At the recent Wisconsin Library Association conference, I
presented a session on Library 2.0. At
the end of the session, I was asked if my library was unionized (which it isn’t)
and then many in the room nodded sagely that that was why I could make changes
and do Library 2.0 in the library I direct.
Now, I am not saying that it isn’t more complicated if you do have a
union, but most of the 2.0 ideas would be welcomed by a union: transparency,
open discussions, trust, etc.
I didn’t react well on the spot. I believe I acknowledged that that would make
it more difficult in general, but now that I have thought about it, I do have
what I hope is a better response or at least more coherent. First, yes it does complicate things. However, many things about our libraries make
change more complicated. For most of us,
we don’t have the money we need. We don’t
have the staff we need. Or the staff we
have don’t have 2.0 skills yet. Or your
library board doesn’t see a need for a new approach. Or…
It could go on and on.
Unions are just another complication in a long list. My goal is to work with the limitations I
have, look for strengths and ways to move ahead, and seize opportunities. I don’t want to get caught in the web of
excuses that people use to justify being immobile. If you see something in 2.0 that gets you
interested, excited and happy to head to work, then do it! Yes, you have to do it within your library
whatever that entails. Union, lack of
funding, old computers, no space. I
understand that. But don’t let that stop
you. Find those ways to move forward,
grab on, and fly.
I guarantee that risk taking with its possible failure is a
lot more interesting than standing still.
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find that I
lived just the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as well.
-- Diane Ackerman