Hierarchy and bureaucracy are the terms that come to mind when we think of modern corporations. These structures concentrate authority and power in the hands of a few at the top, and utilize policy and procedure to constrain the actions of the powerless at the bottom. Moran and Morner (2018) describe this type of authority as legitimate, meaning based on one’s position within the hierarchy. They outline several other types of power within organizations, including reward (power to reward desired behavior), coercive (power to punish undesired behavior), expert (wielded by those with subject matter authority), and referent (based on the esteem of one’s colleagues). While these other types of power may exist within organizations, the placing of hierarchically-derived power in the namespace of legitimacy speaks clearly to the predominant perspective on power within the corporate sphere. When they quote Guarino as saying that “power is much more diffused and dispersed in this organization. Power doesn’t come from position, but from influence and the ability to engineer consensus,” he appears to be declaiming the idea of “legitimate power”, which comes from one’s position within a hierarchy of bureaucracy, in favor of expert and referent power derived from one’s social status and expertise. As an executive at a company with an annual revenue of $489m, I still expect Guarino would be surprised to have his instructions countermanded by a line worker, regardless of how diffuse he claims power in the organization to be.
However, basing an organizational power structure on that dynamic is inherently unequal. It deprives workers at the bottom of the hierarchy the right to self-determination and influence within company culture and direction. It reinforces inequitable power distribution present in society, clearly demonstrated by the whiteness and maleness of modern corporate C-level executives. By being in positions of power, such people have a vested interest in maintaining that power differential that benefits them, knowingly or otherwise. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Unions are an obvious counterpoint to this imbalance, allowing workers to pool their limited power collectively to bargain with the top of the hierarchy from a position of strength. Unions comprise almost a quarter of the library workforce in the United States, and staff represented by unions in libraries receive on average higher pay and better benefits than those who are not. Unions provide a way for workers to push back against the inequality inherent in these structures, but still operate within them.
The logical conclusion of the union idea is the concept of a worker-owned cooperative. In such an organization, there are no bosses that hold all the power. Instead, workers are granted equal say in the operation of their organization, dividing work in equitable ways and reaping equitable rewards. While some co-ops may choose to implement team structures or other internal dynamics, the ownership of the organization is shared equally among all members, which protects against unjust power distribution to an extent not even unions can provide.
Libraries can lend themselves quite well to flat, organic structures that decentralize power and authority. As the case study about PH&S libraries in Oregon shows, libraries can and must adopt more flexible organizational structures in order to adapt to the needs of their communities. While some amount of mechanistic organization is likely to be with us for a long time to come, especially for larger libraries, the smaller ones often already operate in a more organic and decentralized fashion that their size enables. Thus, small libraries are the perfect opportunity to implement what Laloux described as a “teal organization,” one that centers worker autonomy and peer relationships.
Equity is a buzzword in library theory, but DEI councils and position papers are created by those at the top of the hierarchy. If we want to see real change, it needs to start by removing the basic power imbalance from the root: inside individual libraries.