Search results

This viewpoint will present some statistical information about employee ownership in the US and interpret and analyze this information in order to address the barriers question using material from qualitative interviews that the authors have conducted over the last ten years with practitioners in the field. There have been few actual empirical studies that sort out the different barriers to employee ownership. The authors have chosen to focus on employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in the US because this is the principal example from which people could learn from, and the high prevalence of ESOPs plays an important role in the US. This overview will present interpretations of these interviews with conceptual arguments that cannot always be supported with either overwhelming empirical studies or arguments that conclusively eliminate one or other explanation. This is an initial attempt to bring some comprehensive treatment and data to this incipient discussion. This is based on an interpretive analysis of qualitative interviews without quantification or social survey methods used for measurement. The advantage of this approach is that it lays out a completely different level of analysis of the barriers to employee ownership in the US that is “closer to the ground” and more based in the views of front-line practitioners who are actually implementing it.

Analysis and interpretation of qualitative interviews.

The list of barriers that has been identified is not exhaustive. The preliminary conclusions are that (not necessarily in this order) limitations of investment banking models, poor supportive infrastructure, complexity and cost and regulatory issues, the lack of support by political parties and social movements, the sale of companies due to financial considerations and legal complexities and lack of clarity and resistance by Federal agencies are major barriers in the US. Various sectors of Wall Street has been amenable to employee ownership with the proper government and private sector support. What is needed now is a series of quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews of retiring business owners in closely held companies and of CEOs and CFOs in stock market companies in order to gauge the barriers that they believe are blocking their own action in the employee share ownership area. The Rutgers Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing is working on such a research agenda at this time. In addition, with the future size of the US employee ownership sector at stake, a more intensive one-year interview project would make sense in order to present these different explanations to key actors and practitioners and ask them to provide evidence to prove or disprove the relevance of the different barriers.

Empirical research which can resolve which barriers are more important than others is presented, when possible; however, studies that provide metrics to compare different barriers are not available and need to be carried out.

Other countries considering employee ownership policies can learn from the US experience. US policymakers and legislators can learn from an original, recent discussion of barriers.

If employee ownership sectors are to be developed, a careful discussion of barriers is most relevant.

Original document by the authors based on original interviews.

In response to observed changes in the evolving needs of our community, and a call for proactive, strategic planning from campus administration, library and key learning commons partners gathered for a retreat in June 2023 to focus on rightsizing to answer six key questions: What is the right mix of collections to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What is the right variety of spaces to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What are the right mix of on ground and virtual services to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What technologies are needed to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What is the right staffing (model, levels+) to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What type of library and learning commons do we want to be in five years?

The article discusses and provides review of literature on concepts like rightsizing and appreciative inquiry/ strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results (SOAR) analysis. It will describe how note-taking, and qualitative analysis of feedback gathered during an in-person exercise can be used to identify actionable goals and activities as a follow-up to an in-person retreat.

To focus this conversation, an appreciative inquiry approach using a SOAR analysis was used, instead of a traditional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis, to utilize a constructivist approach to future thinking. This case study will explore rightsizing as it pertains to academic libraries, and the use of SOAR as a framework for capturing feedback and discussion.

As the article is a case study, it represents feedback collected specifically from one university library and learning commons. However, the questions asked, and the consolidated feedback are broad enough to be applicable to similar library systems.

The authors aim to demonstrate how appreciative inquiry and strength-based discussions using SOAR can lead to meaningful future-thinking conversations that might otherwise feel threatening. As rightsizing is often connected to downsizing, or conversations about reductions, using techniques like SWOT analysis which focus on weaknesses and threats can lead to anxiety and fear for participants. It can limit conversation, when members of a focus group or retreat feel unwilling to participate. By using constructivist approaches, it invites introspection and participation in a positive way, and focuses on forward thinking – and not just thinking of the present.

Rightsizing discussions are not particularly new or unique to libraries but are most seen in articles discussing collections. The scope of this project was to assess not only collections, but services, technology, staffing and spaces – in addition to our collections. Similarly, SOAR analyses are not the most common form of strategic analysis, and an appreciative inquiry approach to a rightsizing conversation in academic libraries is a relatively timely and new topic.