Distributed leadership practice among heads of library and job performance of librarians in higher educational institutions in Nigeria

Abstract

This study investigates DL practice among heads of library and job performance of librarians in HEIs in Nigeria. A descriptive design of survey type was applied for the study. The 164 librarians (19 heads of library and 145 librarians) in 19 public higher educational institutions (HEIs) in Ekiti, Ondo and Osun States formed the population of the study. The study adopted total enumeration sampling technique. A self-structured close-ended questionnaire and interview were used for data collection. It was found that the levels of DL among the heads of library and job performance among librarians in HEIs in Nigeria are high. The study also found that there is significant relationship between: delegation of duties and job performance, delegated decision making and staff job performance, delegated instructional supervision and job performance, and delegated administrative supervision and job performance among the librarians. There is no significant difference between the levels of DL among the male and female heads of the library. It was recommended that subordinate librarians should be trained to develop their leadership capacity to perform optimally when leadership role is distributed to them within the library.

Keywords

distributed leadership academic library job performance heads of academic library librarians Nigeria

Introduction

The quest for resilient leaders with required potentials in sufficient quantity to ensure optimal job performance among library staff is a pressing issue in the contemporary environment characterized by socio-economic, political, and technological transformations. Academic libraries across the globe are encountering unparalleled challenges that require effective leadership as their functions and services are examined to the extent of raising essential questions concerning the necessity for libraries in the society in the modern era (Goulding and Walton, 2014). Libraries, therefore, have to prove their relevance in the society through the services they render in promoting teaching, learning, research, scholarship and community development. This requires optimal job performance from the library employees.

Leadership plays a vital role in determining the level of job performance of employees (Dampson et al., 2018). Library managers are under great trepidation to offer effective leadership that can facilitate efficient job performance by the employees (Akidi and Chukwueke, 2020; Arumuru, 2019). This has led to the use of autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, and bureaucratic leadership styles at various times (Okere and Olorinfemi, 2018). DL which has gained significant recognition in the field of education is now being introduced into library practice due to the growing pressure on library leaders to ensure continuous improvement in library operations (Goulding and Walton. 2014). More also, the need to ameliorate the collective capacity of libraries, and equip librarians with leadership skills requires that leadership must be efficiently distributed (Johnston, 2015). DL is a manner of thinking concerning leadership practice which entails noteworthy interactions among leaders, followers, and their situations (Spillane, 2006; Sol, 2021). Benson and Blackman. (2011).defined DL as theoretical and analytical method to having knowledge of the way the leadership activities are performed among the people, and in framework of a complex organization. Ware (2019) asserted that DL is a key for progressive transformation and can determine employees’ job performance.

DL has been widely used to comprehend the nature of leadership in educational setting where the involvement of parents, students, community, and government is considered pivotal in determining the job performance of teachers (Spillane et al., 2004). However, DL is still in its infancy among library scholars, library policy makers, and practicing librarians across the world, especially Nigeria (Bennett et al., 2003). A general knowledge of DL is yet to be comprehended (Pearce, 2004). The bulk of studies on library leadership have been on how democratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles influence service delivery in libraries. This study moves a step further by domiciling DL within the context of library. More importantly, even though there have been plethora of literature on job performance among librarians in educational setting in Nigeria (Bawalla and Adenuga, 2021; Ogunbanjo, 2021), none of the works explores how job performance among librarians is determined by DL This study is, therefore, a creative attempt to explore the interplay between DL practice among heads of library and job performance of librarians in HEIs. The study also investigates the relationships among the metrics of DL (delegation of duties, delegated instructional supervision, shared decision making, and delegated administrative supervision) and job performance. The concentration is on librarians in HEIs in Ekiti, Ondo and Osun States, Nigeria.

Research questions

The following research questions guide the study

What is the level of DL among heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria?

What is the level of job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria?

What is the relationship between delegation of duties by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria?

What is the relationship between shared decision making by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria?

What is the relationship between delegated instructional supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria?

What is the relationship between delegated administrative supervision heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria?

What is the difference between the levels of DL among male and female heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria?

Literature review

Perspective on distributed leadership

The origin of DL, which is among the oldest leadership views suggested for accomplishing organizational objectives through people (Bolden, 2011), dates back to 1250 BC (Oduro, 2004). However, theorization of the concept is traceable to the mid-20 s and possibly earlier (Harris, 2009). The concept took shape in 1980s and 1990s when the development of teacher leadership was being encouraged (Wheatley, 1999). Since then, several authors in the field of educational leadership and management have written on the concept in the current millennium (Harris, 2014; Bolden, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2009; Spillane, 2006).

There are divergences in conceptualization of DL among scholars based on the scope of the network of individuals that participate in the leadership process. For instance, Brown and Hosking (1986) focus on one group of individuals as their unit of analysis while Spillane et al. (2004) take a more open-systems method by considering the entire organization and even area outside the limit of the organizational as their unit of analysis. Nevertheless, in spite of all the variances, some scholars believe that the concept of DL is underpinned by two principles which are that leadership is a shared influence process that entails the contribution of many people, and that leadership springs from the interactions of various people that collectively form a team whereby vital proficiency is a distributed value (Dampson et al., 2018). Dampson believed that DL movement is a clamor for democratic sharing of leadership all through the organisation. According to Mayrowetz (2008), the basic foundation of DL is to avoid concentrating leadership tasks into the hands of a single person but instead sharing the tasks among members of the organisation. Law and Glover (2003) posited that the concept of DL reveals that leadership can happen at a series of levels in reaction to a series of circumstances.

The current study explores DL from the perspective of Spillane (2006) who viewed that DL is pivotal to the teaching and learning process in schools. The scholar posited that leadership entails every member of the school community, not just the principals and vice principals. Spillane claims that leadership occurs in a series of manners all through the school based on the relationship among the people. This claim is also emphasized by Spillane and Diamond (2007) who asserted that based on the specific leadership responsibility, the knowledge of leaders may be best used at the team level instead of at the individual leader's level. In what Spillane (2006) referred to as “leader plus”, it is noted that numerous people play leadership roles in either formal or informal positions. People in formal and informal positions may accept the task of managing the school (Spillane and Diamond 2007). As such, the DL viewpoint of Spillane is neither a top-down nor a bottom-up method but rather acknowledges that diverse people play leadership roles at diverse periods.

A number of interpretations have been ascribed to DL in library leadership discourse. Applying Spillane's (2006) view to library practice shows that DL is not confined to librarians’ involvement in educational and information service rendering matters but broadens the range of their leadership to decision-making in the library. The notion of librarians working as a team to ameliorate their professional practices is therefore a deviation from the segregation and individualism that obtain in library operation. More so, in an age of swift and noteworthy transformation in the ways library services are rendered resulting from the deployment of ICTs, it is vital that librarians work as a team instead of working in isolation. Teamwork is among the structural changes that facilitate the adoption of ICTs in performing library operations.

Distributed leadership practice among heads of library

Leadership as a multifaceted phenomenon occurs in all organizations that acknowledge staff motivation as a way of achieving organizational goals (Dampson et al., 2018). Library leadership plays a crucial role in the management of libraries (Okere and Olorunfemi, 2018). It ensures that staff job performance keeps ameliorating in line with the technological advancement (Ogunbanjo, 2021). Library leaders inspire and influence library staff to enthusiastically interact with the library users and meet their needs (Akidi and Chukwueke, 2020). Ashiq et al. (2021) noted that in librarianship, ‘headship’ as a concept has conventionally subjugated the concept of leadership. Leaders occupy vital position in the library leadership equation and key positions in the design of library activities. Attainment of library goal requires the use of the appropriate leadership styles. Leadership styles are leaders’ way of giving course, implementing strategies, and inspiring individuals (Okere and Olorunfemi, 2018).

In librarianship, there are plethora of leadership styles that can be adopted. Among them are autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, and bureaucratic leadership styles (Oyelude and Oladele, 2014; Okere and Olorunfemi, 2018). Democratic leaders are open to discussion and negotiation. They are ready to entertain dialogue and suggestion on how to improve staff job performance. Autocratic leaders are not easy to approach. They take unilateral decision (Akidi and Chukwueke, 2020). Bureaucratic leaders adhere so strictly to the line of authority and formal mode of operation. All these leadership styles are adopted by libraries with different levels of accomplishment.

DL is one of the novel concepts in library leadership (Goulding and Walton, 2014). The concept originated from the ﬁeld of organizational theory in the mid-1960s (Harris, 2012) and gained popularity in educational leadership in the early 2000s. It is a combination of sociological, cognitive, psychological, and anthropological theories (Hermann, 2016). DL was coined and applied predominantly in education research (Samancioglu et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the concept is now being used in managing various organisations, including libraries. DL refers to a set of team activities stimulated by mutual relationships, instead of individual act (Bolden, 2008). Hermann (2016) considered leadership from a distributed standpoint to mean viewing leadership actions as a positioned and social process at the intersection of leaders, subordinates, and the condition at hand.

The emergence of and popularity gained by DL has made it a substitute to models of leadership that are bothered principally with the qualities and behaviors of individual ‘leaders’ (e.g., trait, situational, and laissez-faire theories) (Hermann, 2016). DL which is all-encompassing, interactive, shared and contextually-positioned, starts with acknowledgement of leadership as a vital social construct which requires interaction between leaders and followers in a particular setting. DL is an essential part of collective capacity building as it permits interdependence among people, which supports uninterrupted development (Harris, 2013). DL proposes a more systemic standpoint in which leadership obligations are separated from official organizational tasks, and staff at every level are offered the prospect to play crucial role in determining the course and running of the organization (Sol, 2021). Certain leadership styles such as participative, delegated, democratic, and dispersed leadership styles are closely related to what DL means (Leithwood et al., 2009).

DL enlarges leadership roles in libraries beyond what obtains in formal leadership positions, even though it is a concept that is yet to gain much application in library administration (Johnston, 2015). The contemporary discussion concerning library leadership is gradually shifting towards a concentration on distributed sources of inﬂuence (Johnston, 2015). Even though the shift, to a vast extent, reveals certain disenchantment with specific ideas of leadership usually categorized as the “great man” theory, it never implies redundancy on the part of library leaders. Goulding and Walton (2014) noted inadequate literature on distributed models of leadership in libraries across the world.

Within the context of library, DL means distributing certain parts of the responsibilities of the heads of library to subordinate librarians to reduce the workload of the heads of library (Johnston, 2015). The metrics measured in DL include delegation of duties, delegated instructional supervision, shared decision making, and delegated administrative supervision (Bolden, 2008). Delegation of duties deals with assigning duties to other library staff. Management of a library is usually too large for a person, notably when consider the level of difficulty library administrators face in the process of serving the needs of the library patrons. To succeed in managing the libraries, heads of library have to delegate parts of their duties to other librarians. Heads of library that fail to delegate duties usually get overburdened, and find it difficult to complete most of their responsibilities.

Delegated instructional supervision is part of DL role that heads of library can give to other library staff. Instructional supervision deals with methodical analysis of information while implementing programmes with a view to ensuring that staff abide by the libraries’ ethics, guidelines and techniques in implementing assigned tasks (Jones and Harvey, 2017). The responsibility of the heads of library as instructional administrators is to improve the quality of instructional programmes towards the achievement of the goals of the libraries. Heads of library delegate instruction supervision by allowing their deputies or unit heads to perform the responsibility relating to instruction supervision in the libraries. Delegating instructional supervision to deputies makes them feel a sense of belonging.

Heads of library can delegate administrative supervision to other library staff. Heads of library are in charge of library administration. They have to design, organize, and develop competitive strategies for the libraries, and also manage staff welfare (Nwokike and Unegbu, 2019). They also have to supervise other library staff to ensure optimal performance from them. Shouldering all these tasks may be too difficult for the head of library. The heads of library mentor and prepare their deputies and the unit heads by delegating administrative supervision to them. Heads of library also delegate leadership by involving other staff in decision-making. Decision making is joint involvement of heads of library and staff in decision-making on matters that concern the library, staff and the library patrons. Every staff is encouraged to partake in the decision-making process for the advantage of the library.

Ensuring effective management of libraries necessitates agitating for DL which arises from studies and models that reveal the shortcomings of the conventional ‘leader-follower’ dualism that restricts leadership responsibilities strongly to leaders and offers the followers inactive and subservient role (Johnston, 2015). Goulding and Walton (2014) averred that DL can stimulate improved library services by giving employees opportunity to participate in decision making through a less official, hierarchical leadership style. Even though there have been significant efforts from some in the research community to caution the use of DL, the concept is evidently being encouraged and recommended in some libraries all over the globe as it encourages the staff to do their best for the success of the libraries (Goulding and Walton, 014). DL may not gain popularity in libraries if it is not supported by library leaders.

Job performance among librarians

Job performance is a topic of increasing debate by scholars in all forms of organisations across the globe. Job performance is the result of staff job performance in libraries. Job performance means finishing or implementing a specified assignment (Jay, 2014). Job performance requires capability to combine thoughts proficiently in proper behaviour so as to achieve set goals (Koko and Dike, 2022). Obinna and Unegbu (2019) evaluated the job performance of librarians in universities in South-East, Nigeria. A cross-sectional survey design was used for data collection. It was found that the level of job performance of the librarians was high. Ugwu and Ugwu (2017) explored demographic variables and job performance of librarians in university libraries in South East Nigeria, using correlational research design. One hundred librarians participated in the study. It was found that the level of job performance of the librarians was high. Dina and Olowosoke (2018) carried out a study on effect of motivation and job performance on library personnel effectiveness in university libraries in Nigeria. Interview and questionnaire was used for data collection. It was found that the level of job performance of the personnel was high. Ikonne and Fajonyomi (2019) investigated the influence of motivational factors on librarians’ job performance in university in North-east, Nigeria. All the 275 librarians in the 6 federal universities in North-East Nigeria formed the population of the study. It was found that the level of job performance of the librarians was moderate.

Some of the metrics measured in job performance include job satisfaction, job commitment and quality of work. Job commitment refers to the degree an employee likes his work. Bawalla and Adenuga (2021) refer to staff job commitment as the degree staff like or dislike their jobs. Job performance will be significantly less than expected if the level of job commitment of the staff is low. Librarians’ job commitment is an essential component of staff job performance. It is apparent that quality library services cannot be accomplished without the involvement and contribution of dedicated and committed staff. Employee commitment is one of the key work attitudes explored by library scholars in the current period in which the necessity for quality services from library staff is growing continually (Kokubun, 2016; Ogunbanjo, 2021). Job satisfaction determines the feelings and attitudes of employees towards their jobs. The level of employees’ job satisfaction determines the level of employees’ job performance (Zia et al., 2021).

Quality of work as a concept emerged in the twentieth-century in the fields of management and organisational behaviour as a factor that influence the enhancement of job performance of employees (Anyaoku, 2016). Quality of work has enticed the responsiveness of a lot of researchers in contemporary eras. It has become a vital social topic across the globe these days. In librarianship, quality of work deals with the process of promoting organizational effectiveness by promoting human dignity in places of work (Jahangiri et al., 2020). Ensuring quality of work of library employees requires improving the quality of communication among the library staff.

Methodology

A descriptive design of survey type was applied for the study. The 164 librarians (19 heads of library and 145 subordinate librarians) in 19 public HEIs in Ekiti, Ondo and Osun States formed the population of the study. Total enumeration sampling technique was used because of the manageable size of the population of the study. A self-structured close-ended questionnaire and interview were used for data collection. The questionnaire had 2 sections; Section A was on level of DL among heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria. This section was answered by subordinate librarians. The metrics measured in DL which include delegation of duties, delegated instructional supervision, shared decision making, and delegated administrative supervision were chosen from the work of Bolden (2008), and the items in each metric were formed by the researchers. Section B was on level of job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria. This section was answered by the heads of academic library. The metrics/indicators of job performance were chosen from the works of job performance indicators were chosen. The heads of library were also interviewed to obtain in-depth information from them.

A 5 point Likert-type scale of very high level, high level, moderate level, low level, and very low level was used for the questionnaire. AMOS program was used to analyse and test the data for validity and reliability as it helps in specifying and accessing model in the form of a diagram and describe the relationship between the variables. The research instrument was validated by one librarian and one lecturer of educational psychology at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State. To ensure that the research instrument was reliable, 8 copies of the questionnaire were administered to librarians at Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State. Cronbach's alpha method was used to test the reliability level. A reliability coefﬁcient index of 0.72 was achieved. This made the instrument reliable. The data generated from the questionnaire administered were analysed using mean. Section A was answered by subordinate librarians while Section B was answered by heads of academic library. The criterion means of 2.50–2.99 was used for the study (<2.50 = Low Extent; 2.50–2.99 = Moderate Extent; > 2.99 = High Extent). The study was conducted between October 2022 and March 2023.

Out of the 164 copies of the questionnaire administered, 107 were retrieved representing 65.2% response rate. Six heads of academic library (4 males and 2 females) and 101 subordinate librarians responded to the study.

Results

What is the level of DL among heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria?

Table 1 show that the grand mean is 3.54. This means that the level of DL among the heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria is high. There is high level of DL in areas of delegation of duties ( $\bar{x}$ =3.99), shared decision making ( $\bar{x}$ ₌3.77), and delegated administrative supervision ( $\bar{x}$ ₌3.70). However, the level of DL in delegated instructional supervision is moderate ( $\bar{x}$ ₌ 2.64).

Table 1.

Level of DL among heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria.

Distributed Leadership	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )
Delegation of Duties
Head of library delegates librarians to checkmate patrons	3.99
Head of library empowers librarians to supervise library activities	3.93
Head of library empowers librarians to monitor the activities of other staff in the libraries	3.88
Head of library permits librarians to take active part in planning library programmes	3.81
Heads of library authorize librarians to plan library academic activities	3.72
Average Mean	3.87
Shared Decision Making
Head of library permits librarians to contribute to library advancement	4.22
Head of library ensures that goal setting and staff advancement are a collective responsibility	4.08
Head of library include librarians in making rules and for the library	3.73
Head of library permits librarians to state their sincere verdict during decision-making process	3.55
Head of library offers prospect to librarians to keenly include staff in ensuring sanity in the library system	3.28
Average Mean	3.77
Delegated Instructional Supervision
Head of library usually looks for best strategies to improve on librarians’ instruction delivery	3.36
Head of library employs constructive approach to correct the lapses of librarians on instruction delivery	3.04
Head of library usually checks lecture notes to ensure they are up to date	2.13
Head of library regularly takes attendance of library instructional activities	2.04
Average Mean	2.64
Delegated Administrative Supervision
Head of library makes sure that there is appropriate use of resources to attain objectives	4.03
Head of library involves librarians in library routine administration	3.91
Head of library involves librarians in staff personnel administration	3.77
Head of library makes sure that the library's infrastructure are well-maintained	3.55
Head of library engages librarians in university community relations management	3.23
Average Mean	3.70
Grand Mean	3.54
Criterion means: < 2.50 (Low Level), 2.5 0 to 3.00 (Moderate Level), > 3.00 (High Level)

What is the level of job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria?

Table 2 reveals that the grand mean is 3.97. This means that the level of job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria is high. The means found for job commitment ( $\bar{x}$ ₌4.04), job satisfaction ( $\bar{x}$ ₌4.14), and quality of work ( $\bar{x}$ ₌3.67) are all high. In the interview, the heads of library responded that the librarians’ perform their duties to satisfactory level. They claimed further that the librarians are highly committed to their job, and are ready to improve and prepare for leadership positions in librarianship. They also asserted that the quality of work of the librarians is moderate, but need to be improved upon especially now that ICT is highly deployed in the performance of library operations. They advised the librarians to enhance their ICT proficiencies through training so that the quality of their work can be ameliorated.

Table 2.

Level of job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria.

Job Performance	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )
Job Commitment
Subordinate librarians are well- prepared to work with other staff to promote the library	4.36
Subordinate librarians assist other staff to advance through developmental responsibilities and programmes that commensurate with their capabilities	4.09
Subordinate librarians assist the feeble staff to meet up with their high flier equivalents in the library	4.01
Subordinate librarians are ready to assist other colleagues to develop their full potential	3.93
Subordinate librarians are prepared to work on behalf of both low and high achieving staff	3.82
Average Mean	4.04
Job Satisfaction
Subordinate librarians embrace the available career advancement opportunities	4.61
Subordinate librarians are satisfied with their remuneration	4.29
Subordinate librarians appreciate the recognition they are given in the library	4.14
Subordinate librarians find the work environment conducive	3.96
Subordinate librarians are satisfied with leadership styles of the heads of library	3.92
Average Mean	4.14
Quality of Work
The work permits the subordinate librarians to make maximum use of their proficiencies and aptitudes	4.11
There are opportunities to use and develop human capacity in the library	3.96
The work environment permits subordinate librarians to give observations and suggestions	3.55
There is a pleasant rapport between librarians and other staff in the library	3.47
Subordinate librarians are treated with admiration in the library	3.28
Average Mean	3.67
Grand Mean	3.97
Criterion means: < 2.50 (Low Level), 2.5 0 to 3.00 (Moderate Level), > 3.00 (High Level)

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between delegation of duties by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria

From Table 3, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient r = 0.144. Since the significant value (Sig.2-tailed) is 0.029 (which is less than 0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected. It can therefore be concluded that there is significant relationship between delegation of duties by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria

Table 3.

Relationship between delegation of duties by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians.

		Delegation of duties	Job performance
Delegation of duties	Pearson Correlation	1	.144
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.029
	N	107	107
Job performance	Pearson Correlation	.144	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.029
	N	107	107

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between delegated decision making by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria

Table 4 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient r = 0.116. The significant value (Sig.2-tailed) is 0.046 (which is less than 0.05). It means that there is significant relationship between delegated decision making by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies that if decision making is delegated, the job performance of the librarians will be high.

Table 4.

Relationship between delegated decision making by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians.

		Delegated Decision making	Job performance
Delegated Decision making	Pearson Correlation	1	.116
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.046
	N	107	107
Job performance	Pearson Correlation	.116	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.046
	N	107	107

Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between delegated instructional supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria

From Table 5, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient r = 0.118. The significant value (Sig.2-tailed) is 0.022 (which is less than 0.05). It means that there is significant relationship between delegated instructional supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. The implication is that delegated instructional supervision by heads of library may lead to corresponding improvement in job performance among the subordinate librarians.

Table 5.

Relationship between delegated instructional supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians.

		Delegated instructional supervision	Job performance
Delegated instructional supervision	Pearson Correlation	1	.118
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.022
	N	107	107
Job performance	Pearson Correlation	.118	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.022
	N	107	107

Hypothesis 4: There is no significant relationship between delegated administrative supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria

Table 6 reveals a Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of r = 0.133. The significant value (Sig.2-tailed) is 0.031 (which is less than 0.05), it can therefore be concluded that there is significant relationship between delegated administrative supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies that if the subordinate librarians are trusted with administrative supervision, their job performance will improve Table 7.

Table 6.

Relationship between delegated administrative supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians.

		Delegated administrative supervision	Job performance
Administrative supervision	Pearson Correlation	1	.133
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.031
	N	107	107
Job performance	Pearson Correlation	.133	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.031
	N	107	107

Table 7.

Difference between the levels of DL among male and female heads of library.

Heads of Library	N	Mean	SD	t-cal	Df	P	Decision
Male	4	2.16	0.83	-0.164	226	0.723	Accept
Female	2	2.29	0.88	-0.164	226	0.723	Accept

Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between the levels of DL among male and female heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria

An independent sample z-test was conducted to compare the difference between the levels of DL among male and female heads of library. There was no significant difference in scores for male (M = 2.16, SD = 0.83) and female (F = 2.29, SD = 0.88), z(226)= −0.164, p = 0.723). This implies that there is no significant difference between the levels of DL among male and female heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria. At criterion mean of 2.50, the level of DL among male library heads ( $\bar{x}$ =2.16 < 2.50) and female library heads is low ( $\bar{x}$ =2.29 < 2.50).

Discussion

This study focuses on DL practice among heads of library and job performance of librarians in HEIs in Nigeria. The findings in Table 1 show that the level of DL among heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria is high, even though there is a moderate level of DL in terms of delegated instructional supervision. This implies that the lower level librarians, at certain conditions, have the opportunity to act as leaders within their own limit (Goleman, 2002). This may be dangerous in some cases as most of the lower level librarians have little or no knowledge of what leadership entails (Aslam and Aslam 2019). Harris (2014) posited that librarians may not want to take on leadership roles if they do not have vivid knowledge of what the libraries and librarians will benefit from it. Abdalla (2014) noted that the few staff that have understanding of what DL entails may feel that DL will cause them to perform more managerial responsibilities that are not within the purview of their official responsibilities. Some may even feel that they do not possess the required competence to lead. A significant number of them may feel that they do not receive the training required by library leaders (Lizotte, 2013). Instead, they prefer to be team members.

Table 2 found that the level of job performance among the subordinate librarians is high. This may be because the twenty-first-century librarians have acknowledged that job performance entails proficiency to combine thoughts competently in proper behaviour for the purpose of achieving set goals (Koko and Dike, 2022). More so, job performance of librarians is a decisive instrument in accomplishing the goals and objectives of the library (Dina and Olowosoke, 2018). In relation to the finding of this research, a study by Nwokike and Unegbu (2019) found that the level of job performance of librarians in universities in South-East Nigeria is high. However, Akor (2014) established that there have been persistent complaints about the low level of job performance among librarians in Nigerian universities. A study by Akor (2009) also revealed that the job performance of librarians in the North-Central Nigeria is low. Some librarians fail to deliver services at the appropriate time which leads to ceaseless complaint by the patrons (Oyewole and Popoola, 2013). Even the quality of work of some librarians is below expectation. A study by Nwokike and Unegbu (2019) found that inadequate use of proficiencies and aptitudes is an evidence of low level of job performance among librarians. Failure to curb this condition may impinge the general efficiency of the libraries (Obinna and Unegbu, 2019).

The hypotheses tested using the metrics of DL (delegation of duties, shared decision making, delegated instructional supervision, and delegated administrative supervision) and job performance (job commitment, job satisfaction, and quality of work) found that there is significant relationship between: shared decision making by heads of library and job performance of subordinate librarians, delegated instructional supervision by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians, delegated administrative supervision by heads of library and performance among subordinate librarians, and delegation of duties by heads of library and job performance among subordinate librarians in HEIs in Nigeria. It was also found that there is no significant difference between the levels of DL among male and female heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria as the levels of DL among male library heads and female library heads is low.

Findings in Tables 3 to 6 reveal that librarians at all levels are enthused when leadership roles concerning decision making as well as when administrative and instructional supervisions are delegated to them. Librarians want to feel a sense of social relevance on their job (Anyaoku, 2016). They achieve this through enhanced role in organizational leadership bestowed on them (Koohbanani et al., 2019). This usually improves their level of job commitment and job satisfaction (Abdalla, 2014; Goulding and Walton, 2014; Johnston, 2015). Prior studies by Samancioglu et al. (2020); and Sun and Xia (2018) have shown that involvement in decision making and administrative supervision strongly determines employees’ job commitment. Tariq (2022) found that DL (delegation of duties, shared decision making, delegated instructional supervision and delegated administrative supervision) significantly determine staff job satisfaction and job commitment. Jones and Harvey (2017) posited that if leadership is distributed in an organization and supervisory roles are committed to staff, job performance of the staff will improve.

In relation to the finding of this study, Tariq (2022) averred that DL increases an individual's level of self-efficacy which consequently enhances job satisfaction. Also, a study by Samancioglu et al. (2020) found a positive relationship among DL, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. It was found in a related study by Hermann (2016) that DL style has significant relationship with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Aja-Okorie and Oko (2021) found in an empirical study that delegation of responsibilities determines the responsiveness of staff to work. A study by Igoni (2020) found a significant relationship between delegation of duties and job performance, and between shared decision making and job performance, indicating that delegation of duties and decision-making role significantly correlate with job performance. This means that heads of library should delegate duties to subordinate librarians and also involve subordinate librarians in decision making practices for enhanced job performance. An empirical study by Kanyip and Ogon (2022) found a significant relationship between administrative supervision and job performance, and between instructional supervision and staff job performance.

The findings of this study reveal that the metrics of DL such as delegation of duties, decision making, instructional supervision and administrative supervision have positive relationships with quality of work. It means therefore that delegation of duties, involvement in decision making, and instructional and administrative supervision may improve the level of quality of work of librarians. Alvanoudi (2020) noted that quality of work of librarians is likely to improve if they are involved in decision making and administrative supervision. In modern library administration, quality of work is considered pivotal in ensuring effective management of libraries. Alvanoudi therefore advised that quality of work life should be on the agenda of all library staff irrespective of their job status. The quality of work life of 175 Nigerian librarians was examined in a study by Anyaoku (2016). The study found that the quality of work life of librarians would keep on ameliorating and they will have a feeling of social relevance through their involvement in administrative activities.

Limitations

This study comprises a handful of vital limitations. First, the scope of the study was small. This manifested in form of having few HEIs covered by the study. Also, the concept of DL is novel to librarians. As such, there are no adequate literature to review on the concept from the perspective of librarians. Second, most of the literature reviewed were from the field of education. Meanwhile, what obtained in other disciplines/professions may not obtain in librarianship. Therefore, there is a need for further studies with wider geographical scope. Also, librarians need to conduct in-depth research in DL and enjoy the benefits it brings to library leadership.

Conclusion and recommendations

Library leaders, even though encumbered with gamut of responsibilities, want optimal and effective attainment of the objectives of libraries. Therefore, based on the findings of this study, it is concluded that the level of DL among the heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria is high. The heads of library distribute leadership in areas such as delegation of duties, shared decision making, and delegated administrative supervision and delegated instructional supervision. The subordinate librarians’ level of job performance is high as they show appreciable levels of job commitment, job satisfaction, and quality of work. The relationships among the metrics of DL and job performance are significant, and that there is no significant difference between the levels of DL among male and female heads of academic library. This means that if DL is practiced among the heads of library, high level of job performance will be recorded among the subordinate librarians. The study will be helpful for heads of library to ensure that DL practice is employed in their libraries through which optimal job performance can be realized from the subordinate librarians.

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made

Heads of library should practice DL by distributing their leadership tasks and functions to reduce the burden of leadership on them, and at the same time groom the subordinate librarians to prepare for leadership positions in librarianship.

Subordinate librarians should be trained to develop their leadership capacity to perform optimally when leadership role is distributed to them within the library.

Comprehensive studies should be conducted on DL practice among heads of library in HEIs in Nigeria with a view to knowing how well heads of library embrace the concept.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Adekoya

About the authors

Clement O. Adekoya is currently a librarian at Olusegun Agagu University of Science and Technology, Okitipupa, Nigeria. He has over 20 publications in professional and scholarly journals. He can be contacted via myclem10@ gmail.com.

Isaac Oluwadare Busayo is the current University Librarian of the Federal University Oye-Ekiti. He is a seasoned librarian with PhD in Media Resources Management from the University of Ibadan. He has over 30 years work experience. His areas of specialization include cataloguing and classification, collection development and library service to target groups. He has over 40 publications, both local and international. He can be contacted via isaac.busayo@fuoye.edu.ng

References

Abdalla

(2014) Distributed school leadership, perceptions and practices . M.Ed thesis. British University of Dubai.

Aja-Okorie

Oko

(2021) Delegation of responsibilities by principals as a paradigm for effective management of secondary schools in ebonyi state, Nigeria. Journal of Current Issues in Sciences 7(1): 102–111.

Akidi

Chukwueke

(2020) University librarians’ leadership styles and staff productivity in selected university libraries in imo state, Nigeria. Journal of Library and Information Sciences 8(1): 18–28.

Akor

(2009) Influence of university library leadership Styles on the job performance of professional librarians in North Central Zone of Nigeria. Unpublished PhD research report. University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Akor

(2014) Influence of autocratic leadership styles on the job performance of librarians in Benue state, Nigeria. Academic Libraries in Benue State 4(7): 148–152.

Alvanoudi

(2020) A study of the quality of work life for the staff of Greek academic libraries. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) 9(3): 461–474.

Anyaoku

(2016) Demographic determinants of quality of work life of librarians working in Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Library and Information Science 4(1): 312–323.

Arumuru

(2019) Librarians’ leadership styles and attitude to work in Delta state. ATBU, Journal of Science, Technology & Education (JOSTE) 7(1): 106–115.

Ashiq

Rehman

Satdar

et al. (2021) Academic library leadership in the Dawn of the new millennium: A systematic literature review. The Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 47(3): 1–12.

10.

Aslam

(2019) Leadership challenges and issues facing academic libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2227.

11.

Bawalla

Adenuga

(2021) Financial rewards and job commitment among public secondary school teachers in ogun state, Nigeria. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 3(2): 9–16.

12.

Bennett

Harvey

Wise

, et al. (2003) Desk study review of distributed leadership. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership/Centre for Educational Policy & Management.

13.

Benson

Blackman

(2011) To distribute leadership or not? A lesson from the island. Tourism Management 32(5): 1141–1149.

14.

Bolden

(2008) Distributed leadership. In Marturano

Gosling

(eds) Leadership, The Key Concepts. London: Routledge, pp. 42–45.

15.

Bolden

(2011) Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(3): 251–269.

16.

Brown

Hosking

(1986) Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organization in social movements. Human Relations 39(1): 65–79.

17.

Dampson

Havor

Laryea

(2018) Distributed leadership an instrument for school improvement: The study of public senior high schools in Ghana. Journal of Education and e - Learning Research 5(2): 79–85.

18.

Dina

Olowosoke

O (2018) The effect of motivation and job performance on library personnel effectiveness in universities libraries in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2042.

19.

Goleman

(2002) The New Leaders: transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: Little Brown.

20.

Goulding

Walton

(2014) Distributed leadership and library service innovation. Advances in Librarianship: 37–81.

21.

Harris

(2009) Distributed leadership: What we know. In: Harris

(eds) Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

22.

Harris

(2012) Distributed leadership: Implications for the role of the principal. Journal of Management Development 31(1): 7–17.

23.

Harris

(2013) Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(5): 545–554.

24.

Harris

(2014) Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. London: Corwin Press.

25.

Hermann

, 2016. The Principal's Role: Distributed Leadership . Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Old Dominion University.

26.

Igoni

(2020) Administrative practices of principals and teaching staff job performance in secondary schools in Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 11(10): 87–91.

27.

Ikonne

Fajonyomi

(2019) Motivational factors and job performance of librarians in federal university libraries in North-east, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2667.

28.

Jahangiri

Hashempour

Heshmati

, et al. (2020) Predicting the quality of work life of librarians in public libraries based on organizational justice dimensions. Libres 30(2): 68–80.

29.

Jay

(2014) The principals’ leadership style and teachers’ performance in secondary schools in Gabella Regional State. Jimma Ethopia: Institute of Educational and Professional Development Studies Press.

30.

Johnston

(2015) Distributed leadership theory for investigating teacher librarian leadership. School Libraries Worldwide 21(2): 39–57.

31.

Jones

Harvey

(2017) A distributed leadership change process model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39(2): 126–139.

32.

Kanyip

Ogon

(2022) Relationship between principal’s administrative roles and teachers’ job effectiveness in secondary schools in akwa ibom state, Nigeria. IJSSHR 5(12): 5712–5721.

33.

Koohbanani

Zarei

Erfani

(2019) Measuring the librarians’ quality of work life in the Iranian public libraries. Library Management 40(8/9): 532–542.

34.

Koko

Dike

(2022) Teaching staff management and job performance in public senior secondary schools in rivers state. International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research 10(2): 111–118.

35.

Kokubun

(2016) Education, organizational commitment, and rewards within Japanese manufacturing companies in China. Employee Relations: The International Journal 1–32.

36.

Law

Glover

(2003) Educational leadership and learning: practice, policy and research. Buckingham: Buckingham Open University Press.

37.

Leithwood

Mascall

Strauss

(2009) Distributed leadership according to the Evidence. New York: Routledge.

38.

Lizotte

(2013) A qualitative analysis of distributed leadership and teacher perspective of principal leadership effectiveness . Unpublished Doctor of Education thesis. Northeastern University, Boston, M.A.

39.

Mayrowetz

(2008) Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(3): 424–435.

40.

Nwokike

Unegbu

(2019) Evaluating the job performance of librarians in universities in South-East, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2536.

41.

Obinna

Unegbu

(2019) Evaluating the job performance of librarians in universities in South-East, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA622150239&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess = abs&issn=15220222&p = AONE&sw = w&userGroupName = anon%7E22ae2db8&aty = open + web + entry.

42.

Oduro

GKT

(2004) Distributed leadership’ in schools: what English headteachers say about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. University of Manchester.

43.

Ogunbanjo

(2021) Job satisfaction and organisational commitment among library personnel in public tertiary institution Libraries in Ogun State, Nigeria.Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5061.

44.

Okere

Olorunfemi

(2018) Academic library leadership in south west Nigeria and recession: An exploratory study. International Information & Library Review 50(3): 1–10.

45.

Oyelude

Oladele

(2014) The leadership dimension in information and communication technology adoption in African libraries. SAGE Open 4(1): 215824401452207–215824401452209. 1177/2158244014522071

46.

Oyewole

Popoola

(2013) Effect of psycho-social factors on job performance of library personnel in federal colleges of education in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/872.

47.

Pearce

(2004) The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive 18(1): 47–57.

48.

Samancioglu

Baglibel

Erwin

(2020) Effects of distributed leadership on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship. Pedagogical Research 5(2):57–71.

49.

Sol

(2021) Distributed leadership in schools: A brief review of the literature. Cambodian Journal of Educational Research 1(1): 73–80.

50.

Spillane

Diamond

2007) Distributed leadership in practice Colombia university: teachers. New York: College Press.

51.

Spillane

(2006) Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

52.

Spillane

Halverson

Diamond

(2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36(1): 3–34.

53.

Sun Y and Xia H (2018) Research on perceptions of organizational politics and its influence on employee silence. Open Journal of Business and Management 06(02): 250–264.

54.

Tariq

(2022) School principals’ distributed leadership style, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment in a low-income and underdeveloped country. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government 28(4): 1–12.

55.

Ugwu

(2017) Demographic variables and job performance of librarians in university libraries in South East Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1553

56.

Ware

, 2019. Quantitative analysis of distributed leadership in schools using statewide teacher perception surveys . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina.

57.

Wheatley

(1999) Goodbye, Command and Control. Educational Leadership (2000). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 339–347.

58.

Zia

Shah

Naz

(2021) Factors affecting job satisfaction among university faculty. Pakistan Journal of Educational Research 4(4): 1–8.