Work Values of Academic Librarians:
Exploring the Relationships between
Values, Job Satisfaction, Commitment
and Intent to Leave
Barbara Burd
Libraries are facing a crisis in human resources. Articles on the shortage of librarians, the aging workforce,
and the loss of librarians to other information professions fill the pages of our professional journals.
Schneider’s (1987, 1995) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework suggests that individuals are
attracted to organizations because of the values of the
organization, are selected into the organization based
on the perception of value congruency, and will leave
an organization if they find that their values do not
align with the organization’s values. In fact, many of
us are drawn to the library profession because of a
basic belief in its core values. Further examination of
values may provide some insight into how library organizations can attract and retain librarians.
Rokeach (1973, 5), a pioneer in values research,
defines values as “an enduring belief that a specific
mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse
mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. It is important to note that, according to this definition, values are both enduring and relative. Values provide stability to both the individual and the organization, es-
pecially in times of great change. Values are also relative in that they are preferences over opposite or opposing beliefs. When shared values become embedded within an organization, they form the foundation of the organizational culture.
Work values are values or beliefs that determine
our behavior at work. Work values add meaning to
the work experience since they are a reflection of our
motivations, our preferred work setting, the way we
interact with others, and our work style. Our work
values determine what we expect to achieve from the
work experience and, as such, determine our choice of
vocation and our reaction to job situations. Meglino,
Ravlin, and Adkins (1989) suggest four categories of
work values: achievement, helping and concern for
others, honesty, and fairness.
In classifying values in librarianship, Finks (1989,
352) proposes a “personal taxonomy of values” that
includes professional values, general values, personal
values, and rival values. Included in his professional
values are service, stewardship, philosophical values
reflecting the love of wisdom and truth, democratic
values, and love of reading and books. He uses the
Barbara Burd is a Head of Information Literacy at Case Library, Colgate University, email: [email protected].
ACRL Eleventh National Conference
!#"$%&(')"*+'),-.'/102
Rank Order
Frequency
2
4
6
9
12
9
6
4
2
Category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(most unimportant)
or
(most uncharacteristic)
term general values to indicate those beliefs that are
“commonly shared by normal, healthy people, whatever their field” (354). These general values are further classified into work values, social values, and satisfaction values. In this research work values includes
both professional and general values. This study addresses the following research questions:
What values are most important to academic librarians?
What values are most characteristic of academic
libraries?
How do differences in individual work values affect job satisfaction, commitment, and intent to leave?
How do differences in organizational values affect job satisfaction, commitment, and intent to leave?
Because of its subjective nature, research in values
requires a methodology that is both idiographic, pertaining to each unique individual, and nomothetic,
pertaining to general values shared by the organization. Chatman (1988), using the Organizational Culture Profile developed from Q methodology, established
the principles for much of the current research in values and organizational culture. Q methodology, developed by William Stephenson (1953), provides a
system for rank ordering statements drawn from the
population to be studied. “Fundamentally, Q methodology provides a foundation for the systematic study
of subjectivity, and it is this feature which recommends
it to persons interested in qualitative aspects of human behavior” (Brown 1991). In Q methodology the
researcher develops a concourse, or list of statements,
through interviews or written documents. A concourse
is the flow of communicability surrounding any subject. Statements in the concourse are subjective, consisting of texts of the people being studied. “The focus has to be on the person looking, viewing, reading,
listening—not as we observe him, but as he observes
it all himself ” (Stephenson 1967, 10). The concourse
for this study consisted of 54 statements of work val-
(most important)
or
(most characteristic)
ues obtained by soliciting responses from library
listservs, by interviews with librarians, and by comparing statements with values reflected in the literature on
organizational culture and the literature on libraries and
librarianship. Since professional values are reflected in
individual values and embedded in the cultures of academic libraries, it is appropriate to consider these in the
concourse.
Academic librarians were asked to rank order the
set of value statements into nine categories ranging
from most unimportant to most important for individual
values and most uncharacteristic of the organization to
most characteristic for organizational values. This rank
ordering follows the pattern:
Thus, librarians were asked to choose two statements each for most important and most unimportant; four statements each for quite important and
quite unimportant; six statements each for fairly important and fairly unimportant; nine statements each
for somewhat important and somewhat unimportant;
and, twelve statements that were neither important
nor unimportant. The same order was used to sort the
value statements that were characteristic and uncharacteristic of the organization. To determine what values are important to the individual, librarians were
asked to keep in mind the question, “What values
are most important for you personally to have
present in your organization?” For the organization
sort, librarians were asked to keep in mind the question, “What values would most members of the organization agree are most characteristic of the organization?” After sorting the statement cards, participants were asked to record the numbers from the selected statement cards on the Q sort response sheet.
Librarians were also asked to comment or explain their
choices for their top responses on the reverse side of
the Q sort response sheet.
Job satisfaction, commitment, and intent to leave
were measured using a six-point Likert scale ranging
April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina
34564543758
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Job satisfaction was measured using a modified version of Spector’s
Job Satisfaction Survey (1999), which measures satisfaction across nine dimensions: pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of work, and communication.
The Job Satisfaction Survey has been used in prior
research on service professions, including librarians
(Murray 1999). Commitment was measured using a
modified version of Meyer and Allen’s (1984, 1991)
Affective Commitment Scale and Continuous Commitment Scale. Affective commitment refers to the emotional attachment or identification that individuals
feel towards their organizations. Continuous commitment measures the sacrifice involved with leaving a
current position. Intent to leave was measured with
three statements reflecting plans to remain with the
organization for the next two years.
The P-set, or population sample, was composed
of librarians from academic institutions in the United
States. A request for participation was made on several library-related listservs. A total of 127 packets,
consisting of a deck of cards for Individual Values, a
deck of cards for Organizational Values, Conditions
of Instruction for each sort, sort sheets for individual
and organizational values, a survey of job satisfaction,
commitment, intent to leave, and demographic variables, and general instructions for completing the instruments were distributed to respondents. Librarians were asked to complete each sort approximately
one week apart. Return envelopes were included in
the packet. Responses were received from librarians in
small, medium, and large academic institutions, representing public, private non-religious, and private
religious institutions and conferring degrees ranging
from bachelor to post-doctoral.
Of the 127 packets that were distributed to librarians across the United States, 99 were returned.
Four responses were unusable, resulting in a total data
set of 95. A profile of the librarian participating in
this study is of a white female between the ages of 50
and 60 who holds an MLS or equivalent degree. She
works in a public institution with enrollment between
5,000 and 9,999 students. Her primary area of responsibility is reference/instruction and she has been
employed in her present organization for three to five
years. Librarians from 51 academic libraries across the
United States were represented in the P-set. Of these,
ACRL Eleventh National Conference
five libraries were represented by more than five librarians comprising 45 percent of the total set. Comparing the demographic variables of this sample with
other statistics gathered on academic librarians reveals
that this P-set is fairly representative of the population of academic libraries as a whole (Lynch 2000).
Factor analysis was conducted using PQMethod,
a statistical program developed for analyzing Q sorts.
In Q methodology, factor analysis reveals the diversity of patterns within the various sorts. Factors emerge
as categories of operant subjectivity, a term used by
Stephenson to describe the phenomenon that occurs
as the sorter operates, or communicates, with himself
in the sorting process in a method whereby the sorter
himself provides his own measure of his point of view.
Thus, factors establish a structure by which the researcher can examine the similarities and differences
between participants (Brown 1991).
Four factors emerged from the analysis of individual value statements. The correlations between these
factors ranged from .33 to .54, indicating that while
there are some similarities among factors, each factor
is distinct and possesses unique characteristics. For each
of the four factors, a factor array is calculated by taking the weighted average of the scores of those most
highly associated with each factor for each statement.
The factor arrays clearly demonstrate that the statements dealing with work styles, professional orientation, and relationships are distinct for each factor.
Additionally, the weightings of each statement in these
arrays are converted to z-scores (M = 0, SD = 1.952)
providing a basis for comparing factors for similarities
and differences. Z-scores are calculated by weighting
scores on each statement from each of those librarians
most associated with the factors. The z-score equals
the weighted score minus the mean and divided by
the standard deviation for each of the statements. Thus,
a z-score of +1 indicates that the statement ranks one
standard deviation above the mean; a z-score of –1
indicates that the statement ranks one standard deviation below the mean. Statements with z-scores of
greater than +1 define the values that are most important to individuals represented by each factor.
Statements with z-scores of –1 or less define the values that are most unimportant to these individuals.
Factor analysis reveals librarians in this study fall
into one of the following types: (1) relational librarians, (2) empowered librarians, (3) professionals, or
9:;<=>?@AB:C!D#E>F%AG(H)EI+H)J-;>;.H/>1K2B
(4) competent librarians. Defining statements for factor
one are relationship-oriented; defining statements for
factor two are goal and change-oriented; defining statements for factor three indicate a strong professional
orientation; and, defining statements for factor four
reflect an individual orientation focused on achievement. Analysis of the distinguishing statements and
the statements reflecting differences reveals areas of
similarity and contrast between the four factors. For
all of the factors, service orientation scored high, as
did the need to be competent, to achieve, and to excel.
All factors agreed on the importance of providing for
the needs of patrons, the desire for open communication, and the importance of having a dean/director
advocate for the library. Differences occurred in the
preferred work style of the groups, the need for participation in planning and decision-making, internal motivations, and overall perspective of the role
of libraries and librarians. The factors showed a range
from a strong relational to a highly individualistic orientation. Input into the planning and decision-making processes ranged from desire to be highly involved
to not overly concerned with the level of involvement.
While some librarians seemed to be more concerned
with the internal environment of the library, others
took a broader view and focused on the library’s role
in society. Factors revealed a broad range in librarian’s
desires to advance the profession and to direct their
own career paths. Faculty status was an issue for all
the factors, but while it was extremely important to
some librarians, it had no importance at all to others.
Workload was a hot topic for all librarians. Some felt
that their institution needed to do a better job at distribution of work responsibilities; others said it was a
non-issue, because for all practical purposes,
workload would never be equal. Table 1 summarizes the defining statements for each individual
factor.
Most Important and Most Unimportant Values of
the Four Individual Factors
Analysis for organizational characteristics revealed four
types of organizations, correlating from .20 to .46.
The organizations represented by these factors can be
described as (1) the bureaucratic hierarchy, (2) the
autonomous organization, (3) the relational organization, and (4) the professional organization. For all
organizations, except the hierarchy, the most valued
characteristics center around patron services. The top
values in the hierarchy focus on maintaining the structure rather than on advancing the mission and goals
of the library. Factor 1 is the traditional, bureaucratic
hierarchy (Cameron and Quinn 1998), sharing many
of the same characteristics as the control culture
(Schneider 1994). Top-down decision-making and
communication and “chain of command” are highly
significant statements for Factor 1.
The other factors, while user-focused, differ in
work styles, planning and decision-making processes,
communication, internal and external dimensions, and
relationships. Factor 2, stressing goals, results, and
achievement, is very similar to Schneider’s competency
culture (1994) or Cameron and Quinn’s market culture (1998). Factor 3 is characterized by service, pride
in work, and a strong sense of teamwork and group
cohesion. Values in this library are most reflective of a
strong sense of building relationships, whether with
patrons or co-workers. This organization shares many
of the same characteristics as the clan culture
(Cameron and Quinn 1998) or the collaboration culture (Schneider 1994). The factor 4 library scores high
on professional values, such as academic freedom, first
amendment rights, and professional development, indicating that these values are embedded into the
organization’s culture. The library recognizes group
and individual achievement. Decision-making is consultative, with the expectation that all will participate
in the process. This factor is distinguished from the
other factors in the value it places on faculty status.
Table 2 summarizes the distinguishing statements for
the four organizational factors.
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effects
of the individual factors on the dependent variables
of satisfaction, affective and continuous commitment,
and intent to leave. There were no significant differences between the individual factors, Wilks’ L = .848,
F (12, 233) = 1.25, p = .248. In contrast, a one-way
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) computed to determine the effect of the organization factors on satisfaction, affective and continuous commitment, and intent to leave was significant, Wilks’ L =
.720, F (12, 233) = 2.73, p = .003. As follow-up to
the MANOVA, analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were
conducted on each dependent variable using the
Bonferroni method. To control for Type 1 error, a sig-
April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina
LMNOMNMLPNQ
Table 1. Most Important and Most Unimportant Values of the Four Individual Factors
FACTOR 1
Relational
Librarians
FACTOR 2
Empowered
Librarians
FACTOR 3
Professional
Librarians
FACTOR 4
Competent
Librarians
Most characteristic
Most characteristic
Most characteristic
Most characteristic
Relationship-oriented
Planning focuses on
patrons
Atmosphere of
honesty and trust
Dean/director as
advocate
Teamwork, group
cohesion
Open communication
and inquiry
Library respected in
community
Pride in work, strive to
achieve, excel
Goal-oriented
Area of responsibility
Team of empowered
individuals
Empowered to make
change
Strong professional
orientation
Academic freedom
Intellectual honesty
Open disagreement
Free access to resources and services
Strong individual
orientation
Pride in work, competence, excellence
Dean/director as
advocate
Area of responsibility
Library respected in
community
Library and staff
actively promote
library use
Understand how work
contributes to overall
goals
Most uncharacteristic
Most uncharacteristic
Most uncharacteristic
Most uncharacteristic
Direct career and
research/professional
interests
High achievement has
more say in decisionmaking
Academic Freedom
First amendment rights
Professional philosophy that supports
principles and practices of education
Opportunities to
advance profession
Elimination of cultural
barriers
Top-down decisionmaking and
communicatio
Team of empowered
individuals
Team of empowered
individuals
Subordinates following
supervisor’s dictates
Subordinates following
supervisor’s dictates
“Chain of command”
Management stresses
individual initiative,
innovation
Top-down decisions
and communication
Appropriate distribution of power
Flexibility in scheduling
Close-knit group
ACRL Eleventh National Conference
RSTUVWXYZ[S\!]#^W_%Z`(a)^b+a)c-TWT.a/W1d2[
Table 2. Summary Table of Most Characteristic and Most Uncharacteristic
Values of Organizational Factors
s
FACTOR 2
Autonomous
Organization
FACTOR 3
Relational
Organization
FACTOR 4
Professional
Organization
Most characteristic
Most characteristic
Most characteristic
Most characteristic
Top-down decisions
and communication
“Chain of command”
Subordinates follow
dictates
Dean/director as
advocate
Fairness and respect
Academic freedom
Dean/director as
advocate
Individuals direct
career and research/
professional interests
Flexibility in
scheduling
Area of responsibility
Members collaborate
on projects
Personal autonomy
Fairness and respect
Pride in work,
competence,
achievement,
excellence
Planning focused on
users
Members collaborate
on projects
Teamwork, group
cohesion
Academic freedom
Acknowledge group
and individual
achievement
Subordinates
consulted
First amendment
rights
Faculty status
Library respected in
community
Involved in planning
Support profession
Most uncharacteristic
Most uncharacteristic
Most uncharacteristic
Most uncharacteristic
Conflicts resolved by
appeal to principles
Subordinates
consulted on
decisions
Involved in planning
Team of empowered
individuals
Management
stresses individual
initiative
Team decisionmaking
Calculated risk-taking
Open disagreement
Empowered to
change
Appropriate
distribution of power
Subordinates must
follow dictates
Respond to
changing needs with
flexibility and
common sense
Honesty and trust
Teamwork, group
cohesion
Close-knit group
Eliminate cultural
barriers
High achievement
has more say in
decision-making
“Chain of command”
Faculty status
Top-down decisions
and communication
Calculated risktaking
“Chain of command”
Conflicts resolved
by appeal to
principles
Top-down decisions
and communication
FACTOR 1
Traditional
Hierarchy
April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina
efghfgfeigj
stability that forms the foundation of the library—values of
academic freedom, access to inSource
df
F
n²
formation and services, intellectual honesty, and first amendSatisfaction**
3, 91
7.16
.191
ment rights. Above all, commitment to patrons provides
Affective commitment**
3, 91
4.89
.139
the impetus to change and
adapt. Librarians in this study
Continuous commitment*
3, 91
3.03
.09
overwhelmingly expressed this
strong desire to provide excelIntent to leave**
3, 91
4.21
.12
lent service as well as a dedicaNote: To control for Type I error, a significance level of p < .0125 was used.
** indicates that satisfaction, affective commitment, and intent to leave were significant tion to developing their own
at this level.
expertise and competence. Re* indicates that at a .05 level, continuous commitment was also significant.
sults of this study support
Finks’ (1989) taxonomy of valnificance level of .0125 was used. Intent to leave, afues, especially in the area of work values, which infective commitment, and satisfaction were significant
cludes desire to be competent, to work well, to be sucat this level, while continuous commitment was also
cessful, to have autonomy, to work in a supportive ensignificant at the .05 level (Table 3).
vironment, to be committed to excellence, to be a lifePost hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA conlong learner, and to be willing to improve ourselves. It
sisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to deteradds to his taxonomy the desire for cooperation, colmine which organizational factors affected intent to
laboration, and teamwork.
leave, affective commitment, and satisfaction most
This study indicates that librarians in organizastrongly. Pairwise comparison was conducted at the
tions that support participatory management, open
.003 level. At this level, there was a significant differcommunication, opportunities for achievement, and
ence between factors one and three on satisfaction.
relationships built on honesty and trust, are more satLibrarians in the relational organization indicated a
isfied and committed, and less likely to leave. Many
higher level of satisfaction than librarians in the hierof the library organizations represented in the study
archical library. Intent to leave and commitment were
not significant between factors at this level. However,
Table 4. Pairwise Comparison by
at p < .05, intent to leave and affective commitment
Organization Factors
were significant between factors one and three (Table
M
SD
4).
Satisfaction**
Librarians in the hierarchy expressed greater inRelational
80.66
10.92
tent to leave and less affective commitment than liHierarchy
68.03
9.89
brarians in the relational library. Since affective commitment reflects emotional attachment and agreement
Intent to Leave*
of values, this suggests that librarians in the hierarchy
Relational
7.06
3.69
are in less agreement with the dominant values of the
Hierarchy
10.21
3.88
organization than are librarians in the relational library. No significant difference in continuous comAffective Commitment*
mitment existed between factors.
Relational
13.97
3.54
The purpose of this study was to look at the role
Hierarchy
10.82
3.45
of values in the contemporary library. While libraries
** indicates that satisfaction was significant at p < .03
and librarians are confronted with technological and
* indicates that intent to leave and affective commitsocietal change, values provide both stability and flexment were significant at p < .05.
ibility. The core values of the profession provide the
Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Satisfaction, Commitment,
and Intent to Leave
ACRL Eleventh National Conference
klmnopqrstlu!v#wpx%sy(z)w{+z)|-mpm.z/p1}2t
reflected these values. On the other hand, over 30 percent of the libraries were characterized as bureaucratic
hierarchies. Librarians in these organizations are less
satisfied, less committed, and more likely to leave the
organization—perhaps even the profession.
References
Brown, Steven R. 1991. “A Q methodological tutorial.” Retrieved March 22, 2001 from http://
facstaff.uww.edu/cottlee/QArchive/.
Cameron, Kim S., and Robert E. Quinn. 1999. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture based
on the competing values framework. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Chatman, Jennifer A. 1988. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Diss. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved Sept. 5, 2001 from Digital Dissertations database.
Finks, Lee W. 1989. “What do we stand for? Values
without shame.” American Libraries 20: 352–56.
Lynch, Mary Jo. 2000. “What we now know about
librarians. ALA member survey conducted by
READEX.” American Libraries 31 (2): 8–9.
Meglino, Bruce M., Elizabeth C. Ravlin, and Cheryl
L. Adkins. 1989. A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual
outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (3):
424–32.
Meyer, John P., and Natalie. J. Allen. 1984. “Testing
the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (3): 372–78.
Murray, R. A. 1999. Job satisfaction of professional and
paraprofessional library staff at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Master’s thesis. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The nature of human values.
New York: Free Press.
Schneider, Benjamin. 1987. “The people make the
place.” Personnel Psychology 40 (3): 437–53.
Schneider, Benjamin, Harold W. Goldstein, and D.
Brent Smith. 1995. “The ASA framework: An
update.” Personnel Psychology 48 (4): 747–63.
Schneider, William E. 1994. The reengineering alternative: A plan for making your current culture work.
Burr Ridge, Ill.: Irwin Professional Pub.
Spector, Phil E. 1994. Job satisfaction survey, JSS. Retrieved March 20, 2002 from http://chuma.
cas.usf.edu/~spector/scales/jssovr.html.
Stephenson, William. 1953. The study of behavior: Qtechnique and its methodology. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
———. 1967. The play theory of mass communication.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina