Abstract
A Review of:
Todd-Diaz, A., & Mello, A. L. (2025). Who wants to be a library leader? A mixed-method study investigating reactions to an academic library leadership job advertisement. Journal of Library Administration, 65(8), 843–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2025.2589492
Objective – To investigate whether archivists’ underrepresentation in academic library leadership roles may be partly explained by lower attraction to leadership job advertisements, and to examine how professional identity shapes perceived fit, reactions to ad wording, and the impact of “tapping” (encouragement from supervisors and colleagues).
Design – A cross-sectional online survey study.
Setting – Eight general membership email lists of national and regional library and archives’ professional organizations across the United States and two public Facebook groups (“Archivists Think Tank” and “Library Think Tank”).
Subjects – 316 information science professionals, including 46% librarians, 36% archivists, and 17% identifying as both.
Methods – An online survey was sent to participants recruited from professional email lists and Facebook groups, examining their reaction to a mock “associate dean” leadership job ad developed from a review of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) library organizational structures and the thematic analysis of associate dean postings from American Library Association (ALA) JobLIST backfiles. Key measures included participants’ selection of concerning or compelling keywords from the ad, their desire for the job, perceived qualification confidence, perceived alignment of the role with librarian vs. archivist competencies, and likelihood of applying if encouraged by a supervisor or a trusted colleague. The authors analyzed quantitative comparisons across identity groups with one-way ANOVA and coded open-ended responses about application decisions in NVivo.
Main Results – Most participants reported low interest in the associate dean position with 55% stating they probably or definitely did not want the job and merely 22% stating they probably or definitely wanted it. The desire ratings did not differ significantly across librarians, archivists, and those identifying as both. Similarly, approximately one-third of participants (33%) indicated they would apply, again without differences by professional identity. In the qualitative responses explaining these choices, the dominant theme was perceived lack of qualification; over half referenced qualifications and most of those comments expressed feeling unqualified, alongside frequent statements that administrative work was not appealing and that respondents preferred hands-on or non-managerial responsibilities. Participants’ reactions to the job ad’s language were also largely consistent across identity groups. The most frequently selected compelling phrases emphasized inclusion and collaboration, empowerment, and values-based practices, while the most frequently selected concerning phrases included aspirational “vision” language and concrete high-stakes responsibilities such as finances and budgeting, donor relations, and negotiating faculty-related rights. One noteworthy pattern within the librarian group was that the term “archives” appeared among the most selected concerning terms for librarians. Perceived confidence in meeting qualifications did not differ by identity group; 31% of participants reported being confident or very confident they met the qualifications. However, perceptions of competency alignment showed a clear directional pattern: most respondents in each identity group perceived the role as aligning more with librarian competencies than with archivist competencies, including most archivists themselves. Finally, “tapping” appeared to be a strong lever across the board: 69% reported they would be more or much more likely to apply if encouraged by a supervisor, and the same proportion reported increased likelihood if encouraged by a trusted colleague, with no differences by identity group.
Conclusion – Archivists were not less interested than librarians in an academic library leadership posting, nor did they differ in perceived qualification confidence or reactions to the advertisement’s language. At the same time, the participants broadly perceived the role as more aligned with librarian competencies, suggesting that identity-based perceptions of “fit” may be shaped by how leadership work is framed and how professional boundaries are culturally understood. Rather than attributing archivists’ underrepresentation in library leadership to lower interest, organizations should strengthen leadership pipelines by refining how leadership roles are framed in job advertisements and by ensuring equitable encouragement, or tapping, and succession planning.