Not long ago, I found myself in a familiar leadership moment—navigating a decision that needed to move forward quickly, with limited time and competing perspectives. The instinct, as it often is in higher education, was to decide, communicate, and implement. But what was missing wasn’t information—it was alignment.
That tension—between efficiency and inclusion—sits at the heart of leadership in academic libraries.
In Indigenous Continent, Pekka Hämäläinen describes a system of governance that challenges many of our assumptions about leadership. Among the Haudenosaunee, clan mothers selected sachems not based on hierarchy or status, but on demonstrated qualities—listening, speaking with purpose, and the ability to build consensus within the community. Leadership was not positional. It was relational, earned, and continuously evaluated.
Consensus was not a step in decision-making. It was the work of leadership itself.
This framing invites us to reconsider how we define leadership in academic libraries—particularly in a moment shaped by shared governance challenges, the rapid integration of AI, and ongoing efforts to build more equitable and inclusive organizations. If leadership is rooted in consensus, then our practices—how we make decisions, how we use technology, and how we engage one another—must reflect that commitment.
Consensus and Shared Governance: Moving from Structure to Practice
Shared governance remains a foundational value in academic libraries, yet its implementation is uneven. Librarians—despite their expertise in collections, instruction, and discovery—are often inconsistently included in institutional decision-making .
Consensus building reframes this challenge.
Rather than treating shared governance as a structure—committees, votes, and representation—consensus positions it as a relational practice. It asks:
- Are voices being integrated, not just heard?
- Are decisions shaped collectively, not retroactively justified?
- Are outcomes aligned with the community, not just leadership priorities?
This shift is critical. Libraries are not neutral infrastructures; they are active participants in teaching, learning, and knowledge creation. Decisions about collections, access, and instruction are educational decisions—and they require expert, participatory governance.
AI as Appreciative Inquiry: Inquiry as a Practice of Consensus
As academic libraries navigate shared governance, leadership, and organizational change, another form of AI becomes essential—not artificial intelligence, but Appreciative Inquiry.
Appreciative Inquiry reframes how we approach leadership and decision-making. Rather than focusing on gaps, deficits, or problems to solve, it begins with a different set of questions:
- What is working well in our organization?
- Where are we already building consensus?
- How are relationships, trust, and collaboration already taking shape?
This shift matters.
In many academic environments, decision-making is driven by urgency—what needs fixing, what needs improving, what needs to move forward. But consensus building requires a different posture. It requires leaders who can slow down, listen, and surface the strengths that already exist within their communities.
Appreciative Inquiry aligns directly with this work.
It positions inquiry itself as a form of leadership—one that is relational, reflective, and generative. Instead of directing outcomes, leaders guide conversations. Instead of prescribing solutions, they create space for shared understanding to emerge.
This approach also reinforces shared governance as practice. When inquiry is grounded in appreciation, participation becomes more meaningful. Individuals are not asked to defend positions, but to contribute experiences, insights, and possibilities.
Importantly, Appreciative Inquiry respects the boundary between professional practice and personal belief. It focuses on what people do, how they collaborate, and how they contribute to the organization—rather than probing internal thoughts or worldviews. In this way, it aligns with core library values, including intellectual freedom and respect for individual autonomy.
When paired with consensus-driven leadership, Appreciative Inquiry becomes a powerful tool. It helps organizations:
- build alignment without coercion
- surface diverse perspectives without forcing agreement
- strengthen trust through intentional dialogue
In this sense, inquiry is not a preliminary step—it is part of the consensus-building process itself.
A DEI-Centered, Consensus-Driven Approach
Consensus building, shared governance, and Appreciative Inquiry converge most clearly in DEI work within academic libraries.
Too often, DEI efforts are experienced in one of two ways: either as managerial initiatives focused on compliance and outcomes, or as prescriptive frameworks that unintentionally narrow participation by signaling that there is a single “correct” way to engage. Both approaches, while often well-intentioned, can limit the very inclusion they seek to foster.
A consensus-driven, inquiry-based approach offers a different path.
It begins by reframing DEI not as a set of directives, but as a shared, evolving practice rooted in participation. Instead of asking individuals to align with predetermined conclusions, it invites them into a process of collective exploration—one grounded in lived experience, professional practice, and a shared commitment to improving the library as a space of learning and access.
In this model, DEI work:
- centers participation over prescription, recognizing that meaningful inclusion requires active engagement, not passive agreement
- values dialogue over compliance, creating space for conversation, reflection, and even disagreement as part of the process
- builds belonging through contribution, not conformity, ensuring that individuals can bring their perspectives without feeling pressure to perform alignment
Appreciative Inquiry strengthens this approach by shifting the focus of DEI conversations. Rather than beginning with deficits—what is broken, missing, or failing—it asks:
- Where are we already fostering inclusive practices?
- When have we successfully collaborated across differences?
- What does belonging already look like in our spaces, and how can we expand it?
These questions do not avoid challenges; they reframe them. They position the organization as capable, not deficient, and invite individuals to build on existing strengths rather than defend against perceived shortcomings.
This approach also helps maintain an essential ethical boundary. As Antelman reminds us, libraries are grounded in values of intellectual freedom and privacy, including the right to freedom of thought . A consensus-driven DEI model respects this boundary by focusing on professional practice and shared goals, rather than probing or attempting to shape personal beliefs.
In doing so, it creates a more sustainable foundation for inclusion.
It avoids the pitfalls of:
- managerial DEI, where efficiency and metrics overshadow engagement
- prescriptive DEI, where alignment is prioritized over authentic participation
Instead, it reflects a common humanity approach—one that recognizes both shared purpose and individual difference. In this space, inclusion is not enforced; it is cultivated.
Practically, this means:
- designing DEI initiatives as facilitated dialogues, not one-way trainings
- grounding conversations in library work—collections, instruction, access, and service
- inviting contributions from across roles, including staff, adjunct faculty, and students
- allowing space for reflection, uncertainty, and growth without requiring immediate consensus
Over time, this approach strengthens both organizational culture and decision-making capacity. Consensus does not eliminate disagreement, but it creates the conditions under which disagreement can be productive rather than divisive.
In this way, DEI becomes not a separate initiative, but an integrated leadership practice—one that is inseparable from how academic libraries listen, learn, and lead.
Operationalizing This Work: A CALM-Informed Approach
To move from theory to practice, academic libraries need a framework that supports both structure and flexibility, leadership and participation, and efficiency and inclusion. The CALM framework—Communication, Adaptability, Learning, and Management—offers a way to operationalize consensus as a leadership practice.
Developed through leadership experience in academic libraries, CALM is grounded in the realities of working across institutional structures while maintaining a commitment to shared governance, ethical practice, and continuous improvement. It is not a rigid model, but a dynamic, relational framework that aligns closely with both Appreciative Inquiry and consensus-building approaches.
At its core, CALM recognizes that leadership in academic libraries is not about control—it is about facilitating understanding, navigating change, and sustaining relationships over time.
Communication: Building Understanding, Not Just Sharing Information
In a consensus-driven environment, communication is not transactional—it is deliberative.
Communication within CALM emphasizes:
- creating space for dialogue, not just dissemination
- listening as an active leadership practice
- ensuring that multiple perspectives are surfaced early in decision-making
This aligns directly with Appreciative Inquiry, where questions are designed to open conversation rather than close it. It also reinforces shared governance by shifting communication from reporting decisions to co-creating them.
Consensus depends on this kind of communication. Without it, participation becomes symbolic rather than meaningful.
Adaptability: Navigating Complexity with Intentionality
Academic libraries operate within constantly shifting environments—technological change, institutional priorities, staffing realities, and evolving user needs.
Adaptability within CALM is not reactive; it is intentional and informed by dialogue.
It involves:
- remaining open to new perspectives that emerge through consensus-building processes
- adjusting approaches based on feedback and lived experience
- recognizing that alignment takes time and cannot be rushed
In the context of DEI and Appreciative Inquiry, adaptability allows leaders to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches and toward context-sensitive practices that reflect the needs of their specific communities.
Learning: Creating a Culture of Inquiry
Learning is the connective tissue of CALM.
It reflects Peter Senge’s concept of the learning organization, where growth is continuous and collective. Within this framework, learning is not limited to formal training—it is embedded in:
- dialogue
- reflection
- feedback loops
- shared problem-solving
This is where Appreciative Inquiry is most visible. Learning is driven by questions that surface strengths and possibilities, not just gaps.
Importantly, CALM positions learning as outward-facing rather than inwardly intrusive. It focuses on improving practice—how we teach, how we design services, how we collaborate—rather than probing personal beliefs. In doing so, it aligns with core library values, including intellectual freedom and respect for privacy of thought .
Management: Aligning Process with Purpose
Management within CALM is often misunderstood. It is not about control or hierarchy—it is about alignment.
This includes:
- structuring processes that support participation
- ensuring transparency in decision-making
- balancing institutional expectations with community needs
In a consensus-driven model, management becomes the mechanism through which communication, adaptability, and learning are sustained. It ensures that shared governance is not aspirational, but operational.
This is particularly important given the broader shift in higher education toward managerial models that prioritize efficiency over collegial decision-making . CALM offers a way to recenter management within a relational, participatory framework, rather than a purely administrative one.
CALM in Practice: Bridging Consensus, DEI, and Inquiry
When applied together, the elements of CALM create the conditions necessary for consensus to emerge:
- Communication builds understanding
- Adaptability allows perspectives to evolve
- Learning deepens collective insight
- Management sustains the process
This integration is especially powerful in DEI work. It ensures that inclusion is not reduced to policy or training, but is embedded in how decisions are made and how people engage with one another.
It also reinforces Appreciative Inquiry as a leadership practice. Inquiry becomes the method through which CALM is enacted—through questions, dialogue, and reflection that bring people into the process.
Ultimately, CALM provides a way to move beyond the tension between efficiency and inclusion. It recognizes that sustainable, ethical leadership in academic libraries requires both—and that consensus is the bridge between them.
Summary
This article reframes leadership in academic libraries through the lens of consensus, drawing on Indigenous Continent to highlight leadership as relational, accountable, and grounded in listening. It argues that shared governance must move beyond structure to practice, where decisions are shaped collaboratively rather than hierarchically. Using Appreciative Inquiry, the piece positions inquiry as a leadership tool that builds alignment through dialogue and strengths-based engagement. It further proposes a DEI approach rooted in participation, not prescription, and emphasizes the importance of respecting privacy of thought. The CALM framework—Communication, Adaptability, Learning, and Management—provides a practical model for operationalizing this work, demonstrating how consensus-driven, ethical leadership can sustain inclusive, effective academic library environments.
Further Reading
- Fitzgerald, S. R., Kaufman, T., & Taylor, J. (2025). The purposes, politics, and practical impact of peer and shared governance in academic libraries. Workplace.
- Antelman, K. (2025). Respecting Privacy of Thought in DEI Training. College & Research Libraries.
- Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Standards for Faculty Status for Academic Librarians
- American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities
- Hämäläinen, P. (2022). Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America. Liveright Publishing.
Add comment
Comments