Pushing The Pay Envelope: Y2k Compensation Strategies - http://www.sla.org/professional/competency.html

Information Outlook, Oct, 1999 by Stephen Abram

Are you happy with the perception of the value of special librarians in today's marketplace?

Why do so many librarians feel underpaid and undervalued? Where is the cash payoff in this, the knowledge-based economy? Of course, what we feel about this is not enough in today's business environment.

What are the specific perceptions decision-makers have about special librarians that affect us directly in the paycheck? What do you need to know about pay and compensation systems to be fully armed? What specifically can you do to increase your compensation package--as individuals and as a profession?

In 1988, the late SLA President Joe Ann Clifton, set up a SLA Inter-Association Presidential Task Force on the Image of the Information Professional. Its purpose was to study whether librarians should be fighting a "buns and sensible shoes" image or attacking very specific erroneous perceptions about librarians in the minds of decision-makers. Published in 1990, the data collected and analyzed by the Image Task Force showed us that our traditional approach to dealing with our perceived image problems had failed. I feel strongly that this is a key issue for our profession. Have we made any progress in the last decade? The answer is yes, we've made progress.

The Task Force discovered that, clearly, librarians should not be worrying about "buns and sensible shoes" cartoons or "Conan the Librarian". An avalanche of shocked and appalled letters to editors complaining about every perceived slight to special librarians serves only to position us as whiners. I believe that by acknowledging this sort of negative image we reinforce the image in the way saying "Don't think about green hippopotamuses" immediately makes you think about green hippos. We must begin to accept that this type of superficial image problem is not our top priority issue. We need to deal directly with those issues and attitudes that have an impact on our pay packets.

Let's Get Our Own House in Order!

Results of the Task Force surveys of librarians (all segments of the profession were surveyed) showed that we had significant attitude issues in our own profession. Anecdotal information collected over the years since the survey suggests to me that we still have lots of work to do.

* Over fifty percent of librarians perceived that we (our profession and our colleagues) lack confidence.

* Only just over thirty percent of us "sought" promotion, especially at the lower pay levels. It's a truism that you don't get what you don't ask for.

* Over eighty percent thought the profession is task-oriented, in direct contradiction to our decision-makers' perception of us as people/service-oriented. In reality we're process-oriented which, in our society, accrues higher pay levels and defines the usual image of a "professional".

* Sixty-eight percent thought our salaries were appropriate, which is sadly in line with the result that many of us think we're not highly enough regarded by our employers. Pay is the most tangible measure of the regard in which your employer holds you.

In addition, between fifty and seventy percent of librarians earning between $30,000 and $80,000 per year were satisfied with their perquisites and benefits. Since perquisites and benefits represent up to twenty-five percent additional remuneration on top of base pay and with so many benefits calculated as a result of base pay and organization rank, may be a detrimental position to take as an individual or for our profession.

It bears repeating that we must value ourselves before others will value us.

Career Progressions

A draft of this article was reviewed by a senior compensation professional, a retired partner from a major global HR consulting firm. His comments were very interesting and I quote, in part:

"In virtually all large private organizations professional career developments follow a progression up a technical ladder. This typically applies to engineers, scientists, lawyers, computer specialists, and even sales persons. What this obviously does is open up salary opportunities over time as professional skills and accountabilities increase. The problem librarians have is that they are often perceived to be in a job with limited scope for growth. The library walls become your prison and the HR specialist your jailer. Maybe your association should explore gaining acceptance for technical ladders plus career-pathing opportunities within information-based services. There is a vast difference between a recent graduate librarian and someone with experience who can understand the needs of the organization, participate in complex projects, build bridges internally and externally, and design services. You suggest that maybe the title "librarian" is a problem. I agree. As an example of what I'm talking about, I w orked on a job-matching project that included a job description for a nurse and a technical ladder for health specialists. The trap word was "nurse". Nurse = job, Health Specialist = a choice between four levels depending on the complexity and breadth of service offered. I think the solution might be found in bring the information professional "librarian" into the mainstream of what the company is trying to accomplish (in both the minds of management and the librarian). It has something to do with entering into a dialog with an organization about, "What is the highest value-added that information professionals can offer to the organization?" It is a two-way dialog."