team understand that processes can beimproved and do require regular atten-tion. By both teams focusing on theprocess, personality conflicts can beavoided and major redundancieseliminated, work flow smoothed, andimproved turnaround times gained.Non-intuitive learning for newleadersOne of the staples of any successfulchange effort is recognition by all of theneed for staff development and educa-tional opportunities. Expecting a staffto shift, intuitively, from a historicmodel to another, without providingthe training and time for staff to under-stand the what and how of the new, iscourting certain failure.Because we had introduced new re-sponsibilities for team leaders, we knewthat it was incumbent upon us to pro-vide developmental feedback to theteam leaders, along with identifying ad-ditional leader-training needs. We askedstaff several questions about how theteam leaders were doing (using a neutralscale for scoring) and to show what staffneeds were in that team for training asteam members.Our Home Team Leader Assessmentwas based on the stated expectations forboth team members and leaders, withclusters of questions covering the teammembersT perception about theirleaderTs:1. job competence2. application of continuousimprovement concepts (usingnew models, factual approaches,customer inputs, etc.). coaching abilities. leadershipempowerment of team members. customer serviceFor the most part, the staff demon-strated positive support for their teamleaders, but also revealed some unfamil-iarity with the terms used in the ques-tionnaire. This underlined, once again,our need to provide more training sothat everyone would understand thenew organizational model beyond thesuperficial. Once understood, theknowledgeable applications can resultin superior team performance. This suc-cess then puts positive pressure on theteam to keep the process going " theante is raised for both the leader and themembers. Still, the feedback for most ofour team leaders was quite accurate inpointing out genuine areas for improve-ment. To date, we have resisted success-fully the misplaced urging by some staff62 " Summer 1996to rank home team leaders according totheir scores and/or assign omentors� tothose receiving olow� scores!ConclusionWhile writing this article, I have real-ized that when we work in a team-basedstructure, it is not expected or appropri-ate for leaders to resign themselves or tobe relegated to an organizationally sub-ordinate position. When the power isshifted, one can expect some rushing into fill the perceived power vacuum. Sinceyou no longer appear to have oit,� thereare people who will seek to reduce yourinvolvement even further. This can oc-cur when staff misunderstand whatyour role was in the first place and haveneither the inclination or experience tomove beyond this misinformed per-spective. This is because there really isno distinct management culture in thelibrary field, except for that of the hier-archical model. For the most part, ourunderstanding of management isgrounded in the PODSCORB model, asinfluenced by our mentor relation-ships " some that can be exciting intheir vision of library service and some,frankly, stultifying in what they suggestlibraries and library leaders are about.Leaders have the opportunity (andone could say the responsibility) todrive desired organizational break-throughs. The tough questions, thehard (and career jeopardizing) choicesmade, the arguments put forth thatshift the status quo " all take courageand integrity. This is leadership, in thefinest sense. Without the vision orknowing or wanting something differ-ent on the part of leaders, little will beaccomplished. One of Duke libraryTsmajor leadership actions was genuinelyempowering very good people for solv-ing problems that we as leaders knewhad to be solved. The decision to turnthem loose was considered over a sev-eral month period; it was not done hap-hazardly. Our choice was based on themodel that we believed would give op-timal value to the organization. Weknew from the start that most wouldreact in positive ways; those that weexpected would not, we thought couldbe brought along. Besides, their loyalopposition would be helpful in refiningthe design of the new organization.We decided in November 1995 toreinstate the formal reporting relation-ships. These relationships of course havechanged palpably and ineffably in sub-stance and style during the two-year hia-tus. The reinstatement feels like a changefor the better, but we recognize thatwhat we have is essentially a new rela-tionship. That it is new is a measure ofhow extensive the organizationalchange has been. We reinstated thismeasure of accountability for several rea-sons. Among them was the inaugurationof a new university administration, onewith its own perspective on manage-ment and leadership. And it mattered tous that there were few others on campusworking with TQM strategies or self-managing teams. The universityTs incipi-ent individual performance appraisalprocess, requiring supervisory osignoffs,� also played a role in our decisionto make staff accountable. But more im-portant was the oexpressed desire of anumber of team leaders to reestablishthese relationships in order to providebetter accountability, communication,and support. Thus, this action is meantto strengthen the leadership, coaching,encouraging, and consulting roles of the(upper administration) throughout theorganization.�13Our interpretation of the term em-powerment is becoming more explicit.We did this to clarify some of the con-fusion about this word, which has hadthe unfortunate fate, like any overusedword or phrase, of being rendered, ineffect, meaningless. To help understandwhat is meant by empowerment, envi-sion a pendulumTs arc with degrees in-scribed all along it. For a few, empower-ment means a revolutionary releasefrom accountability " everyone is hisor her own boss. In an organization ofover 200 people, anarchy is probablythe best description of the result of thisinterpretation.At the other extreme is a rigidly con-trolled environment by the few in whichmost staff have little leeway to deviatefrom orders or written procedures orfrom consulting the boss or oexpert� forpermission to act. In organizations com-posed of intelligent, motivated staff, re-stricting decisions to the few would be amisuse of a quintessential resource "the staffTs experience, skills, and ability.Too-tight control has also been shown inresearch studies to be counterproductiveand discouraging of any improvementsover the status quo.The Perkins Library version of em-powerment can be found somewherealong the middle of the arc, well be-tween the extreme interpretations. Thispoint is not static; it can and doesmove, based on the situation. It hasbeen our intent all along (actually, sinceour participatory efforts began in 1985)that staff explore the various centralpoints on the empowerment arc and toNorth Carolina Libraries""