Academic librarians often talk about shared governance as something that happens “out there” — in faculty senate meetings, departmental politics, or provost-level decisions.
But many of the most difficult governance dynamics don’t live outside the library.
They live inside it.
They show up when library teams struggle to make decisions, when innovation gets stalled by committee culture, when staff feel unheard, or when symbolic participation replaces real accountability.
Toxic dynamics in libraries are not always loud.
Sometimes, they look like inertia.
Brian Rosenberg’s chapter on shared governance in "Whatever it is, I'm Against It: Resisteance to Change in Higher Education" offers language for understanding why decision-making structures meant to protect collaboration can instead produce paralysis — and what we can do about it.
The Library Version of Shared Governance
Most academic libraries operate with their own internal form of shared governance.
It may not be written into The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) policy, but it exists in practice through:
- standing committees
- shared decision-making norms
- collaborative culture expectations
- faculty-status structures for librarians
- layers of approval before change is possible
Library governance is often rooted in good values:
- inclusion
- transparency
- professional respect
- collective ownership
But Rosenberg reminds us that shared governance is also “high voltage” terrain in higher education.
Inside libraries, the same is true.
Governance becomes toxic when collaboration turns into obstruction.
When Library Committees Become the Site of Toxic Dynamics
Rosenberg tells the story of “Department X,” where months of careful committee work were undone in a short meeting by people not running the day-to-day operations of the deparment.
Academic librarians can recognize this immediately — because we have our own versions:
- A task force spends a semester redesigning instruction
- A working group proposes a new service model
- Staff gather data on workflow inefficiencies
- Everyone agrees change is needed
And then, at the final moment:
- the decision is deferred
- the proposal is watered down
- the loudest voice dominates
- the team returns to “business as usual”
Rosenberg describes a pattern where the smallest, most informed group does the deepest work — but the largest, least informed group makes the most consequential decision.
That dynamic is not rare in libraries.
And over time, it becomes demoralizing.
Toxic Dynamics in Libraries Are Often Structural, Not Personal
When we hear “toxic workplace,” we often think of interpersonal harm.
But in libraries, toxicity is often systemic:
- chronic avoidance of decisions
- endless process without outcomes
- mistrust of leadership or committees
- staff feeling excluded from real authority
- symbolic consensus replacing action
Shared governance can unintentionally create what Rosenberg calls a system that is far better at “guarding against disruptive change” than enabling it.
In libraries, that can look like:
- clinging to outdated service points
- resisting new instructional approaches
- delaying DEI-centered changes
- avoiding workload restructuring
- blocking technology adoption
The toxicity is not always in conflict.
It is in stagnation.
Library culture often prizes collegiality, collaboration, and care.
And that is a strength.
Academic libraries depend on psychological safety—the ability for staff to speak openly, share ideas, raise concerns, and take thoughtful risks without fear of blame or humiliation.
Innovation does not happen without that foundation.
However, Rosenberg raises an important tension: in shared governance environments, consensus can sometimes become a substitute for progress.
When “safety” is defined not as psychological trust, but as avoiding discomfort, conflict, or disruption, decision-making can stall.
In those moments, consensus culture can lead to:
-
solutions that are watered down until they offend no one
-
slow timelines that prevent timely change
-
avoidance of hard but necessary conversations
-
innovation that never moves beyond discussion
The challenge for academic libraries is not choosing between safety and innovation.
It is building workplaces where people feel safe enough to be honest—and courageous enough to try something new.
Academic libraries cannot meet today’s challenges—AI literacy, student belonging, digital scholarship, staffing sustainability—if governance systems reward only comfort and risk avoidance rather than experimentation and shared responsibility.
Finding Solutions: Healthier Governance Inside the Library
Academic librarians cannot eliminate shared decision-making.
But we can prevent shared governance from becoming shared toxicity.
1. Clarify When Collaboration Becomes Avoidance
A key leadership question inside libraries is:
Are we collaborating — or are we deferring?
Healthy governance produces decisions.
Toxic governance produces endless discussion.
Library teams benefit from clear timelines, clear responsibility, and closure.
2. Protect Staff Voice Beyond Symbolic Inclusion
Rosenberg notes that governance structures often silence staff voices.
Inside libraries, this can happen when:
- frontline staff are consulted but not empowered
- decisions are made “above” without transparency
- committees exist, but authority is unclear
Solution-oriented governance means staff expertise is not performative — it is real.
3. Create Library “Innovation Sandboxes”
Rosenberg introduces the idea of the ambidextrous organization: small independent units empowered to innovate outside consensus machinery.
Libraries can do this by building:
- pilot projects
- experimental service models
- small working teams with decision authority
- assessment-driven prototypes
Innovation begins when creative people are given freedom.
In fact, Rosenberg notes that “freedom” was identified as the most important factor for innovation “by far.”
4. Interrupt “We vs. They” Dynamics Within the Library
Toxic dynamics grow when libraries divide into camps:
- librarians vs. staff
- public services vs. technical services
- innovation advocates vs. tradition defenders
- administration vs. “the rest of us”
Rosenberg warns that governance can become divided rather than shared.
Libraries thrive when governance is relational, not adversarial.
Moving Forward: Shared Governance Without Toxic Library Culture
Shared governance inside libraries is meant to protect collegiality.
But without clarity, inclusion, and accountability, it can become the very system that freezes progress.
Academic libraries are facing transformational pressures:
- workforce sustainability
- AI ethics
- equity-centered instruction
- evolving student needs
We cannot meet those challenges through endless consensus loops.
The solution is not abandoning shared governance.
The solution is building healthier internal structures where:
- voices are truly valued
- decisions move forward
- innovation is protected
- toxic stagnation is interrupted
Academic libraries can model what higher education often struggles to achieve:
Shared responsibility without shared paralysis.
👉 Inclusive Knowledge Solutions partners with academic libraries to build reflective, equity-driven, future-ready cultures. From leadership coaching to change strategy to ethical AI integration, we help librarians do their most courageous, collaborative work. Let's Connect!
Add comment
Comments