The strategic and operational dimensions of staff training and professional development

for information professionals: What neXus2 has revealed

Associate Professor Gillian HallamQUT

ALIA Information Online 22 January 2009

CRICOS No. 00213J

2

Background

neXus1: a snapshot of the LIS profession in 2006 – individual respondents

To provide the backdrop to discussions on workforce planning in the LIS sector

neXus2: pilot study with CAVAL members in late 2006 Ultimately developed into major study in 2008 –

institutional respondents Supported by ALIA and NSLA, with interest from

groups of academic libraries (ATN, WAGUL and QULOC)

To help the LIS sector better understand the diverse issues that impact on staffing: Recruitment and retention Training and development

3

Training and development: policy and practice

Relationship of staff development (SD) to strategic planning processes

Policy and infrastructure issues for SD Financial aspects of SD practice Extent of SD activities across the

different LIS sectors Support for and recognition of SD by

employers

4

Research approach Required active participation of library

management to obtain data at organisational level

Targeted approach, via: correspondence with chief librarians agency e-lists, eg NSLA, PLA, ALLA, AGLIN etc

Survey Identification Code to manage the multi-part survey

191 requests for survey identification code 101 valid responses to the survey 82% completed all 4 parts of the survey

5

Respondents by sector

Law

Fed govt

HealthState govt

Corp

Specials n=34

Respondents by State/Territory

7

Public libraries 45% in Victoria 36% in NSW

Reflects strategic interests Workforce sustainability project in

Victoria Public Libraries NSW – Metropolitan

Association (PLM)

Size of institutions

9

Inevitably, special libraries and some public libraries had low numbers of professional staff

Academic, State and Territory libraries and larger public libraries reported higher numbers of staff

Ratio of professional : paraprofessional staff Largest proportion of professional staff:

2 Federal government special libraries Largest proportion of paraprofessional staff:

2 academic libraries and 2 in the NSLA group

Approaches to staff development (n=90)

Comments:

• Part of overarching parent body plans

• Tied in with performance planning and review

Planned approach Informal approach Individual responsibility

Formal strategic planning document

Comments

• Parent body has strategic plan

• Library itself has operational plan

• Those with no strategic plan indicated that progress was being made

Yes No

Level of priority for staff development in strategic plan

Low Medium High Not included

13

Alignment of staff development with strategic planning processes

Workforce Strategic Plans Strategic plans supported by Business Plans Business Plans encompass Staff Development

requirements Balanced Scorecard approach Personal work plans : PPR Individual development aligned with organisational goals But also…

Ideally… In reality… Not addressed…

Needs to be explored more…

Strategic Plans are public documents, so staff development excluded

Evaluation of strategic effectiveness of SD

Unsure

Yes

No

15

Comments on evaluation

Internal review, rather than ‘evaluation’ Limited… Informal… Adhoc… At times we do, at times we don’t Assumptions… if business goals are met,

then staff must be doing OK… But also evidence of external review with

recommendations for improvement

16

Use of evaluation measures to determine return on investment in staff development

10 respondents (ca 10% of all respondents) 4 public libraries 1 NSLA 1 Academic library 1 TAFE library 1 School library 2 Special libraries

Results of service quality evaluation to inform staff development (n=49)

Comments

• ca 50% undertake service quality evaluations

• With high levels of customer satisfaction, hard to find the ‘gaps’

• Process is not so formal

• Can see the value, but hard to apply

No

Yes

18

Strategies to align service qualitywith staff development goals

Formal service quality tools appear to be better at identfying shortcomings and gaps

Formal review of survey results to identify areas to be improved

Professional development activities tailored to goals in business plans

PPR used to address poor performance Staff focus groups Peer mentoring Ensuring that it is seen to be important and

that it is discussed!

Attempts to measure impact of these staff development activities on subsequentservice quality evaluations

Comments

• Eg cross-cultural awareness identified as concern in one survey; led to SD activities; distinct improvement in subsequent survey

• Planned and scheduled for 2009

• It was ‘yes’, but it is now ‘no’

Unsure

Yes

No

Formal Staff Development Policy

• Policy at institutional level

• Guidelines at library level

Unsure

Yes

No

Staff Development Manager

Comments

• Centralised role (HR / OD) for the organisation

• Coordinating role (eg Director with responsibility across library)

• Distributed roles – all managers have responsibility for staff development

Yes

No

Unsure

Staff Development Committee

Comments

• Centralised model

• Distributed model

• Selection committee for conference attendance

• Disbanded

• Being re-established

• Defined Terms of Reference / Role Statement

NoYes

Unsure

23

Coordination of staff development activities

Staff development is the responsibility of staff development committee 1 Overall coordination of staff development is the responsibility of a designated staff development manager 17

There is no overall coordination of staff developmentin the organisation: staff development is the responsibility of the managers in each operational areaof the library 22 Responsibility for staff development is shared between area managers and a staff member with designated authority for staff development 34 Other 14

Staff Development Plan

Comments

• Interpretation…

• Individual or institutional?

• Difficult to analyse…

No

Unsure

Yes

Budget for staff development

Yes

Unsure

No

Quantum of the payroll

0.0%-0.4% 0.5%-0.6% 0.7%-0.8% 0.9%-1.0% 1.1%-1.5% 1.6%-2.0% 2.1%-2.5% 2.6%-3.0%

27

Quantum of the payroll

neXus2 respondents Less than 1% of payroll : 61% More than 2% of payroll: 11%

American Society of Training & Development: US average in recent years : 2.3% payroll ‘Best practice’ : over 3% payroll

TAFE respondents

0.0%-0.4% 0.5%-0.6% 0.7%-0.8% 1.1%-1.5% 1.6%-2.0% 2.6%-3.0%

29

Winners and losers Top end of the scale:

TAFE libraries Academic libraries But some TAFE and Academic libraries also fall

into the bottom groupings… Public libraries are all in the lower end of

the scale, but up to 1.5% of payroll NSLA ranges from 1.1% – 2.5% Low response rate from Specials, but those

who responded fell into broad spectrum

Average hours per staff memberspent on staff development

Specials

0 → 10 20 30 40 50 →

Percentage of staff undertaking staff development each year

0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

32

Extent of need for ongoing training

Not at all

To a minor extent

Neutral To some extent

To a great extent

Professional LIS staff 1% 10% 0% 48% 40%

Paraprofessional LIS staff 1% 5% 0% 50% 31%

New graduate staff 0% 2% 0% 28% 70%

IT/Systems staff were believed to be the cohorts with the highest need for ongoing training, while public services staff were the ones who least needed training and development.

33

The greatest support for: Induction Conferences Seminars and workshops In-house short courses with internal

trainers On-the job training programs

Preferences for types of activities funded by organisation

34

Preferences… The least support for:

External mentoring Staff exchanges with other organisations Job exchanges within the organisation Sabbatical/ research leave Anything to do with research did not score well:

Time for research Research output Support for publication University libraries being the main players

35

Topics for external courses

The most common Job-oriented skills training Technology skills training Management training Leadership training

The least common Personal/career development Customer-service related training

36

Topics for internal courses

The most common Technology skills training Job-oriented skills training Customer-service related training

The least common Personal/career development Leadership training Management training

37

Other topics

Cross-cultural awareness Health and wellness Occupational health and safety Project management Values and behaviours Public service issues, legal and

financial compliance

38

Themes for staff developmentin current year

NSLA Leadership Management Customer/client service Project management Cataloguing (n=1)

Public libraries Web 2.0 / Libraries 2.0 Customer service /frontline service Teamwork Workplace issues (OHS) Community issues (policy driven) Food handling

39

Themes cont. University libraries

Eclectic – very broad range of topics Emerging technologies Professional writing Skills audits taking place More ‘hands-on’ topics, not so much ‘big picture’

TAFE libraries Web 2.0 New learning technologies

40

Themes cont. Specials

Tailored to staff needs Evidence based practice Cataloguing Emerging technologies relevant to the

immediate work environment Schools

Web 2.0 in schools context Curriculum development support Learning technologies

41

The next 2-3 years Planning happening now Awareness of need to be less ad hoc to support

changing workforce Change management issues Skills audits Succession planning, coaching, mentoring Leadership Values and behaviours Fostering innovation Cataloguing and metadata Bibliometrics

Technological developments Specials still need to be spontaneous to meet

immediate needs

Change in amount of staff development over past 5 years

Comments

• Increased:

• Public libraries• University libraries

• Decreased

• TAFE• 2 university libraries

• Budget a serious issue

Increased

Stable

Decreased

Unsure

Impact of ICT developments on staff development needs

To a minor extent Neutral To some extent To a great extent

Evaluation of staff development activities

Yes

Unsure

No

45

Evaluation mechanisms

Yes No

Completion of evaluation forms by participants at completion of event

61% 39%

Completion of evaluation forms by participants some time after the event

19% 81%

Review of evaluation forms by presenters 38% 62%

Review of evaluation forms by person(s) with responsibility for staff development

37% 63%

Review of evaluation forms by staff development committee

9% 91%

Periodic review of staff development program

25% 75%

Support for staff development

Yes No

Organisation encourages and supports SD 99% 0%

Payment of fees/registration costs 94% 6%

Paid time to attend event 93% 7%

Travel costs 87% 13%

Accommodation costs 84% 16%

Daily sustenance costs 60% 40%

Payment of formal study fees 44% 56%

Time to attend TAFE/university classes 71% 29%

Time to undertake online learning activities 58% 42%

Sabbatical/research/PD leave 20% 80%

Enhanced opportunity for promotion 19% 81%

47

Recognition of staff development

Yes No

My organisation recognises individual staff development activities

93% 7%

Formal accreditation/certification after completing staff development courses

21% 79%

In-house certification of participation in staff development activities

47% 53%

Documentation on staff members’ files 71% 29%

Other – Reports, Presentation, Awards/prizes

Encouragement or recognition through ALIA PD Scheme

Key message:

Even where SD is encouraged, it isoften not formally recognised

Never heard of scheme: NSLA, academic, legal & school

No

Never heard of it

Unsure

Yes

49

Summary

Immense diversity of policy and practice Overall positive approach to staff development Still some pockets of resistance to investment in training Ad hoc arrangements more common than strategic

approaches Retention of staff is closely aligned with the

opportunities for staff development What will happen with current economic crisis? Staff development must remain high on the agenda for

employers, for ALIA and for individual LIS professionals and paraprofessionals

Shared responsibility – to work towards common goal of a dynamic, nimble profession that can adapt to the changing demands of the information environment