There are two principles in particular from the ALA Code of Ethics that Drews actions seemed to

especially violate. The first is V, We treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness, and
good faith, and advocate conditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees
of our institutions (American Library Association, 2008). By interfering in the duties of his employee Hilda
Wren without due cause, Drew showed a lack of respect to her authority, especially when he knew what
he was asking was unethical, given that he had his own misgivings about the situation. Drew also showed
a further lack of respect for Hilda by allowing the selectman to insinuate she could be lying about Lisas
behavior as a page. The second statement in the code violated by Drews decisions is VI, We do not
advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions
(American Library Association, 2008). By providing the selectman and his daughter the favor of her job,
the quality of the library experience for other patrons diminished. Lisa clearly was not completing her
work, which would likely have an impact on not only the quality of the library service she provided, but
also that of other employees overworked and discouraged by having to pick up her slack. Thus this
private favor to one family comes at the expense of other workers and patrons. This is not to mention the
discouragement and disadvantage of the boy who was meant to be hired before Lisa was moved up the
line. One could even argue that the hiring of Lisa as a page violates the very first principle listed in the
ALA Code of Ethics, We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and
usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and
courteous responses to all requests (American Library Association, 2008). Lisa clearly did not provide
this level of service herself, and this negatively impacted the work and experience of other staff and
patrons.
Drews actions also violated some of the core job characteristics laid out by Hackman and Oldham in our
text. The characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback are said
to promote motivation, satisfaction, and high-quality work performance in ones employees, but Drews
interference in Hildas tasks violated both her sense of autonomy as well as task identity, as she was
prevented from following through with her responsibilities of hiring from beginning to end. Furthermore,
Drew bypassed the interview process recommended in the text when hiring Lisa, and increased
interpersonal demands by supplying this situation of stress for Hilda and the rest of his employees
(Moran, 2013, p. 198-199, 208, 251).
As Drew felt uncomfortable with the selectmans request, he could have said so at the time, rather than
attempting to pass responsibility for the decision off to the head of circulation. The selectmans request
was unethical behavior from an official, and that should have been addressed, if not in the moment, then
by the rest of the council he serves on. If Drew was concerned that other authorities would dismiss this
unethical behavior or side with the selectman, he could have told the selectman he would interview his
daughter when the next position was available, at least allowing for the ability to screen Lisas abilities
and attitude before simply handing her the job. Having the interview would provide Drew with a more solid
backing as to why she could not be hired at this time. Once the hire had been made and problems arose,
he could have stood up for his employee to the selectmen and backed her judgement and honesty when
he cast doubt on her trustworthiness, though really he should not have called Lisas father at all, as it was
an employee-employer matter.
As for dealing with staff, Drew could have gone to his other employees for their input before making the
decision to hire Lisa and demanding others fall in line. By going over her head and interfering in a process
that was, by his own admission, Hildas jurisdiction, he broke her trust and showed a lack of confidence in
Hildas decisions. Once Lisa had been hired, Drew could have consulted with other staff once problems
became apparent so as to have well-built evidence of her poor performance in the position if he wished to
present it to the selectman.
Now that Drew is in this predicament, he should start by apologizing to Hilda for forcing her to do
something she considered to be unethical and going over her head to meddle in a process that she was
charged with overseeing. He should then work with her to begin whatever reprimand process their library
has set up. She has already had a verbal warning, perhaps it is time for a written warning. Then, if the
behavior continues, they will have sufficient cause to fire her. The one thing Drew should do above all is

remove the selectman from this business altogether. This is a matter of human resources between an
employee and her managers, and there is no need to involve the employees parent in the situation
whatsoever. If Lisa is fired and the selectman has a problem with it, the warning process prior to
termination should provide Drew with some protection from his objections.
References:
American Library Association. (2008). Code of Ethics of the American Library Association.
Moran, B. B., Stueart, R. D., & Morner, C. J. (2013). Library and Information Center Management (8th
ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.