the earning of a degree. White states: “In
many cases, these intangibles (i.e., human and other intellectual capital) provide the
best indicator of an organization’s potential for growth”, with human capital
investments being seen as “sources of competitive advantage” (White, 2007, pp. 113-14).
Roos et al. (1998; cited by White, 2007) felt that the push to scientifically measure
every aspect of a business was getting out of hand. In their work, they stressed that a
measure of human capital “should include a recognition of the need to move away from
the short term measures and a move instead to measures of long term balance”. In this
way, a company’s ability to deliver a product on time, its ability to earn repeat business
through customer loyalty, and its ability to reduce employee turnover rates should all
be considered measures of the value of the institution’s work (White, 2007; Roos et al.,
1998).
Although libraries have been performing return of investment studies for years,
they mostly count library usage statistics, or amount of particular tasks completed in a
given amount of time. The use of return on investment measurements has been
increasing within the last decade, despite the preponderance of evidence presented in
support of the value of libraries, in most cases additional funding has not been
provided by the funding authorities. It is not clear whether this is due to the failure of
library directors to present this material clearly to their library boards of directors,
whether it is due to the reluctance of library boards to approach the funding source or
their inability to clearly articulate the library’s successes, or whether it is due to the
funding source’s ignoring the evidence presented to them.
By measuring for internal consistency in job values at libraries through one or more
of the measures of human capital described above, libraries can be assured that there
are fair demarcations among positions and consistent expectations which employees
must meet in order to advance. A consistent organizational structure, with clearly
delineated jobs and fair compensation, lets a library know where they stand and what
they need to do to get to where they want to go.
One way to reduce employee turnover would be by making sure that the
administration exercises consistency and fairness in its treatment of employees.
Although consistency and fairness is not limited to salaries, it does include them. There
needs to be a clearly marked hierarchy, demonstrated by an equitable trend line, (or
sometimes called a regression line, or R 2 line) for library salaries. This can be achieved
by periodically checking this line to make sure salaries remain equitable and making
changes to the pay policy when necessary.
The study of pay policy
Pay policy studies brings all the information learned about organizational structures
and external competitiveness of salaries together with what is known about internal or
evaluative determinants of the levels of pay within a job family or structure.
Bereman and Scott (1991) examined differences in faculty pay between the sexes
through the use of a comparative ratio, and found discrepancies. It is that presumed
efforts have been made toward assuring scientific balance between the sexes in many
jobs over the years since then, although recent legal cases show this may not be the
case (see the Lily Ledbetter case in 2007).
It appears as if efforts need to be dedicated continually to measure balance. Elvira
and Graham (2002) examined and still found evidence of earnings gaps between men
and women which hold implications for the design of pay structures in organizations.
It seems that incentives and bonuses or other less formal pay skewered levels of
earnings when looking at sexes.
As one can see, some early applications of wage analysis involved noteworthy cases
of comparable worth which came from repeated attempts to uphold the Equal Pay Act
of 1963, which sought to mandate equal pay for equal work. Hartenian and Johnson
(1991) say that issues often arise about “fair pay” for jobs that provide equal value to
the organization or those of “comparable worth”. They say wage surveys and job
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
115
BL
22,4
116
evaluations have helped. But issues of unfairness persist, and through Hartenian and
Johnson’s work one starts to see testing for reliability and validity the explore methods
of testing for fairness.
Hartenian and Johnson (1991) say there are three ways to test for validity: first, there
must be content-related validity or a showing of how the test samples represent a true
sampling of the labor markets. The NJLA Personnel Administration Committee has
done labor markets surveys for New Jersey libraries. The salary highlighted on the
NJLA Guidelines for Minimum Recommended Starting Salaries has been evaluated for
national fit to the labor market.
In discussing the second way to measure validity according to Hartenian and
Johnson (1991), the work of Fay Hensen (2003) is referred to once again in her
admonition to measure based on whether the benchmark jobs selected for mention in
the survey are “(1) definable and stable; (2) common in the marketplace; (3) vary in
requirements, education, and experience; (4) represent all salary levels; (5) represent a
sizeable population of the organization” (Hartenian and Johnson, 1991). Again, library
job titles and levels of achievement chosen for inclusion in the NJLA Guidelines for
Minimum Recommended Starting Salaries clearly cover the range of library workers.
That measure is the second way Hartenian and Johnson (1991) referred to as a way
to measure validity: the measure of construct validity. They say positions must convey
measurement of market value or relation to the organizations perceived valued
outcomes. This refers to the job evaluations, rank ordering of jobs, and comparable
worth when measuring return to the organization (Hartenian and Johnson, 1991, p.
373).
Emphatically, Hartenian and Johnson (1991) say that there should not be absolute
reliance on wage surveys measuring external or market competitiveness, and internal
ranking of job evaluations that have led to structures. They refer to Milkovich and
Newman’s (1987) work on compensation, in which it is conveyed that:
If the resulting pay structure (among other factors) contributes to perceptions of internal and
external inequity, turnover may occur (Hartenian and Johnson, 1991, p. 376; Milkovich and
Newman, 1987).
This leads to a discussion of the third way that Hartenian and Johnson (1991) state one
must measure validity: predictive validity. This turns attention to a focus on the
relationship between organizational variables. Here one must study and hypothesize
whether there a direct linear relationship between this and that, or a relation of the
hierarchical nature of the jobs and the commensurate salary (Hartenian and Johnson,
1991, p. 375). A study or conduct of trend-line analysis can show a linear relationship
between organization variables.
Teresa L. Smith first discussed the use of computers to analyze compensation in
1996. She had students conduct a job analysis survey of the specific jobs in the hotel to
determine the relative value of the jobs under study to the business and to evaluate
internal consistency. Then she had students conduct an external wage survey analysis
to see how a selection wage levels in a hotel compared competitively to other hotels or
competitors for external competitiveness. Then she used regression analysis to set an
internal pay policy line (Smith, 1996).
Recently, Fay Hensen (2003) has written on a phenomena where pay policies
and salary budgets have been set aside in efforts to allow junior managers to view
current market data and use their own views to set salaries. This may involve the
relinquishing of human resource department control over salary budgets. Some who
embrace change for change sake may say change is good. The authors believes this is a
slippery slope which will begin the evolution of an unfair and unbalanced ‘system” of
pay that shuts open records and may inadvertently create a cadre of have and have-not
employees working along side one another doing the same tasks for uneven
compensation. How will worth be measured? How will fairness be measured ensured
and proven?
By the consideration of open records on external competitiveness and the open
records of internal value placed on all levels of library work, one must allow employees
to openly evaluate the risk and returns with positions of clearly marked levels of pay.
Employees must be able to choose to go on or go no further when it comes to acquiring
education for the next step up. Bonnie R. Rabin, in her article on compensation from a
risk/return approach, states employees must have a “knowledge and awareness of
alternatives and ‘mechanics’ (potentially enhancing the perceptions of procedural
justice)” (Rabin, 1995).
A company should strive for clearly understood job titles, ranks, and graduated
levels of pay. There are challenges and benefits in analysis of wage structures. The
potential benefits to business and libraries alike, however, are an internal and external
perception of the manifestation of a business or library that operates in the light of day.
Any public scrutiny will reveal an open and honest corporate culture where any
employee knows what is expected of him or her to get ahead and what the steps are
along the pathway up.
New Jersey Library Association’s Guidelines for Recommended
Minimum Starting Salaries and the pay policy line
It is difficult for library administrators to stop and take time each year for data
collection on external market values. The New Jersey Library Association, through its
Personnel Administration Subcommittee, has persons who routinely dedicate time to
doing research to analyze market conditions and valuations for job levels within the
organization. Each year, the committee makes recommendations to the Executive
Board for the next year’s recommended minimum starting salaries based on copious
research. This organization has relieved administrators from having to research to test
for content validity.
In addition, internal personnel evaluations for consistency can be difficult and
fraught with many perceived biases, misjudgements and misinterpretations. The
efforts to have and to create construct validity from within the firm for job positions is
a trying effort for most corporations. Thank goodness this country is founded on
principles of respect and standards for education: most companies, including libraries,
can rely to a certain degree that the attainment of a certain level of education
demonstrates skill and understanding and ability to function at a certain expected
business level. The requirement of an education degree at various levels of work task
and responsibility in an organization can solve many issues. In a library setting,
pre-hiring tests in alphabetical filing or numerical ordering assist in ascertaining
whether even the most basic skills levels are met. Additionally, tests in sorting for
speed and accuracy, and essential computer skills, also helps at the entry-level
positions. Although it is important to recognize various skills can be brought to the
table. Each person contributes to the whole of the organization. Indeed, sometimes slow
and steady is just what is needed. Once again one can rely on the NJLA Guidelines for
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
117
BL
22,4
118
Figure 1.
2007 current NJLA salary
scattergram
Recommended Minimum Starting Salaries for a handy reference point when
quantifying work. Great efforts have been made to include the job titles that codify the
most commonly found work classifications of the library. Individual job duties may
vary, but in general most job task groups are represented in the library occupation
titles on the list. These positions are ranked orderly for degree of increasing complexity
of duties. The positions have clearly listed assigned levels of pay, so that aiming to
consistently meet the Guidelines’ indicated salaries across the board will stand
administrators in good stead and contribute to a lessening of the evaluative research
that they must do annually.
The other test for validity that may be done periodically is a test for predictive
validity. In this paper an Appendix of data has been included, showing where the
author has tested the predictive validity of the job positions salaries to form a
predictive hierarchical linear line that would show a relationship to the trend line or
regression line or R 2 showing the averages of pay for the positions for two separate
years. It is hoped that in any pay structure, salaries are predictably linear in a chain of
continued upward growth from the lowest paid library assistant to the director.
Included in the Appendix is a table of Year 2007 recommended minimum starting
salaries. Figure 1 clearly shows how the positions relate to one another and along a
hierarchical trend-line. Unfortunately, if one looks at the trend-line for the organization
there is a clear movement downwards and off of the trend-lines for the librarian and
mid-career librarian.
Also included in the Appendix is a table of year 2008 recommended minimum
starting salaries. Figure 2 shows the effects of the annual evaluation research and
analysis of the positions, which led to a recalibration voted on the NJLA Executive
Board. A marked improvement in the salaries can be seen here, by looking at the
trend-line or regression line or R 2. Most job position salaries do appear on or near the
center trend-line and show a marked hierarchical linear relationship among the job
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
119
Figure 2.
2008 NJLA recommended
minimum starting salaries
positions, so there is a pattern of growth and advancement that is fair and free from
controversy. There is still some work to be done to raise salaries of librarians and
mid-level librarians, however, judging by this chart. An as yet unpublished paper
examining the Library Assistant salaries shows this position starting point as already
too low to provide even a modicum of sustenance.
Conclusion
By using the trend-line analysis one should be able to calculate just what the value,
worth or salary of those positions should be in order to have a predictive, orderly,
hierarchical representation of the salaries within the library organization structure.
Library administrators can take comfort in knowing that, first, the external
competitiveness and how the content validity of how these positions fit in across
industries and regions is researched and presented annually by NJLA Personnel
Administration Subcommittee. Second, when looking at the library as an organization,
its internal structure of jobs and positions and the staff value as human capital has
been researched and evaluated by the subcommittee annually, and has been tested for
construct validity. Third, periodic tests of predictive validity are performed on
different variables to test for hierarchical linear relationships by members of the NJLA
Personnel Sub Committee. It is the author’s hope that information relayed here will be
used to recalibrate and refigure salaries that will be presented as recommended
minimum starting salaries to the NJLA Executive Board. The subcommittee has done a
lot of the research and testing for New Jersey libraries.
It would then remain to the Directors of each library to point out the guidelines for
recommended minimum starting salaries to their own Boards’ personnel committee by
going to the www.njla.org website. Every effort has been made to ensure that New
Jersey library administrators can feel confidant that this data can be useful to their own
library’s board member meetings to formulate the library’s next budget year.
BL
22,4
120
References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Babbage, C. (1832), On the Economy of Machines and Manufactures, Charles Knight, London.
Baskerville, R. and Dulipovici, A. (2006), “The theoretical foundations of knowledge
management”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, No. 4, pp. 83-105.
Becker, G.S. (1964), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference
to Education, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, NY.
Bereman, N.A. and Scott, J.A. (1991), “Using the Compa-Ratior to detect gender bias in faculty
salaries”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 556-69.
Blair, M.M. and Wallman, S.M. (2001), Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on
Intangibles, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Block, P. (1987), The Empowered Manager, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bukh, P.N., Christensen, K.S. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds) (2005), Knowledge Management and
Intellectual Capital: Establishing Fields of Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (1998), Human Capital Investment:
An International Comparison, Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Paris.
Davenport, T.O. (1999), Human Capital: What it is and Why People Invest it, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Elvira, M.M. and Graham, M.E. (2002), “Not just a formality: pay system formalization and
sex-related earnings effects”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 601-17.
Galbraith, J.R. (1971), “Matrix organization designs: how to combine functional and project
forms”, Business Horizons, Vol. 14, pp. 29-40.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam, New York, NY.
Hartenian, L.S. and Johnson, N.B. (1991), “Establishing the reliability and validity of wage
surveys”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 367-83.
Haveman, R.H., Bershadker, A. and Schwabisch, J.A. (2003), Human Capital in the United States
from 1975-2000: Patterns of Growth and Utilization, W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, Kalamazoo, MI.
Hensen, F. (2003), “Power to the line people”, Workforce, Vol. 82 No. 7, pp. 70-5.
Hiebeler, R.J. (1996), “Benchmarking knowledge management”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 22-9.
Hill, C.W. (2005), International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace, McGraw-Hill/
Irwin, Boston, MA.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50, pp. 370-96.
Mayer, J. and Terrill, L.J. (2005), “Academic librarians’ attitudes about advanced-subject
degrees”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
Milkovich, G.T. and Newman, J.M. (1987), Compensation, 2nd ed., Business Publications, Inc.,
Plano, TX.
Morgan, G. (1993), Imaginization. The Art of Creative Management, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
Morgan, G. (1996), Images of Organization, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
New Jersey Library Association (2008), available at: www.njla.org
Nonaka, I. (1988), “Creating organizational order out of chaos: self-renewal of Japanese firms”,
California Management Review, Vol. 30, pp. 57-73.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Rabin, B.R. (1995), “Total compensation: a risk/return approach”, Benefits Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 6-17.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Edvinsson, L. and Dragonetti, N.C. (1998), Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the
New Business Landscape, New York University Press, New York, NY.
Smith, A. (1776), The Wealth of Nations, Stratton and Cadell, London.
Smith, T.L. (1996), “Using computer technology to enhance learning: compensation in the real
world”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 98-101.
Snell, S., Lepak, D. and Youndt, M. (1998), “Managing the architecture of intellectual capital”,
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Stewart, T. (1977), Intellectual Capital, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Taylor, F. (1911), Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J. and Smallwood, N. (1999), Results-based Leadership, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
White, L.N. (2007), “Kaleidoscope of possibilities”, The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 109-15.
Appendix. Minimum recommended starting salaries for certified professional staff
(New Jersey Library Association, 2008)
The Executive Board voted to accept the Personnel Administration Committee’s proposal to
adjust the recommended salary for 2008 by 3.5 percent.
The recommended minimum salaries approved by the NJLA Executive Board for 2008 are the
minimum librarian salary at $47,390 and the minimum library assistant salary at $25,850.
The model salary schedules have been prepared as a guide for libraries. The only
recommended beginning salaries approved by the NJLA Executive Board for 2008 are the
beginning library assistant position at $25,830 and the beginning librarian position at $47,390.
The Personnel Administration Committee recommends that each library develop its own salary
schedule. Factors to be considered in its development should include size of the library,
educational requirements for the position, job responsibilities, length of service and supervisory
responsibility.
All salary guidelines for 2008 have been adjusted to reflect this increase.
Salary guidelines are listed in Tables AI and AII.
Libraries serving total populations in excess of 500,000 are advised to offer increased salaries
for Library Directors and Assistant Library Directors, commensurate with their responsibilities
as reflected in the total number of employees supervised and the total number of buildings for
which the administrators are responsible.
The membership of the Personnel Administration Subcommittee recommends that this chart
be subject to a full review every two years.
Certified staff: employees required to hold a Master’s degree in Library Science and/or
holding NJ Public Librarian Certification.
Pay policy line
in New Jersey
libraries
121
BL
22,4
Structure
2007
Salary ($)
2008
122
Library structure A
Entry-level librarian
Mid-level librarian
Director
45,787
52,655
71,542
47,390
54,498
74,046
26.03
29.94
40.68
Library structure B
Entry-level librarian
Mid-level librarian
Assistant Director
Director
45,787
52,655
82,273
102,841
47,390
54,498
85,153
106,440
26.03
29.94
46.79
58.48
Library structure C
Entry-level librarian
Mid-level librarian
Administrative librarian
Assistant Director
Director
45,787
52,655
82,272
102,841
128,551
47,390
54,498
85,153
106,440
133,050
26.03
29.94
46.79
58.48
73.10
Table AI.
Library support positions
Table AII.
2007
Salary ($)
2008
2008 (hourly)
2008 (hourly)
Library assistants
Library Assistant
Senior Library Assistant
Principal Library Assistant
Supervisory Library Assistant
24,976
29,100
33,958
40,333
25,850
30,119
35,147
41,745
14.20
16.55
19.31
22.94
Additional staff titles
Administrative Secretary
Library Clerk Driver
Bookkeeper
Library Guard
Custodian
Page
41,626
30,182
37,466
13.08
15.52
7.15
43,083
31,328
38,777
13.54
16.06
7.15
23.67
17.16
21.31
13.54
16.06
7.15
About the author
Beatrice Priestly is Principal Librarian at the Long Branch Public Library, Long Branch, New
Jersey, and Adjunct Librarian at Monmouth University Library, West Long Branch, New Jersey.
Beatrice Priestly can be contacted at: priestlyb@netzero.net
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints