Ethical considerations regarding library nonprofessionals: competing perspectives and values

In the context of the discussion at hand, the first two kinds of obligations have the most weight. While on one level it may appear odd to speak of obligations to oneself, there are several. One has an obligation to preserve one's life, to adequately care for one's family and, in the context of organizational or professional life, to have an opinion that may run contrary to a view that she or he might uphold as a supervisor. Awkward as it may be, sometimes one may hold a position as manager or administrator with which one may professionally or personally disagree, and for which one has a right, perhaps even an obligation, to voice. One can argue, in respect to the first principle discussed earlier, that one has the obligation to demand recognition for the quality of one's work.

ORGANIZATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

There are many kinds of organizational obligations. Given the context of most libraries and information services, most libraries serve a value of social utility that is part of their organizational goals. For example, the function of a public library is to provide materials for the recreational, educational, cultural, or informational well-being of its patrons. When books and other materials are acquired for these objectives, such acquisitions are serving goals of social utility. It is also true that one of the main functions of organizational goals, at least for those organizations that are serving worthwhile social ends and that are not dysfunctional, is to continue to exist--i.e., organizational survival. In order to achieve such a goal, administrators seek sound budgets, may curtail employee criticism, may circumscribe employee raises, and hope to promote patron satisfaction, among other things. Organizational obligations are two-way: employees have obligations to employers and employers have obligations to employees. In general, the employee owes the employer loyalty, competence, diligence, honesty, candor, and discretion. Employers need to be truthful in their communications with employees (Bayles 1989, pp. 137-41), and must engage in fair practices--e.g., when advertising a position and keeping promises made during the interview (Rubin, 1991, p. 11).

Employers should not only provide complete and honest communication on job-related matters, but they should respect employee privacy, provide equality of opportunity in hiring practices, and provide appropriate recognition of an employee's work, either through compensation, status, or perks such as supporting travel expenses to professional functions. Furthermore, if they respect the moral autonomy of their employees, they should maximize employees' freedom to execute their job (within the constraints of their job description). One difficult area is the degree to which employees may engage in criticism of the organization. Organizations, if they are to improve and mature, must accept a level of criticism in order to facilitate their goals of social utility. Yet, if the criticism is aired in public, particularly if it is destructive, in the interests of organizational survival, the organization may discipline the criticizing employees, even fire them.