children’s rooms nor children’s librarians in New York, and very few
anywhere. The former arose first and were served by persons assigned for
the purpose, usually from Grade C. The organization, later, of a
separate children’s department, with jurisdiction over all children’s
rooms, made it necessary to place children’s librarians in a separate
class; but that they might not feel “out of the running” for branch
librarianships, they were allowed to take examinations and advance from
one regular grade to another, in addition, if they so desired.
Catalogers were still graded regularly, however, although these might
have been easily treated in a similar way. The special nature of their
work, however, was recognized by a variation in the examination. The
test for the children’s grade was not an examination, but a series of
periods of practical work in selected branch libraries, with observation
and report and a final thesis. Candidates were specially selected by the
supervisor of children’s work, and so jealously has entrance into this
grade been guarded that even now not more than half of the forty or more
assistants in charge of New York’s children’s rooms are members of it.
In later years a thesis also has formed part of the examination for
Class A. This is written on an assigned subject, and the successful ones
are sometimes, although not always, printed.
One of the difficulties connected with the grading in the Circulation
Department of the New York Public library was the assignment to proper
grades of the staffs of the different institutions that consolidated
with that library from time to time. There were altogether about half a
dozen of these, with staffs varying in number perhaps from five to forty
or fifty persons. It was decided to leave the assignment entirely to the
authorities of these libraries, who practically graded their staffs on a
plan corresponding with ours before consolidation, so that there was no
change of grade afterward. The responsibility was thus thrown upon
bodies of men with whose authority the new staffs were familiar and
which they would be inclined to accept. The assignments were made with
varying degrees of care and validity, but were, on the whole, just, and
there was little complaint with them. Too low an assignment was
corrected by the next examinations for promotion, and a person graded
too high never at all events, rose any higher. The smoothness with which
these consolidations took place, even sometimes against the will and
with the dismal foreboding of the dispossessed authorities, and the
rapidity with which the entire staff became homogeneous, both in feeling
and in quality of work, are sufficient justification of this particular
policy, which was typical of that of the library in regard to other
features of these consolidations.
In the year 1910 it was decided to grade the staff of the St. Louis
Public Library. The principal differences between the problem here and
that in the cases that have been described depended on the fact that
this was an old library, with a comparatively large staff, having
traditions of its own and justly proud of its achievements and of its
library reputation. There had even been a feeling, at some time in the
past, on the part of some members of the board, that a graded staff was
not a good thing, as it would hamper freedom of control. The staff,
however, had reached such a size that some kind of classification
appeared inevitable, and the proper method of handling it seemed to be
that indicated above as preferable, namely, as purely an administrative
matter under the librarian’s control, to aid him in making
recommendations for appointment, promotion and increase of salary. This
was explained to the board, and there being no objection, a notice was
at once inserted in _Staff Notes_, the medium of communication between
the librarian and the staff, that the force would be shortly divided
into grades, “the object being to represent definitely the exact
position occupied by each one, and to fix the maximum salary belonging
to each grade.” There was some additional preliminary explanation and a
request for suggestions and opinions. After a lapse of about six months,
during which the plan became familiar to all by discussion, both
informal and in the weekly meetings of the heads of departments, the
grading was announced by the publication in _Staff Notes_ of the
principles on which it had been made, with explanations in considerable
detail. The names of those assigned to the different grades were not
given, but each member of the staff was notified separately of his own
grading, unless this was obvious from the published explanation, as in
case of branch librarians. It was announced that the grading was not an
act of the Board, but “simply a schedule expressing the formal manner in
which ... recommendations will hereafter be made to the board.”
This scheme was more thoroughgoing than any of those previously noted,
in that it provided a place and designation for everyone in the
library’s employ. The force was divided into three sections--regular
grades, special grades and ungraded occupations. The former were
classified practically as in New York; the special grades were made to
include catalogers and children’s librarians, with any special positions
of enough importance to be placed there; the “ungraded occupations” were
those of janitors and their assistants, messengers, elevator men,
binders and other miscellaneous employees. In the regular grades A and B
were limited, and while C and D were not formally so, it was announced
that they would not be indefinitely increased. It was provided that
those in special grades might qualify also for regular grades and might
also be transferred thereto if desired.
In assignment of members of the staff to grades, existing conditions
were recognized as far as possible, with no immediate attempt to remedy
faults that might exist therein. Statement was made that all persons who
might consider themselves wrongly graded would have early opportunity to
show their fitness for the grade above, either in the regular way or in
some other, if it could be devised. It was stated that the
qualifications that would gain the librarian’s recommendation for
promotion from grade to grade (which, it will be remembered, consists
merely in an increase of salary, so far as the board takes cognizance
thereof) would in general be of three kinds--educational, to be
ascertained by certificate or diploma, or failing these, by examination;
special, to be ascertained in some cases by examination, in others by
mail, in others by certified experience; and personal, to be ascertained
by personal knowledge.
In connection with the scheme, the training class was much extended in
scope and its course broadened and made to cover an educational year.
Here, as in New York, the scheme is entirely distinct from the municipal
civil service, but for a different reason. In New York the library is a
private institution, occupying city property and doing public work by
provision of a contract which does not provide for extension of the city
civil-service rules over the library force; in St. Louis, the merit
system has not been introduced at all among city employees. Should it be
introduced in the future, and should it be decided that the members of
the library staff are strictly employees of the city, we might have here
the Brooklyn experience over again, as detailed above. For purely
selfish reasons, therefore, the St. Louis Public Library should be well
satisfied with the _status quo_.
In concluding, it may be well to call attention again to the fact that
such schemes as these are designed to aid an appointing body or officer,
not to control him. They would be of little value to a municipality
desiring to limit a political mayor’s power for evil, or to a mayor
wishing to keep his board of library trustees within bounds, or to a
board anxious to curb its librarian’s propensity to appoint personal
favorites. Such a plan pre-supposes that appointment and promotion for
the good of the service are desired, and it serves to bring this about
so far as it may. A board, or a librarian, could depart from it or
violate its provisions in a dozen ways. What, then, is the use of it? In
a small staff, it has no uses. It would be as silly to grade such a
staff and make rules for its promotion as it would be for a housekeeper
with a cook and one maid to call the former Class A and the latter Class
B, and draw up rules for their appointment and promotion. But as soon as
the size of the staff exceeds that at which the officer in charge can
know each member and her work with intimate personal knowledge, then
something of the kind becomes imperative. The members of such a staff
are better satisfied that they are being treated with uniform justice,
and that merit is properly recognized, if it is done in some systematic
way like this, and the officer on whose recommendation appointments and
promotions are made runs much less risk of making mistakes. Every
librarian should, I believe, examine himself to make sure that his
present scheme of service, whatever it may be, is sufficient for these
purposes and adapted to secure their attainment smoothly and
satisfactorily.
EFFICIENCY RECORDS IN LIBRARIES
In the foregoing article the present writer gave the result of his
experience in formulating and establishing systems of service in four
large libraries, and, incidentally, stated his conclusion that such
systems should always remain in the control of the library authorities.
While the plans therein described work satisfactorily from an inside
standpoint, they are defective in one particular--that of complete
record. This is most important in case of investigation by competent
authority. While direct control of a library service system by an
outside body, such as a municipal or other civil service board, is
objectionable, there can certainly be no objection to the requirement,
by municipal charter or state law, that the library service be organized
and operated on the merit system, which requirement presupposes
occasional inquiry to ascertain whether, and in what degree and form,
this is the case. Now, in the event of such investigation, it will
usually be easy to produce the records of examinations, with marked
papers, tabulated marks, and the action based thereon. When it comes to
personality and efficiency, such records are not easy to get. Even where
libraries assign marks in these subjects and combine them with the
results of the written tests to obtain a final mark on which promotion
is based, there is nothing to show how the marks were obtained, and the
investigating authority might not unnaturally conclude that here was an
opportunity to nullify the merit system. Evidently all data on which
appointment or promotion is based should be matters of record, otherwise
a perfectly well-ordered merit system cannot be demonstrated to be such
to one who has a right to know; and, of course, in the last analysis,
every citizen has this right in the case of a public institution.
What appeared to be needed was some regular report on the efficiency of
every employee, which should be taken into account in assigning marks or
in some other way, in making promotions, made in such permanent form
that it could be filed as a record. Such reports are, of course,
constantly made orally and acted upon, without any record being
preserved. They are occasionally made in recordable form, perhaps most
often in the case of apprentices or members of training classes. In some
cases derelictions or unfavorable reports alone have been recorded, but
a complete report on personality and work made regularly and filed
permanently is a thing that has not come under my observation, although,
of course, it may exist.
Having decided to adopt some such form of report in the St. Louis Public
Library, the librarian laid the matter before the weekly conference of
department heads and branch librarians. Had the question been the
advisability of the adoption of such a form, the sentiment of the
meeting would probably have been against it, but the announcement was
simply that the librarian had decided to require regularly thereafter,
in shape suitable for filing, information regarding the efficiency of
assistants that had hitherto been received irregularly and by word of
mouth. A staff committee was appointed to draft a form of report, and
the reports of progress of this committee, with the incidental
discussions and conferences, occupied nearly a year, during which time
everyone on the staff became thoroughly familiar with the plan and
either agreed with the librarian regarding its advisability or had some
reasonable and well-considered ground of opposition.
The librarian had in mind a short form, containing a few important data.
The committee brought in a long one--somewhat longer than that finally
adopted, which is given below. Their reason, as stated, was that it is
easier to answer a large number of questions that require hardly more
than the words “yes” and “no” in reply than a few, each of which calls
for the writing of an essay, however brief. This reason appealed to all
and finally prevailed. It means practically the presentation of the
information required, ready-made, and its adoption or rejection by the
person making the report. Discussion in the meeting was chiefly on the
more personal items of information, such as those about neatness of
dress, etc.; also about others whose propriety or clearness was
questioned, such as that regarding loyalty to the library. Some of these
were finally stricken out, but most were retained. It was also noted
that in many cases the information asked for could not ordinarily be
obtained. A department head, for instance, may be intimate enough with
one of her assistants to know whether she has a real appreciation for
literature, but in most instances this would not be the case. Many such
questions were retained on the ground that answers, if possible, would
be of value, and, if not, could simply be omitted.
After the forms had thus been put into shape they were duplicated and a
copy was given to each department head, with instructions to show it to
all her assistants, discuss it with them and report at the next meeting.
The reports showed that the reception of the form had depended chiefly
on the department head, either through manner of presentation or
through personal influence. In some departments the plan seemed to be
viewed with equanimity, while in others there was a considerable amount
of suspicion, distrust and dislike of the whole scheme. It was next
announced that anyone on the staff desiring to discuss the matter with a
librarian would be given an opportunity to do so at a specified meeting.
This was well attended, and it appeared that much of the feeling was due
to misunderstanding. It was explained that no new method of making
promotions was contemplated, and that personality and efficiency would
be taken into account neither more nor less than before, but that the
reports from which the librarian derived his information on these points
would be required in writing, thus safeguarding both the appointing
officer and the appointees. There seemed to be a strong feeling on the
part of some that personal feeling might actuate some department head to
make a false report, and that while, of course, such report might be
made even more effectively if rendered orally, it would be a pity to
have it permanently on record. There was no answer to this except that
the likelihood of such a misleading report would probably become known
to the librarian, who could reject or modify it.
In due course of time, a sufficient number of blanks were distributed,
filled and handed in. They were then discussed again at a meeting, and
questions that had come up in the practical rendition of the reports
were brought up and settled. A filled report regarding the work of every
classified assistant in this library is now on file in the librarian’s
office.
The conditions under which these reports are made and held are as
follows:
Every question must be answered or the reason for not doing so must be
stated.
The reports are to be made out regularly on the first of each year, or
oftener at the librarian’s request. Each is accessible only to the
librarian, to the reporting officer and to the assistant reported on,
except when a transfer is to be made, when the head of the department to
which the assistant is to be transferred may also consult the record.
Since the reports were made out only about half a dozen assistants have
requested to be shown their records. Some others were allowed to see
them before they were handed in. Such excitement as there was regarding
the matter has now abated, and the matter has been relegated to its
proper plane in the scheme of library things. This is due, probably,
very largely to the plan of conducting the whole matter on a free and
open basis, in consultation with the staff at every point, and also to
the length of time that was allowed to elapse between steps. Publicity
and deliberation are the two necessary things in a procedure of this
kind, and both are commended to librarians wishing to adopt this kind of
record.
There is no doubt in my mind that some efficiency record is necessary
and valuable, and that a full record, including the usual high
percentage of good things with the possible proportion of bad ones, is
preferable to a mere blacklist, on which only the bad is recorded.
The blank, as finally adopted, is reproduced herewith.
ST. LOUIS PUBLIC LIBRARY
RECORD OF EFFICIENCY
Name
(Inverted, in full)
Branch or Department.
Length of service in dept. or branch.
Present grade of assistant.
Entered the library.
A. Personal qualities.
1. Physically strong enough for the work?
How much time lost while in department and why?
2. Knowledge of books.
Improving in this?
3. All around information?
4. Appreciation for real literature.
5. Resourceful? Systematic?
6. Self-possessed in a rush or emergency?
7. Executive ability? Decision?
8. Accurate? Quick? Adaptable?
9. Industrious? Careless?
10. Obliging to fellow-workers?
11. Punctual? Times tardy? Excusable?
12. Forgetful? Inclined to gossip?
13. Neat and appropriate in dress?
B. Relations with the public.
1. Uniformly courteous? Dignified?
2. Inclined to entertain personal visitors?
3. Effective in work with adults?
4. Effective in work with children?
C. Grade as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
1. Library hand.
2. Printing.
3. Typewriting.
4. Shorthand.
D. Did the assistant improve while with you?
In what way?
In what did she fall short?
E. If the assistant had weak points, did you call her attention to them?
F. What did you especially like about the assistant?
G. Do you consider the assistant fitted or unfitted by personality,
education and practical efficiency to work in any one of the
following departments? Grade her work as excellent, good,
fair or poor, stating also length of service at each kind of
work.
1. An all-around branch assistant in this library?
2. A children’s librarian?
3. A reference department assistant?
4. A catalog department assistant?
5. A desk assistant?
6. A clerical assistant?
7. An assistant in other lines? (specify)
If you do not consider the assistant so fitted, give particular reasons.
H. Is the assistant loyal to the library?
I. Has the assistant enthusiasm in her work?
J. Would you be satisfied to have the assistant in your (Branch)
(Dept.), not considering the fact that you might prefer some
one else?
L. Remarks.
Date
Signature
Title
MAL-EMPLOYMENT IN THE LIBRARY[12]
Students of the labor problem have given a vast amount of attention to
the unemployed, but comparatively little to the mal-employed. It
troubles them--and very properly--that there should be large numbers of
persons who are doing no work, who are contributing nothing toward the
operation of the world’s machinery; they do not seem to be so greatly
bothered that there are persons hard at work to no purpose or with evil
result--whose efforts either do not help the world along or actually
impede it or hold it back. Serious as is the case of those who are not
employed at all, it is as nothing compared with those who are employed
badly.
One reason for this neglect--which is at the same time a reason why it
should no longer exist--is that the burden of unemployment bears most
conspicuously on the individual, while that of mal-employment is
predominantly civic. It is true that unemployment works civic injury,
and that mal-employment, especially if it be criminal, is recognized at
once as a possible harm to the individual. But what I mean is that the
unemployed person, unless he is one of the idle rich, is greatly
concerned about his lack of employment, which touches his pocket
directly. He does all that he can to get back into the ranks of the
employed, but once there it does not occur to him to ask whether what he
is doing benefits society, or is of no value to it, or actually harms
it. Even if he does so inquire, he is not likely to give up a job that
pays him well simply because what he is doing is injurious to the
world’s progress. The injury done is social and civic and we must look
to increased social and civic consciousness for its abatement.
I owe this word _mal-employment_, in its contrasted use with
_unemployment_, to William Kent, a member of Congress from the city of
Chicago. In a recent interview, Mr. Kent gives it as his opinion that
the sin of the day is waste--the expenditure of effort for naught or for
positive ill. Of course, when we get down to details there is difficulty
or even impossibility in deciding whether or not a given man is
mal-employed--we may leave out of consideration here all persons engaged
in criminal occupations. For instance, Mr. Kent considers that the small
army of men engaged in the manufacture of champagne are all
mal-employed. Whether we agree with him or not depends somewhat on our
predispositions and our points of view. Many parents, in earlier days,
thought that when children were at play they were mal-employed; most
persons now regard this form of employment as necessary and beneficial,
although Dr. Boris Sidis thinks that the same interest now employed in
aimless play may be used to carry the child onward in the path of
individual progress and development. How about the vast number of
persons occupied in amusing or trying to amuse the public--employees of
theatres, recreation parks, and so on? Many are well employed; some are
doubtless mal-employed. Among persons that we should all agree are
mal-employed are all those writing books or plays that are morally
harmful, as well as those concerned in publishing such books or
producing such plays, and, for the moment, all who are reading or
witnessing them; persons engaged in manufacturing or distributing
useless or harmful products; all who do work of any kind so badly that
inconvenience or harm results; unnecessary middlemen whose intervention
in the process of distribution only impedes it and adds to its expense.
Anyone may add to the list by taking thought a little. If all these
mal-employed persons should suddenly lose their positions the result
would be beneficial to society, even if society had to support them in
idleness; if they should all turn their attention from mal-employment to
beneficial uses, how incalculably great a blessing they would bestow
upon mankind! It is every man’s business, it seems to me, to inquire
whether he is well employed or mal-employed, and if the occupation in
which he is engaged is generally beneficial to society, then whether all
those under his orders are well employed in carrying out its purpose.