Who Leads ARL: Representation in Leadership Across ARL Institutions David Banush Tulane University October 2017 (revised March 2018)
Summary The following analysis examines whether ARL leadership, as indicated by those serving on the ARL board and holding the ARL presidency, over- or under-represents member institutions based on factors such as geographic location, size of budget, and institutional nature (e.g., state, private, non-academic). ARL staff supplied the data, which cover the period 2006-2016 for board membership and for the ARL presidency. The data indicate the following:
• ARL board members are disproportionately drawn from the Northeastern/North Atlantic region of the United States and from institutions with the largest budgets. • Presidents of ARL are somewhat disproportionately from the Northeastern/North Atlantic and Midwestern regions of the United States and very disproportionately from those members with the largest budgets. • Canadian institutions have been somewhat over-represented among board members, but under-represented among presidents. • Mid-Atlantic and Deep South region members are consistently the least well-represented institutions in senior ARL leadership.
Introduction Ongoing discussions about diversity both at ARL and elsewhere in academia are at heart conversations about whether institutions of higher education reflect, or should reflect, the societies they serve. As the populations of our societies become more heterogeneous, are universities moving in the same direction and at the same pace? Is it important that they do? A broad consensus in academia has concluded that diversity does matter, that greater inclusion pays greater dividends to society, and that there remains too great a gap between the demography of society at large and the membership of its institutions of power and influence (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). In response, many organizations, including ARL, have increased their efforts to diversify themselves, believing their credibility and long-term viability are at stake if they fail to do so.
Though less commonly considered, the question of whether the leadership of our professional organizations reflects the members who sustain them is also a factor in determining whether a given entity fully lives the diversity principles that it champions. While greater ethnic and gender diversity issues are certainly present in these leadership roles as in the profession at large, other factors— geographic location, size of budget, public or private funding, US- or Canadian-based—help fully inform the notion of diversity among ARL membership at the institution level. The following analysis examines the question of whether ARL leadership—in this instance, those serving on the ARL board and holding the ARL presidency—over- or under-represents institutions based on these factors.
The data used in here were supplied by the ARL staff and cover the period 2006-2016 for board membership and for the presidency. The data and discussions are divided below by geography, type of institution, and size of institutional budget. A final section looks at the presidents of ARL and their home institutions relative to the makeup of the membership, followed by discussion and analysis, suggestions for further study, and some notes on the data.
Geography
ARL membership as of October 2017 includes 123 institutions in Canada and the United States. Of the members of the Association, 108, or 88%, are based in the US; 15 libraries, or 12%, are in Canada.
ARL Membership by Geographic Area
ARL MEMBERSHIP, CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Canada 12%
US 88%
Board membership is just about in line with this breakdown (84%/16%), with Canadian institutions slightly over-represented on the board in the roughly 10-year period. This may be due to a longstanding custom (not codified in the bylaws) of setting at least one board seat aside for a Canadian member.
Breaking down the geographic data a bit more finely, however, a somewhat different picture emerges. ARL members are placed into regions: Canada and four geographic subdivisions of the US, as illustrated in the graph below, which shows the regions, number of members, and percentage of membership.
ARL INSTITUTIONS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Canada, 15, 12% West/Southwest, 26, 21%
Mid-Atlantic/Deep South, 29, 24% Northeast/North Atlantic, 26, 21%
Midwest, 27, 22%
The distribution across the US is nearly even, with 3 of 4 regions having just over 20% and one region, the Mid-Atlantic/Deep South, being home to just under 25%. Board membership, however, is distributed less evenly. The biggest differences are found with Northeastern and North Atlantic institutions, which are over-represented (+9%) relative to their number in the overall population, and Mid-Atlantic/Deep South members, which are under-represented by the same percentage difference (- 9%). Western/Southwestern US members have been exactly proportional, Canadian institutions are slightly over-represented, and Midwestern institutions are slightly under-represented. The graph below illustrates. ARL BOARD MEMBERS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Board Members ARL Membership
35%
30% 30%
25% 24% 22% 21% 21% 21% 20% 19% 15% 15% 15% 12%
10%
5%
0% Canada Mid-Atlantic/Deep Midwest Northeast/North West/Southwest South Atlantic
Institution Type Member institutions may also be grouped into several other categories. One such grouping is type of institution by primary funding source. All Canadian members, and a large majority of US-based institutions, are publicly supported academic libraries. Just over 25% of the overall membership consists of privately-funded academic institutions, all in the US. The smallest group is US-based non-academic libraries, about 7% (9 members, nearly all public). ARL INSTITUTIONS BY TYPE
7% 12%
Canadian academic US private
US state 25% US non- academic
55%
Board membership has been distributed a bit differently. While US state institutions have been represented proportionately on the board over the past decade, US private institutions and Canadian institutions have been somewhat over-represented. The biggest disparity is with US-based non- academic research libraries, which have seen virtually no representation on the board at all. (The notes section below has further details.) The following graph illustrates the differences. ARL BOARD MEMBERS BY INSTITUTION TYPE Board Members ARL Membership 60% 60% 55%
50%
40%
30% 30% 27%
20% 15% 13%
10%
0% 0% 0% US State US Private Canadian US Non-Academic
Size of Budget
ARL divides members into four categories based on the size of their annual budgets. The smallest group of members (total of 16, or 14%) has an annual budget between $10 to $17.7M US. The largest group, with 37 members (32%), reports expenditures between $17.8 and $23.3M US. 26 institutions (23%) have budgets between $24 and $32.5M, and the 35 largest institutions (31%) have budgets of over $32.6M. These figures do not include the 9 research libraries not affiliated with universities, whose budget figures are not available (or at least are not reported to ARL). The percentages stated here reflect the proportion of academic institutions that fall into each category. ARL ACADEMIC MEMBERS BY SIZE OF BUDGET
14%
31%
$10-17.7M USD $17.8-23.3M USD $24-32.5M USD $32.6M USD- 32% up
23%
ARL board membership across these categories breaks out a bit differently. The largest group of members by budget is the most under-represented (32% of members vs. 23% of board members). The top 54% of members by annual expenditures have made up 64% of board members over this period, while the smallest members were about proportionately represented. The chart below illustrates the differences.
ARL BOARD MEMBERS BY INSTITUTIONAL BUDGET
Board Members ARL Membership
40% 36%
35% 32% 31% 30% 28%
25% 23% 23%
20%
14% 15% 13%
10%
5%
0% $10-17.7M USD $17.8-23.3M USD $23.4-32.5M USD Over $32.6M USD
Presidency ARL presidents are drawn from the board membership. Consistent over-representation of a group of libraries in one or more categories noted above would therefore have implications for the presidency. The data show that the over-representation by larger members on the board is amplified by the presidency, where representative disparities are more pronounced. Because non-university research libraries have not held seats on the board (with one exception, described in the notes below), no member representative from such an institution has held the presidency. Reasons for that under- representation are multifaceted and are touched upon in the notes section below.
Presidents by Geographic Region
As noted above, distribution by geographic region of ARL institutions within the US is balanced. Board membership is less so; unsurprisingly, perhaps, so is the distribution of presidents. In the period analyzed, association presidents were disproportionately drawn from the Northeastern and Midwestern regions of the US. Canadian and Western/Southwestern US members were somewhat underrepresented, and those from the mid-Atlantic and Deep South regions were underrepresented by a greater factor (-6%), as shown in the chart below.
ARL PRESIDENTS BY REGION, 2006-2016 Presidents ARL Membership 30% 27% 27%
25% 24% 22% 21% 21%
20% 18% 18%
15% 12%
9% 10%
5%
0% Canada Mid-Atlantic/Deep Midwest Northeast/North West/Southwest South Atlantic
Institution Type and the Presidency Presidents of ARL have been drawn somewhat disproportionately from US state institutions (+9% over their membership) and US private institutions (+2%), while research libraries not affiliated with universities have seen no representation and Canadian members have been slightly under-represented.
ARL PRESIDENTS BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Percentage of Presidents Percentage of Membership
70% 64%
60% 55%
50%
40%
30% 27% 25%
20% 12%
9% 10% 7%
0 0% US State US Private Canadian US Non-Academic
Presidents by Geographic Region
Disparities by region among the presidents have been most pronounced in the Northeastern/North Atlantic and Midwestern regions of the US, where presidents drawn from institutions in those regions are over-represented relative to the ARL population by 6% and 5% respectively. Underrepresentation has been most pronounced in the Mid-Atlantic/Deep South (-6%); Canadian and US West/Southwest institutions were underrepresented by a more modest 3% each. The chart below illustrates. ARL PRESIDENTS BY REGION, 2006-2016 Presidents ARL Membership
30% 27% 27%
25% 24% 22% 21% 21%
20% 18% 18%
15% 12%
9% 10%
5%
0% Canada Mid-Atlantic/Deep Midwest Northeast/North West/Southwest South Atlantic
Presidents by Members’ Institutional Budgets The most obvious representational disparity is in size of institutional budget. The very largest institutions by expenditures were over-represented by 24% relative to their numbers in the membership. The second-largest group by budget size was also over-represented by double-digits (13%). Although they represent 46% of the membership, only 9% of presidents came from the smaller half of ARL institutions by budget. The graph below illustrates. ARL PRESIDENTS BY INSTITUTIONAL BUDGET, 2006-2016
Presidents ARL Membership 60% 55%
50%
40% 36% 32% 31% 30% 23%
20% 14% 9% 10%
0% 0% $10-17.7M USD $17.8-23.3M USD $23.4-32.5M USD Over $32.6M USD
Discussion A significant literature about board membership and diversity focusing on the non-profit sector in both the US and Canada exists (see, among many others, Ostrower, 2007; Bradshaw & Fredette, 2012; Brown, 2002). Many studies and reports have cited the importance of diversity in non-profit leadership, focusing chiefly on the personal characteristics (race, age, gender, etc.) of board members. Few discuss diversity in the other dimensions as examined above, but few non-profits described in the literature have the structure of ARL, where individual members represent large parent organizations from across two countries and with a heterogeneous set of institutional characteristics (e.g., public, private, religious affiliations, size of budget). Other differences exist as well. Member directors do not necessarily see themselves as representing a given subset of the association when serving in a leadership capacity. Moreover, the makeup of the board itself has changed: Until the 2015 Strategic Framework was developed, member directors serving as committee chairs were non-voting board members, eligible to participate in deliberations. In that capacity, they may have broadened representation, although a measure of the level and influence of such members’ participation would be impossible to take. Finally, those nominating board members may have believed that other considerations, such as length of time in position or prior service on similar groups, were more critical criteria for membership than size, location, or other institutional traits. (It should be noted that such considerations can also be used to exclude members whose participation, for whatever reason, may have been deemed unwelcome). Thus, while diversity in the ARL leadership context has multiple layers, some of those layers may be unimportant to representatives serving in the most senior leadership capacity, or at least be less important than the kinds of diversity more frequently described in the literature. Whether this matters to the membership is something the association must determine for itself. I argue that legitimate reasons to consider at least some of them when thinking about who leads ARL do exist and touch upon those some of the reasons below.
The data set used in this study is small—necessarily, given the size of ARL, the number of seats on the board, and the ten-year time frame. Whether reaching back further into ARL history for a larger data set would change the picture dramatically is unclear. Because such data would not be readily available without considerable research, a significant investment of time on the part of ARL staff and the present author would be necessary and is probably precluded at present by other demands. Drawing too many conclusions from a relatively small data set would be imprudent, but the available data do show clearly the following:
• ARL board members are somewhat disproportionately drawn from the Northeastern/North Atlantic region of the United States and from institutions with the largest budgets. • Presidents of ARL are somewhat disproportionately from the Northeastern/North Atlantic and Midwestern regions of the United States and very disproportionately from those members with the largest budgets. • Canadian institutions have been somewhat over-represented among board members, but under-represented among presidents. • Mid-Atlantic and Deep South region members are the least well-represented institutions in ARL leadership. • Smaller institutions, by budget, are the most under-represented group in ARL leadership. • Research libraries without university affiliation have had almost no presence on the board in the past decade.
Does this matter? Perhaps. Decisions about strategic directions, the hiring and evaluation of the executive director, setting the budget, and the direction and extent of programs are made or at least heavily influenced by board members and presidents. Such decisions do not occur in contextual vacuums. The perspectives of members from larger, wealthier institutions who disproportionately lead the association may indeed differ from those whose size and budgets are smaller, even if the larger membership must also ratify many of the decisions taken by the board, either directly by vote or more tacitly by continuing their membership. Status quo bias (cf. Samuelson & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988), groupthink (Janis, 1972 et al.) and implicit biases may impact decision-making regardless of the exact composition of a group, but such biases may be amplified when disproportionate representation and homogeneity converge in leadership. The membership has already expressed, at the fall 2017 meeting, a desire for a different method of selecting board members that would involve competitive elections. The revised process of selecting candidates and holding elections is yet to be determined, but having candidates speak to some of the issues noted here may be one way of addressing them going forward.
Geographic differences may seem irrelevant to many member directors, but the association has long recognized the importance of maintaining at least some measure of geographic balance by reserving a seat for a Canadian institution on the board. If the current membership deems this custom sufficiently important to continue, the organization’s bylaws should be updated to codify the practice. A clarification on this matter will be especially important if (when) one or more Mexican institutions join ARL, a desire for which the membership has signaled as of fall 2017. Leadership opportunities in ARL do of course extend beyond the board, and many member directors from across the association serve as committee chairs, on ad hoc task forces, or both. This study did not extend to an examination of the institutional profiles of all member directors in all leadership roles in the association, but such a study may be revealing. The personal characteristics of member directors— their gender identities, races, and other traits—were also outside the scope of this investigation. In large part, that decision was made because of a highly fluid data set where turnover among member directors in the period considered was very high. Whether those identities are as important, or are more important, than geography, size of budget, or institution type is another of many questions for the entire membership to consider and is of course an additional area of potential study. Trends in member directors’ profiles could also make an interesting study as well.
Recent discussions about how board members are selected have suggested that at least some member directors see little value in a balance of representation across types or other attributes. The time seems ripe to consider that and other questions, some of which include:
• Is it important for ARL leadership to be drawn from population groups rather than institutional profiles? • How does board membership influence directions of the association, its priorities, and its other choices?
At their root, questions about board makeup are inextricably tied to the mission of the association. Recent discussions about budgets, membership expansion, the executive director search, and board selection indicate there may be underlying confusion or disagreement about ARL’s identity and mission going forward. The high degree of turnover among member directors, which will continue for some time (at least 23 current directors are age 65 or older), suggests that such discussions may extend well into the future. Until such issues are satisfactorily resolved, and the membership is realigned with a new identity and mission, governance questions will remain symptomatic of larger issues. The most productive path forward will involve discussions and decisions that may require a radical rethinking of the association beyond the narrower issues of what board members and presidents represent, regardless of personal or institutional characteristics.
Notes
Data were supplied by ARL staff. Data analysis errors are the author’s alone.
Data reflected ARL membership as of 2016. Institutions joining since were not included.
Geographic regions break down as follows. US states without ARL members are not listed:
Canada All provinces Northeast/North Atlantic (US) Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Mid-Atlantic/Deep South (US) Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Midwest (US) Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio West/Southwest (US) Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington
Budget figures are based on US dollars. Budget figures vary from year to year. Exchange rates may affect Canadian members’ relative standing more dramatically over time. While most members stay in their quartile regardless of annual fluctuations in their exact rank, there is some movement between quartiles over time. A budget figure for any given year is thus likely to be representative of the institution’s relative rank throughout the period, but is not a guarantee of that rank.
Research libraries without university affiliation did have board representation for one year in the period considered. The member director subsequently took another position at an academic library and remains on the board. There were Canadian non-academic members of the association during this period, but they had left ARL by the close of the period studied.
Some research libraries without university affiliation in the United States cannot be represented on the board because those institutions forbid their directors from serving to avoid conflicts of interest. This may have been the case with Canadian institutions in that category as well, but all such institutions had left ARL by 2017.
The data can be made available for others to work with as they wish.
Works Cited
Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2012). Determinants of the Range of Ethnocultural Diversity on Nonprofit Boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6). Retrieved 10/10/2017, from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0899764012453085
Brown, W. A. (2002). Inclusive Governance Practices in Nonprofit Organizations and Implications for Practice. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4), 369-385. Retrieved 10/10/2017, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.12404/full
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-367. doi:https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.3.01151786u134n051
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ostrower, F. (2007). Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on Performance and Accountability from the First National Representative Study. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. Retrieved 10/10/2017, from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46516/411479-Nonprofit-Governance-in- the-United-States.PDF
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, Richard. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59. Retrieved 10/10/2017, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00055564