Dynamic Library Leadership for Sub-Saharan Africa: investing in what works

Abstract

IntroductionThe continuous evolution of communication systems and the availability and accessibility to a wealth of instant information is promoting new ideas, issues, individualised learning and evoking curiosity. Today, being knowledgeable is not enough; rather, the ability to create knowledge is cherished. This diffused information environment is enabling people to gain expertise in many areas and is making people more assertive than ever. Countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Mauritius are experiencing economic vitality because their people are adapting knowledge, information and technology to create enterprise clusters (World Bank, 2008). Knowledge, information, and the ability for self-education are setting people free of the age-long dependence on the library. They are claiming responsibility for their own lives. And in the memory professions, such as the librarianship, life and practice are complicated by the fact that we are working and providing services to a generation that understands better the economic and political importance of information for their wellbeing and self-actualisation. It is against this backdrop that the library finds itself. It is obvious that the leadership practices and behaviours that enhanced library services before the dawn of the knowledge age are no longer the most appropriate for achieving results in the present environment. In this paper the terms, leader, and library director are used interchangeably to refer to library leadership. And the terminology memory profession is used generically to refer to libraries, archives, museums and other information services centres.RationaleCertain developments in the knowledge age in general, and in Sub-Saharan Africa specifically pose considerable challenges to library leadership:* The possibilities created by the Web/library 2.0 emphasising usercentred change through participatory information services call for a reexamination of leadership perception. Library 2.0 operates a model of the library as a community service, bringing a change factor underscored in the community centredness of the library. The argument is that since community interests change frequently, libraries must change as the community changes, and most importantly, they must let the community participate in the change (Maness, 2006), and utilise the same applications and technologies as its community to effect change (Habib 2006). The emerging information industry calls for a new leadership style that is user-centred and participatory; a style that embraces user/community participation in the day-to-day management of the library. In the rural communities of Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, where young people are creating jobs using information and technology, their participation in the affairs of the library in determining library services becomes very critical to the survival of their entrepreneurship. So also are the NGOs which are designing intervention programmes for poverty alleviation in rural communities, as their involvement in determining information services for the community will enhance their poverty alleviation programmes.* The lack of growth of succession-management systems as noted by Kartz (2003) in the Library and Information Science (LIS) profession has led to a considerable shiftin organisational memory and experience owing to the departure of older librarians and their not being equally replaced. This aging demographic is resulting in serious collective loss in terms of experience and expertise in leadership. As rightly noted by Bernthal in the Development Dimensions International (DDI) (2004) study, there is a dire need to institute a succession management system in libraries so as to provide alternatives for the shortage of leadership. Such a succession management system should focus on developing leadership for the present and the future. This is pertinent in Sub-Saharan Africa where new universities, both private and public, are being established at an alarming rate; and where there is a surge in students' enrolment without a corresponding increase in human resources to cater for the information needs of the growing university population. …