El proyecto de rehabilitación del casco histórico de Samos

RQ1: What are the expectations expressed by the role set members in DowntownULibrary? The following expectations were expressed most frequently by the 25 role set members in Down- townULibrary:

Figure 4.7: Frequently expressed expectations of participants from DowntownULibrary, in percent- ages. • Communicating Effectively (18/25) • Technical Proficiency (18/25) • Coordinating Subordinates (12/25) • Maintaining Relationships (11/25)

Figure 4.7 indicates the breakdown of DowntownULibrary’s expectations by role set member type. It is easy to see at a glance that a higher percentage of senior managers and direct reports expect Maintaining Relationships than do the middle managers. Also, a lower percentage of DowntownULibrary middle managers expressedTechnical Proficiency as an expectation than did the senior managers and the direct reports.

Communicating Effectively seems important in DowntownULibrary, as all role set members reported this expectation frequently. Coordinating Subordinateswas expressed by 50% or more of the middle managers and senior managers in DowntownULibrary, but by fewer than half of the direct reports. Overall, there is enough overlap among role members’ expectations to suggest some congruity of expectations of the middle manager by most of the role set members from DowntownULibrary.

RQ1a. Based on the analysis of calendar entries, more than half of the MMs at DowntownULi- brary had entries coded with the following dimensions:

• Guiding, Directing & Motivating (5/7) • Representing the Organization (7/7) • Technical Proficiency (6/7) • Maintaining Relationships (5/7) • Coordinating Subordinates (4/7) • Staffing (6/7) • “Collaborating” (7/7) • “Filling in” (5/7)

Planning & Organizing, Representing the Organization, Staffing, “Collaborating”, and “Filling in” are highly represented here but not in the role set members’ expectations. [Note thatCommunicating Effectively is unlikely to be articulated on a calendar but may be occurring.]

Findings indicate that the discourse used to talk about middle management is different than the actual tasks and activities middle managers perform in order to accomplish their and their organizations’ objectives. There is no playbook that says do x, y, z to get toPlanning & Organizing. MMs have latitude and autonomy in determining appropriate activities and behaviors. Collaborators were found within and without the library and varied widely. All DowntownULibrary middle managers had entries coded as Representing the Organization in their calendars. This exposure to diverse role senders makes them more vulnerable to role conflict and role ambiguity. There were no distinct patterns of collaborations based upon library site.

RQ2. Participants were asked how they gained an understanding of the middle manager role in their organizations; MMs were asked where they thought expectations were coming from; and SMs were asked how they sent expectations to their MMs. These role senders are reported below, including organizational documents that may articulate middle manager responsibilities.

In DowntownULibrary, almost all (6 out of 7) MMs reported their DRs as role senders. The middle manager with the briefest time-in-position reported that no expectations were sent from the DRs. A majority of DowntownULibrary middle managers reported their SMs (5 of 7) and other MMs (4 of 7) as role senders. Less than half reported their own perceptions as role senders.

Three DowntownULibrary MMs specifically mentioned their library director as a role sender. In order to communicate their expectations to their MMs, all of the DowntownULibrary SMs have regularly scheduled meetings with their MMs, including individual one-on-ones and group department heads meetings. Group and individual email and formal procedures such as evaluations and tenure

processes also communicate expectations to the MMs. Informal interaction between the SMs and their MMs varies. Most DowntownULibrary SMs (3 of 4) have offices located within the same general work area as their MMs, which facilitates frequent informal, unplanned interactions. Two of the three SMs were observed walking around their departments. The remaining DowntownULibrary SM has MMs in multiple remote locations within the main library and another building. Informal interactions with MMs and their DRs are therefore limited.

Most DRs expressed that they learned the middle manager role through direct interaction and observation of middle managers in their current or previous organizations. In DowntownULibrary, organization charts are sent out periodically; more than half mentioned these as being helpful in understanding the organizational hierarchy.

The job descriptions for DowntownULibrary were not up-to-date and were not included in the analysis. Table 4.11 shows the expectations that appear in the department heads section of DowntownULibrary’s governing document.

Table 4.11: Expectations of department heads at DowntownULibrary

Taxonomy Dimension DowntownU

Planning & Organizing •

Guiding, Directing & Motivating •

Training, Coaching & Developing •

Communicating •

Representing the Organization Technical Proficiency

Administration & Paperwork •

Maintaining Relationships • Coordinating • Decision Making Staffing • Persisting Handling Crises Organizational Commitment

Monitoring & Controlling •

Delegating •

Selling & Influencing

Collecting & Interpreting Data

“collaborating” “modeling behavior” “filling in”

The stacked frequency chart in figure 4.8 shows the overall count of expectations for participants from DowntownULibrary; this can be compared to the expectations articulated in DowntownULi- brary’s department heads document.

Figure 4.8: Expectations of the 25 DowntownULibrary participants

Based on reporting frequency, DowntownULibrary SMs emphasize six dimensions: Guiding, Directing & Motivating,Communicating Effectively,Technical Proficiency,Maintaining Relationships,

Coordinating Subordinates, andMonitoring & Controlling. Note thatTechnical Proficiency is not found in the department heads document. Also, five of the department heads document expectations were not reported frequently among the DowntownULibrary SMs.

Less than half of the DowntownULibrary middle managers reported organizational documents as role senders; two of them mentioned the DH document as a role sender and one MM mentioned the job description as a role sender.

More than half of the participants from DowntownULibrary expect Guiding, Directing & Mo- tivating, Communicating Effectively, andTechnical Proficiency. Almost half expect Maintaining Relationships and Coordinating Subordinates. These results might indicate some incongruity or lack of understanding between role set member expectations and department head document guidelines, especially in the areas ofPlanning & Organizing, Training, Coaching & Developing, Administration & Paperwork,Staffing, andDelegating.

Based on the calendar analysis, also, DowntownULibrary MMs spend time on expectations not articulated in their department heads document: Representing the Organization, “collaborating”, and “filling in”.

RQ3. On a scale of 1-7, a role ambiguity score of 5.52 was recorded for the seven DowntownULi- brary MMs, slightly higher than the score for all MM participants, indicating very low role ambiguity from this group. For DowntownULibrary MMs, intra-sender conflict is low (score is 2.89), inter-sender conflict is closer to neutral (at 3.54), and overall role conflict is the lowest of all three library sites (at 3.21). The mean for turnover intentions for DowntownULibrary MMs is 2.14, indicating that they do not often think about quitting nor are they actively looking for a new job. Individual MM scores on the Abridged Role Conflict and Ambiguity Scales are presented in Table 4.12.

DowntownULibrary Role Ambiguity Role Conflict Turnover Intentions

MM1 4.83 1.88 1.67 MM2 5.17 4.00 3.33 MM3 5.67 4.25 1.67 MM4 5.67 2.25 2.67 MM5 6.17 3.38 2.67 MM6 4.67 5.00 2.00 MM7 6.50 1.75 1.00 All MMs 5.36 (M) 3.75 (M) 2.03 (M)

Table 4.12: DowntownULibrary Middle Manager Questionnaire Scores

RQ4. DowntownULibrary middle managers participate in strategic activities at a slightly higher frequency than all middle manager participants (Mean = 57; see Table 4.13). As indicated in Figure

4.9, middle managers who participate in strategic activities more frequently report greater role clarity.

Strategic Role DowntownULibrary MMs

m, n=7

Championing Alternatives (range: 4-20) 14.86 Synthesizing Information (range: 3-15) 10.57 Facilitating Adaptability (range: 5-25) 15.43 Implementing Deliberate Strategy (range: 4-20) 16.14 Overall Strategic Activity (range: 16-80) 57

Table 4.13: DowntownULibrary Middle Managers’ mean Overall and Component Strategic Activity Scores

Figure 4.9: Scatterplot of DowntownULibrary Overall Strategic Activity Score and Role Ambiguity

In DowntownULibrary, there appears to be agreement among the role set members about expecting their MMs to communicate effectively and to have and maintain their technical proficiency, although less than half of the MMs themselves identifiedTechnical Proficiency as an expectation. Overall, the SMs have fewer expectations of the MMs than the DRs and the MMs have of the middle manager role. Dimensions addressed in the department heads document but rarely expressed by role set members include Staffing (0/25);Planning & Organizing,Monitoring & Controlling, and

Conversely,Technical Proficiency, expressed by 17 out of 25 responding role set members, did not appear as an expectation in the department heads document; but it may have been articulated elsewhere, such as the job advertisement.