In Search of Genghis Khan: Or Maybe Not

Sep 22, 2026

A leadership and governance essay examines how law librarianship, shaped by an ethic of service and equal access, resists hierarchical power and insists on consensus building. The discussion weighs whether librarians need a forceful leader or a “Genghis Khan” amid pressures from information technology professionals and business-minded managers. It also outlines what the profession considers good in its leaders—egalitarian values, listening, conciliatory decision processes, and commitment to the public interest—while acknowledging frustration caused by inclusive deliberation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryStory & Novel

FormatPDF

Pages40

Reading Time1 h 2 min

AccessFree to download

WHERE DOES ALL THE TIME GO?

Editor’s Column - Leslie A. Lee

FEATUREs

In Search of Genghis Khan: Or Maybe Not - Bob Berring

A Common Sense Approach to Meeting Management - Jean Holcomb

Hot Topic: Where Have All the Library Schools Gone? - Roberta I. Shaffer

erw4yLigh A CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES issues in Library management In Search of Genghis Khan: Or Maybe Not Bob Berring Boalt Hall, Berkeley We should relish and take comfort in knowing that we may be the last profession that is truly devoted to its cause. LEADERSHIP HAS ALWAYS PRESENTED A PROBLEM FOR LIBRARIANS. As a profession we are communitarians by nature. The ethic of service, of making sure that everyone has equal access to information, has been our most dominant theme. The idea that one of us would rise above the others, that one of us would seize the mantle of power and run with it, is alien and suspicious to us. This is true in individual libraries and in our national professional organization. The reference staff at Berkeley is a fine example. They areas talented and productive a group as there is in the country. (Notice how I am not too aggressive in how I put that? Others may be as good.) While I could show you an organization chart, it is really meaningless; this department runs like a commune. They carefully balance tasks and rewardsand blanch at the thought of someone making decisions without carefully including all viewpoints. We are consensus builders. At the national level the AALL works the same. Have you gone to a business meeting atthe AALL convention? We carefully listen to each voice, giving close attention to even the wildest outlier. One of the reasons that nothing ever gets done is that two or three voices can stop any movement in its tracks. We work hard not to offend at every level. Is this bad? Do we need a Genghis Khan to lead us? Assaulted by the hordes of information technologists, the gimlet-eyed MBAs who wish to tell us what to do while not paying us what we are worth, do we need leaders who can marshal us for battle? As the economy slumps and jobs look less and less secure, do we yearn for a fiery labor leader who can unite us into a real union? Do we want a union that could demand better pay, benefits and status? (Are there any fiery labor leaders left?) Freud did not ask it, but I will. What do librarians want? First, let me assure you that I do not pretend to speak for law librarians everywhere. One of the most interesting aspects of librarians is that not one of us is really typical. Each organization, each librarian, is different. I only represent myself. Indeed, I only represent myself as of midMay, 2002. Time and events have changed my views on this issue and they may change again. Second, I apologize in advance to all those whom I might offend. If what follows makes you angry, rest assured, I am misquoting myself. THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE INEVITABLE THE GOOD There are very good things about the leaders produced by our profession. Our egalitarian instincts have served us well. There have been no great librarian scandals, no embarrassing examples of absconding library directors or imperial AALL presidents who developed into mercurial divas. We have produced leaders who are willing to listen. The frustration of consensus-driven decision making is the byproduct of a process that is careful not to deny anyone a seat at the table. More than that, our leaders have aspired to the good. Even when we disagree there is little disagreement about fundamental principles. The constraints of service and awareness of the public interest are real. The AALL convention is never electric; it is comforting. It is not the strongest that survive; it is the most conciliatory. Rather than choose between program offerings, we offer more. If someone raises a problem, we appoint atask force to write a report about it. Public interest remains at the top of our professional consciousness. I have railed against the AALL focusing resources on public access to information continued on page 3 Editor’s Column Leslie A. Lee The George Washington University Law Library table of contents WHERE DOES ALL THE TIME GO? Lately, this question has been popping into

FAQs

Why do librarians tend to resist a single leader?

The essay argues that librarianship is service-oriented and egalitarian, making power-seeking or unilateral decisions feel alien and suspicious.

What does the author say about consensus-driven leadership outcomes?

Inclusive consensus processes help ensure everyone has a seat at the table, but they can also make it harder to move decisions forward quickly.

What qualities does the profession view as “the good” in its leaders?

It highlights egalitarian instincts, few major scandals, leaders willing to listen, and commitment to foundational principles like public interest and service constraints.

Sep 22, 2026

Uploaded by วิน