New Webinar - "Work–Life Balance and Personal Energy Management: Supporting Librarians & Libraries" Inbox

Work–Life Balance and Personal Energy Management: Supporting Librarians and Libraries
A Library 2.0 Masterclass with Loida Garcia-Febo

OVERVIEW: 

Library work today takes place in an environment of constant change, high public demand, hybrid or remote schedules, and ongoing emotional labor. Librarians often juggle multiple responsibilities, manage diverse community needs, and navigate workplace pressures—all while striving to maintain personal well-being. Without practical strategies to manage time, energy, and stress, fatigue and burnout can develop, which affects both individual wellness and overall library effectiveness.

This masterclass provides practical, actionable techniques for managing workload, setting boundaries, and recovering from stress throughout the workday. Participants will learn how to prioritize tasks, identify energy drains, and implement routines that restore focus and maintain resilience. Emphasis is placed on strategies that can be applied immediately, supporting librarians in sustaining productivity, engagement, and long-term well-being.

Through guided reflection, skill-building exercises, and practical tools, participants will explore how personal energy management not only benefits themselves but also strengthens their teams and libraries. By learning to regulate energy, maintain balance, and build resilience, librarians can continue to serve their communities effectively, respond adaptively to changing demands, and thrive professionally in a high-pressure environment.

This 60-minute training is presented by Library 2.0 and hosted by Loida Garcia-Febo. A handout copy of the presentation slides will be available to all who participate.

OUTCOMES:

Participants will:

• Learn techniques to prioritize tasks and manage workload
• Develop strategies to set boundaries and prevent burnout
• Explore stress-recovery practices to restore focus and energy
• Strengthen concentration and personal resilience
• Identify energy drains and ways to replenish energy
• Apply skills to maintain productivity and engagement
• Create a personalized Work–Life Balance and Energy Toolkit

DATE: Thursday, June 4th, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

• $99/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER: 

Click HERE to register and pay. You can pay by credit card. You will receive an email within a day with information on how to attend the webinar live and how you can access the permanent webinar recording. If you are paying for someone else to attend, you'll be prompted to send an email to admin@library20.com with the name and email address of the actual attendee.

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

• Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $75 each for 3+ registrations, $65 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
• The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $299.
• Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $499 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

LOIDA GARCIA-FEBO

Loida Garcia-Febo is a Puerto Rican American librarian and International Library Consultant with 25 years of experience as an expert in library services to diverse populations and human rights. President of the American Library Association 2018-2019. Garcia-Febo is worldwide known for her passion about diversity, communities, sustainability, innovation and digital transformation, library workers, library advocacy, wellness for library workers, and new librarians about which she has taught in 44 countries. In her job, she helps libraries, companies and organizations strategize programs, services and strategies in areas related to these topics and many others. Garcia-Febo has a Bachelors in Business Education, Masters in Library and Information Sciences.

Garcia-Febo has a long history of service with library associations. Highlights include- At IFLA: Governing Board 2013-2017, Co-Founder of IFLA New Professionals, two-term Member/Expert resource person of the Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression Committee of IFLA (FAIFE), two-term member of the Continuing Professional Development and Workplace Learning Section of IFLA (CPDWL). Currently: CPDWL Advisor, Information Coordinator of the Management of Library Associations Section. Currently at ALA: Chair, IRC United Nations Subcommittee, Chair Public Awareness Committee. Recently at ALA: Chair, Status of Women in Librarianship and Chair, ALA United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals Task Force developing a multi-year strategic plan for ALA. Born, raised, and educated in Puerto Rico, Garcia-Febo has advocated for libraries at the United Nations, the European Union Parliament, U.S. Congress, NY State Senate, NY City Hall, and on sidewalks and streets in various states in the U.S.

OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS:

 May 29, 2026

 June 2, 2026

 June 5, 2026

 June 11, 2026

 June 12, 2026

New Workshop: "AI for Archiving"

AI for Archiving
A Library 2.0 / Learning Revolution Workshop with Reed Hepler

OVERVIEW

Archives and special collections face unprecedented challenges and opportunities as artificial intelligence transforms how we preserve, process, and provide access to historical materials. This workshop addresses the practical realities archivists and special collections librarians encounter when integrating AI tools into their workflows—from appraisal and accessioning to metadata creation and public engagement. Participants will examine how AI can support archival functions without compromising the fundamental principles of provenance, authenticity, and contextual integrity that define professional archival practice. The session will explore specific use cases where AI collaboration enhances efficiency and access while maintaining the critical human judgment necessary for ethical stewardship of cultural heritage materials.

The workshop emphasizes objective-centered practices that archivists can implement immediately in their institutions. Participants will learn how to use AI tools to generate preliminary finding aids, create descriptive metadata, analyze collection strengths for appraisal decisions, and develop interpretive materials for exhibits and digital collections. Each application will be examined through the lens of archival ethics and professional standards, ensuring that AI serves as a collaborative tool rather than an autonomous decision-maker.

The session will address concerns about AI-generated hallucinations in historical contexts and demonstrate verification strategies to protect against the distortion of historical narratives. Participants will also explore how AI can support patron services, including enhanced discovery systems and transcription projects, while maintaining the archivist's role as mediator between researchers and primary sources.

By the conclusion of this workshop, participants will possess a framework for evaluating AI feasibility in archival contexts and a toolkit of specific applications they can adapt to their institutional needs. Attendees will leave with conversation templates for common archival tasks, a decision matrix for determining when AI collaboration is appropriate, and strategies for maintaining human-centered practices in AI-assisted workflows. The workshop will also address how archivists can teach patrons to critically evaluate AI-generated historical information, positioning archives professionals as essential guides in an era when historical narratives are increasingly mediated by algorithmic systems. Participants will understand how to leverage AI capabilities while preserving the intellectual work that distinguishes professional archival practice from mere digitization.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: 

• Evaluate the appropriateness of AI tools for specific archival functions (appraisal, arrangement, description, preservation, access) using professional standards and ethical frameworks
• Apply AI collaboration techniques to create metadata records, finding aids, and interpretive materials while maintaining archival principles of provenance and original order
• Implement verification protocols that protect against AI hallucinations and ensure the accuracy of AI-assisted historical research and description
• Design patron-facing services and instruction that help researchers critically evaluate AI-generated historical information and understand the irreplaceable role of archival expertise

The recording and presentation slides will be available to all who register. 

DATE: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026, 2:00 - 3:30 pm US - Eastern Time

COST:

• $129/person - includes live attendance and any-time access to the recording and the presentation slides and receiving a participation certificate. To arrange group discounts (see below), to submit a purchase order, or for any registration difficulties or questions, email admin@library20.com.

TO REGISTER: 

Click HERE to register and pay. You can pay by credit card. You will receive an email within a day with information on how to attend the webinar live and how you can access the permanent webinar recording. If you are paying for someone else to attend, you'll be prompted to send an email to admin@library20.com with the name and email address of the actual attendee.

If you need to be invoiced or pay by check, if you have any trouble registering for a webinar, or if you have any questions, please email admin@library20.com.

NOTE: Please check your spam folder if you don't receive your confirmation email within a day.

SPECIAL GROUP RATES (email admin@library20.com to arrange):

• Multiple individual log-ins and access from the same organization paid together: $99 each for 3+ registrations, $75 each for 5+ registrations. Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.
• The ability to show the webinar (live or recorded) to a group located in the same physical location or in the same virtual meeting from one log-in: $399.
• Large-scale institutional access for viewing with individual login capability: $599 (hosted either at Learning Revolution or in Niche Academy). Unlimited and non-expiring access for those log-ins.

REED C. HEPLER

Reed Hepler is a digital initiatives librarian, instructional designer, copyright agent, artificial intelligence practitioner and consultant, and PhD student at Idaho State University. He earned a Master's Degree in Instructional Design and Educational Technology from Idaho State University in 2025. In 2022, he obtained a Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science, with emphases in Archives Management and Digital Curation from Indiana University. He has worked at nonprofits, corporations, and educational institutions encouraging information literacy and effective education. Combining all of these degrees and experiences, Reed strives to promote ethical librarianship and educational initiatives.

Currently, Reed works as a Digital Initiatives Librarian at a college in Idaho and also has his own consulting firm, heplerconsulting.com. His views and projects can be seen on his LinkedIn page or his blog, CollaborAItion, on Substack. Contact him at reed.hepler@gmail.com for more information.

 

MORE UPCOMING EVENTS:

 

 May 19, 2026

 May 22, 2026

 May 29, 2026

Cognitive Sharpening, or Thinking in Conversation with AI

I've known something about myself for a long time: I tend to think better in conversation than I do alone. Not always, and not for everything. But often, and especially when the thinking matters, I benefit from another mind to think out loud with.

One of my favorite quotes is, "How will I know what I'm thinking until I hear myself say it?"

For example, I read an article or have an idea, and I notice that something in it bothers me, but I can't yet say what. The reaction is real before it's articulate. The work of articulating it is the work of finding out what I actually think--which seems weirdly backward, but happens to me a fair amount. When I'm trying to surface what my mind is actually responding to in something I've read or heard, talking out loud helps me to get there. 

This process is super interesting when the conversation partner is an AI. When I work through an idea with an AI, the LLM brings something unique: the accumulated articulations of everyone who has ever thought about anything adjacent to what I'm thinking now. The conceptual vocabulary. The cross-references. While a human conversational partner usually serves as a sounding board, offering feedback or even pushback, an AI partner offers articulation. 

An example

Last week, I was reading an article about Oklahoma's permanent ban on cell phones in schools, and I had one of those "why does this feel wrong" reactions: I agreed with the outcome for students, but was bothered by the legislation in a way I couldn't fully articulate. So I did what I now do more frequently: I started a conversation with Claude.

I didn't ask for a position, an essay, or an argument. I just started typing my thoughts as I had them: that the bill seemed to presume public schooling was an unquestioned good, that state legislation was replacing parental authority, and that state legislation was also replacing local authority. I noted that it bothered me at layers, and I was trying to organize my thinking.

What came back was a list of layers that named what I was sensing, including some I hadn't fully formed, like the iatrogenic loop in which institutions create the problems they then propose to solve. The conversation then surfaced a sentence I could build on: agreeing with an outcome is not the same as endorsing the mechanism that produced it. I rewrote it, and the AI flagged words that softened the move. I rewrote it again, adding a clause about the institution's role in creating the problem in the first place. By the third pass, I had a couple of sentences that compressed the entire argument into one line:

Agreeing with an outcome is not the same as endorsing the mechanism that produced it. And the agreement disinvites scrutiny of the institutions themselves, of their role in actually creating the problems in the first place, and of the assumptions that have inverted the natural priority of decision-making over children.

Total elapsed time: maybe twenty minutes. Most of that was me deciding, refining, and selecting--or, to be clear, thinking. The kind of thinking that I like to do. The AI didn't write the sentence. I did it with its help. But I almost certainly wouldn't have arrived at that compressed, cleanly articulated structure if I'd been thinking alone.

The mode

This is the experience I want to name, because the prevailing public conversation about AI doesn't yet have language for it. I get that it seems like a shortcut, but we wouldn't call it that if we were talking to a human. And this is like talking to a really well-read, articulate human.

The two failure modes everyone talks about with regard to using LLMs are real, and I've written about both. Cognitive offloading is when we hand a tool a task that requires no thinking and gain back the time (like using a calculator for arithmetic or a GPS for navigation). The trade-off is not without costs (mathematical capability or directional orientation), but generally seen as worth it. Cognitive surrender is when we hand a tool a task that should better be our thinking, and then accept whatever it returns as our own. The trade-off there is potentially catastrophic; the loss is the thinking itself. A student who asks an AI to write the essay has surrendered the thinking that the essay was supposed to produce in them.

But I'm identifying a third mode that the discourse doesn't really touch yet, one that affects most for people who think carefully as a part of their job or way of being. I'm proposing to call it cognitive sharpening. 

Cognitive sharpening is neither offloading nor surrender. The thinking remains ours; the AI is the partner that helps us find what we are starting to articulate and want to pursue more fully. We bring the seed thought, the felt reaction, or the editorial judgment. The AI brings the conceptual range, the fast articulation, and the cross-domain retrieval. Like a good conversation with a human, we are involved in a back-and-forth refining process. The output is ours because the thinking was ours, but it arrives sooner, sharper, and more precise than it would have if we had been doing the thinking alone.

What makes this mode newly possible isn't AI as a writing tool. It's AI as a thinking partner available at speed and detail. Conversation has always been generative for thinkers. What often goes missing isn't the value of conversational thinking; it is a partner who is always present who can keep up with every thread, retrieve the relevant articulation in seconds, and incur no social cost for half-formed thoughts. Language was already abundant before LLMs. What just became abundant is a kind of cognitive companionship. Sharpening is the mode that abundance enables.

With cognitive sharpening rather than cognitive surrender, the editorial authority never leaves us. In the conversation I just described, the AI offered several layers, and I picked one as the through-line. The AI offered two sentence variants, and I drew on elements from both. The AI noted that the word 'inverted' was stronger than 'reversed,' which I had already kept for the same reason. At every junction, I was the one deciding what cohered with what I was actually trying to say. It didn't feel like surrender but like sharpening.

Three things

The first is that cognitive sharpening can really only reward people who already know how to think and don't want to lose that. It's not a substitute but an accelerant. A person who doesn't want to think won't be sharpened; they'll be replaced by it, or at least produce work indistinguishable from what the AI alone would have produced. The seed has to be ours. The selecting has to be ours. The voice has to be ours. The AI cannot supply any of those things, and the moment a person tries to make it supply them, the mode flips from sharpening to surrender.

The second is that this mode probably rewards a particular kind of thinker — the verbal thinker, the conversational thinker, the person who works ideas out by talking them through. I've always been one of those. My entire workflow is mobile and dictated; I listen to my own drafts read aloud as part of editing; I refine ideas by saying them out loud. For me, AI conversation is a native fit because it's an extension of how I already think. For a person whose native mode is solitary writing in a notebook, AI conversation might feel like an interruption rather than an amplification. I suspect the effect on cognition isn't uniform and depends on what kind of cognition you were already doing.

The third is that most public discourse oscillates between two poles: AI will replace human thinking (the surrender frame), or AI is just another tool (the offloading frame). Neither captures AI as a dialogic partner.

Naming

I don't think this mode is for everyone, and I don't think it should be. I do think it deserves a name, because what it makes possible for some of us is among the most significant cognitive shifts in human history. The conversation about AI should not present the only choices as surrender or indifference.

The thinking is still mine, and the conversation sharpens it.

Productive Alignment: Understanding Human Wisdom

A couple of months ago, I ran an experiment with large language models. The question I was holding was not a modest one. Will and Ariel Durant had spent decades reading history and produced The Lessons of History, which distilled what they had seen into patterns that no single book or single life had been able to surface. The books Dataclysm and Everybody Lies had done something similar at the scale of internet behavior, surfacing patterns from search and social data that contradicted what humans publicly said about themselves. I wanted to know whether large language models, which have absorbed a substantial fraction of the human written record, might be able to surface findings of comparable significance. Patterns about the human condition that had not been fully seen or articulated before because no one had been able to see, inside a single discipline or a single life, what the full record might reveal when absorbed at once.

The first round of inquiry produced a finding I want to describe carefully. I asked several major language models, running them cold without prior exposure to my thinking, to analyze the human-written record for its deepest consistent patterns. The responses converged. Humans run idealized narratives about themselves and their institutions alongside operative functions that diverge from those narratives, with consistency and within identifiable themes. The narratives serve identity, status, and social coordination. The operative functions serve what is actually selected in the relevant environment.

What the convergence establishes needs to be stated precisely. The models are not independent witnesses; they share a significant overlap in their training data. And the pattern they returned is not hidden. Whole traditions of ideology critique, evolutionary psychology, and behavioral economics have identified parts of it. What the convergence does establish is that the gap between idealized narrative and operative function recurs across the written record with such consistency that multiple independent compressions of that record surface it as a primary structural feature. The pattern is consensus-level visible in the human archive. No single tradition states it in a fully integrated form, but the integrated statement is what falls out when the archive is compressed and queried at this scale.

This mapped to a framework I had been developing about the human mind, what I have been calling our separated mind. The framework proposes that the mind is architecturally divided into layers that lack direct access to each other, with conscious narratives running alongside subconscious functions as a structural feature. The LLM finding was the same pattern at the civilizational scale. Fractal representation. The same dynamic at individual, institutional, and civilizational levels. The integration is the move that is new. Earlier thinkers identified the gap within their own domains. What I am proposing is that it is one architecture manifesting at every scale, and that the closures of the gap are where durable human achievement lives.

And something kept nagging at me: this one finding on narration vs. operation is probably only one of many lessons we will learn from this incredible achievement in LLM architecture. 

So I asked Claude to give me a prompt I could run against itself and the other LLMs, using incognito or private mode in all of them to avoid contamination from my previous thinking and chats. What other patterns in the corpus might there be unrelated to my original framing of discovering the unspoken?

The responses returned a significant and wide field of candidates. But one that emerged as particularly compelling was the possibility of an alphabet, so to speak, of recurrent structural issues or problems that appear consistently or even with universal structure across unrelated human domains--and where mature solutions have been concentrated in particular spheres but not in others. Meaning that the LLMs suggested human spheres have a common set of problems, and that sometimes good solutions appear in certain domains but aren't transferred into other domains where they would seem likely to be equally beneficial.

The list of the solution dynamics read like Greek to me: "Exploration versus exploitation under uncertainty. Boundary-making and modularity. Compression with selective fidelity. Signaling and trust verification. Coordination without central authority. Robustness versus efficiency. Principal-agent alignment." Plus a handful of others. Each was represented as a structural problem that recurred across domains as different as ecology and software engineering, or cryptography and child-rearing. Mature solutions had emerged in particular spheres and had often not been transferred to other spheres that faced the same problem "in different costume."

I had trouble with the vocabulary, but when I asked for specific examples, something fascinating became evident. The solutions were a catalog of places where humans had achieved productive alignment between idealized narrative and operative function. 

My first big LLM inquiry had surfaced the gap between narrative and operative function as the dominant condition. This second LLM inquiry had surfaced the exceptional cases where the gap had been closed, and those exceptional cases were exactly what had produced what we now recognize as durable human achievement. Every mature solution on the list had emerged in a domain where some discipline or some pressure had forced practitioners to look at what was actually happening and design around that reality rather than against it. Engineering had it because bridges fall down if the alignment breaks. Cryptography had it because adversaries are real. Adaptive clinical trials had it because patients die. 

The mature solutions survived and propagated for the very reason that they had been built on accurate perception rather than on comfortable narrative. Where an idealized narrative runs as cover for extractive operative functions, there is not enough value in the truth to overcome the narrative's value to a particular group or power interests. But where the operative function is so important or valuable as to require an accurate narrative, outcomes we would describe as valuable occur, what we would call wisdom.

The American founding is one of the cleanest historical examples available. The Founders, particularly Madison and Hamilton, were doing this alignment work consciously. The Federalist Papers are full of passages that read as "operative function analysis." Men are not angels. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected to the constitutional rights of the place. The narrative of humane governance was preserved, but the operative function of human nature was given equal weight in the design. Separation of powers is a case of operative function being recognized and channeled. Checks and balances are the case of operative function being harnessed against itself. The Constitution does not assume virtue. Rather, it assumes ambition and self-interest and the desire for power, and it builds structures that use those drives to constrain each other while the narrative aims the whole at humane outcomes. The durability of the system, even and especially given its imperfections, is empirical confirmation that the alignment did at least some of the work it was designed to do.

I am calling this productive alignment because it appears to be one of the key factors in when human systems are effective. Bridging the narrative with the function. Letting the narrative aim the system and letting the operative function be honestly seen so that structures can be designed around what humans actually do. This requires the willingness to see actual realities of behavior and motivation and to design accordingly.

It turns out I have been doing this work in a smaller form for years in an exercise I call the Conditions of Learning. I ask a room of educators to reflect on one of their best learning experiences, inside or outside of school, and to share it with the person sitting next to them. Then I ask the group to come together and to tell some of the stories. Then I ask the group to build a list of the conditions that led to those experiences. The list each group creates is representative of their unique experiences, but it is almost always the same exact list for every group: someone took a real interest in me, someone trusted me, someone challenged me, someone understood me, and someone took time with me. Each group recognizes together that the conditions for real learning differ from the institutional narratives of schooling (curricular alignment, testing, grading, etc.). The participants are articulating how learning actually happens beneath the idealized narrative schools present. 

Once this kind of gap is visible, design can follow. That is productive alignment work at the scale of a single facilitated conversation. The framework now suggests that the same kind of work can be done at the scale of institutions, professions, and entire systems, by recognizing that our separated minds naturally build separated systems, and that concrete work can be done to bring them into productive alignment when the will exists to do so.

If I'm right, the human record, read across its full scope, reveals a set of meta-skills that precede success in human endeavor. And these meta-skills appear to be methodologies of productive alignment between narrative and operative function. The places humans achieved this alignment are the places that produced what we now recognize as worth teaching, structures worth preserving, and methods worth extending. The alignment work itself, performed at whatever scale, is the meta-skill that precedes the achievements we recognize as wisdom. 

Survey Results: What Is It Like to Work in a Library Right Now? (April/May 2026 Survey of the Library 2.0 Community)

Executive Summary

Between February and May 2026, 1,521 library workers completed an anonymous survey about what working in a library is actually like at this moment. They left 1,754 free-text comments alongside their answers. Respondents were from the Library 2.0 email list and were predominantly from public libraries; the majority were in frontline public service roles, and roughly 7 in 10 had more than a decade of library experience.

The headline finding is that stretched institutions are held together by people. The single most-agreed-with statement in the entire survey (chosen by 69% of respondents) is that libraries are expected to provide services that go well beyond their actual resources and staffing. More than half (55%) say they are often emotionally drained by the end of the workday. Nearly half (48%) say their library is not adequately staffed. Just over four in ten (44%) say they have personally experienced verbal, sexual, racial, or other harassment from patrons. More than a third (36%) say they regularly handle patron mental-health crises, substance-use situations, or homelessness.

Set against those structural pressures are real and consistent strengths. Eighty-four percent of respondents say their colleagues support each other in handling difficult situations, by a wide margin the survey's strongest item. Three-quarters say they feel physically safe at work; another three-quarters plan to stay in the library profession for the foreseeable future; and 69% plan to stay in their current position. Roughly two-thirds say leadership takes safety concerns seriously when raised. The safety data is likely skewed in a positive direction by the Library 2.0 audience's access to the Safe Library webinar series by Dr. Steve Albrecht.

---

Part 1 — Who Answered the Survey

Which best describes your library?

Response	Count	Share
Public	1,052	69.3%
Academic (college/university)	317	20.9%
School (K–12)	84	5.5%
Special (medical, corporate, government, law, etc.)	50	3.3%
Other	15	1.0%
Total answered	1,518	100%

Which best describes your role?

Response	Count	Share
Frontline public service (reference, circulation, programming)	696	45.9%
Supervisor / department head	285	18.8%
Director / administration	267	17.6%
Technical/support services (cataloging, IT, acquisitions)	169	11.1%
Other	100	6.6%
Total answered	1,517	100%

How many years have you worked in libraries?

Response	Count	Share
Under 3	84	5.5%
3–10	389	25.6%
11–20	490	32.2%
21–30	370	24.3%
More than 30	187	12.3%
Total answered	1,520	100%

---

Part 2 — Safety, Training, and Leadership Response

I feel physically safe in my library workplace.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	24	1.6%
2 — Disagree	89	5.9%
3 — Neutral	253	16.7%
4 — Agree	615	40.5%
5 — Strongly agree	536	35.3%
Total answered	1,517	100%

I have received adequate training to handle safety and behavioral incidents when they occur.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	104	6.9%
2 — Disagree	214	14.1%
3 — Neutral	441	29.1%
4 — Agree	499	32.9%
5 — Strongly agree	260	17.1%
Total answered	1,518	100%

Leadership at my library takes staff safety concerns seriously when they are raised.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	77	5.1%
2 — Disagree	159	10.6%
3 — Neutral	244	16.2%
4 — Agree	429	28.5%
5 — Strongly agree	597	39.6%
Total answered	1,506	100%

---

Part 3 — What the Work Actually Involves

I regularly handle situations involving patrons experiencing mental health crises, substance use, or homelessness.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	394	26.0%
2 — Disagree	324	21.4%
3 — Neutral	250	16.5%
4 — Agree	260	17.2%
5 — Strongly agree	286	18.9%
Total answered	1,514	100%

I have experienced harassment — verbal, sexual, racial, or other — from patrons in the course of my work.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	338	22.4%
2 — Disagree	274	18.1%
3 — Neutral	237	15.7%
4 — Agree	333	22.0%
5 — Strongly agree	329	21.8%
Total answered	1,511	100%

The work I actually do on a typical day matches what I thought library work would be when I entered the profession.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	183	12.1%
2 — Disagree	345	22.7%
3 — Neutral	445	29.3%
4 — Agree	379	25.0%
5 — Strongly agree	166	10.9%
Total answered	1,518	100%

My library is expected to provide services that go well beyond its actual resources and staffing.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	67	4.4%
2 — Disagree	166	10.9%
3 — Neutral	244	16.1%
4 — Agree	471	31.1%
5 — Strongly agree	568	37.5%
Total answered	1,516	100%

---

Part 4 — Burnout, Support, and Recovery

I often feel emotionally drained by the end of my workday.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	123	8.1%
2 — Disagree	233	15.4%
3 — Neutral	331	21.9%
4 — Agree	413	27.3%
5 — Strongly agree	412	27.2%
Total answered	1,512	100%

I have access to meaningful support — peer, professional, or organizational — for the emotional toll of my work.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	141	9.3%
2 — Disagree	297	19.6%
3 — Neutral	444	29.2%
4 — Agree	427	28.1%
5 — Strongly agree	210	13.8%
Total answered	1,519	100%

I am able to recover and disconnect from work between shifts well enough to sustain this work over time.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	102	6.7%
2 — Disagree	232	15.3%
3 — Neutral	384	25.3%
4 — Agree	486	32.0%
5 — Strongly agree	314	20.7%
Total answered	1,518	100%

---

Part 5 — Supervision, Peers, and Structural Conditions

My direct supervisor understands the realities of my work and supports me effectively.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	150	9.9%
2 — Disagree	170	11.2%
3 — Neutral	259	17.1%
4 — Agree	376	24.8%
5 — Strongly agree	559	36.9%
Total answered	1,514	100%

My colleagues and I support each other in handling difficult situations.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	23	1.5%
2 — Disagree	44	2.9%
3 — Neutral	170	11.2%
4 — Agree	507	33.5%
5 — Strongly agree	768	50.8%
Total answered	1,512	100%

My library is adequately staffed for the work we are expected to do.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	327	21.6%
2 — Disagree	400	26.5%
3 — Neutral	335	22.2%
4 — Agree	309	20.4%
5 — Strongly agree	141	9.3%
Total answered	1,512	100%

The compensation I receive is appropriate for the work I am actually doing.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	299	19.7%
2 — Disagree	332	21.9%
3 — Neutral	313	20.7%
4 — Agree	384	25.3%
5 — Strongly agree	187	12.3%
Total answered	1,515	100%

I feel genuinely valued and recognized for the contributions I make.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	163	10.8%
2 — Disagree	240	15.8%
3 — Neutral	372	24.5%
4 — Agree	478	31.5%
5 — Strongly agree	263	17.3%
Total answered	1,516	100%

---

Part 6 — Institutional Voice and External Pressures

Q19. My library's administration accurately represents to the public, funders, and elected officials what frontline library work actually involves.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	241	16.1%
2 — Disagree	286	19.1%
3 — Neutral	425	28.4%
4 — Agree	350	23.4%
5 — Strongly agree	196	13.1%
Total answered	1,498	100%

Book challenges, content protests, or First Amendment "auditor" activity have affected me or my library in ways that have made the work harder.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	341	22.6%
2 — Disagree	396	26.2%
3 — Neutral	374	24.8%
4 — Agree	261	17.3%
5 — Strongly agree	138	9.1%
Total answered	1,510	100%

---

Part 7 — Morale and Intent to Stay

Overall, my morale in my current position is high.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	160	10.6%
2 — Disagree	226	14.9%
3 — Neutral	477	31.5%
4 — Agree	459	30.3%
5 — Strongly agree	194	12.8%
Total answered	1,516	100%

I plan to stay in my current library position for the foreseeable future.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	90	5.9%
2 — Disagree	114	7.5%
3 — Neutral	267	17.6%
4 — Agree	480	31.7%
5 — Strongly agree	562	37.1%
Total answered	1,513	100%

I plan to stay in the library profession for the foreseeable future.

Response	Count	Share
1 — Strongly disagree	67	4.4%
2 — Disagree	87	5.7%
3 — Neutral	230	15.2%
4 — Agree	440	29.1%
5 — Strongly agree	690	45.6%
Total answered	1,514	100%

---

Part 8 — What Library Workers Wrote in Their Own Words

After the closed-response items, respondents were given two open-ended prompts. Together, they generated 1,754 free-text comments. The two summaries below were generated by AI (Manus.ai) and identify the recurring themes.

Open-ended Question 1 — "Please complete: 'The library workplace would be a better place to work if...'"

Comments analyzed: 1,222

Respondents overwhelmingly emphasized the need for better funding and adequate staffing as foundational improvements to make library workplaces better. Many highlighted that current staffing levels are insufficient to meet the demands placed on library workers, leading to burnout and compromised service quality. Compensation that reflects the education, responsibilities, and emotional labor involved was a consistent concern, alongside calls for management and administration to be more supportive, understanding, and engaged with frontline realities. Additionally, respondents noted the increasing expectation for libraries to fill social service gaps without proper resources or training, underscoring a desire for clearer role boundaries and more external support. Improved communication, transparency, and respect from leadership and the broader community were also frequently mentioned as critical to a healthier work environment.

Adequate Funding and Staffing — mentioned by a majority of respondents.
Respondents consistently called for increased and stable funding to support adequate staffing levels that align with the workload and community needs. Insufficient staffing was linked to burnout, inability to provide quality service, and excessive workload.

Fair Compensation and Recognition — a major recurring theme.
Many respondents expressed that pay does not reflect the level of education, responsibilities, or emotional labor required in library work. They called for salaries that are livable, equitable, and commensurate with their professional qualifications and workload.

Supportive and Knowledgeable Leadership — a major recurring theme.
Respondents emphasized the importance of management and administration that understand library work, listen to staff concerns, and provide meaningful support. Leadership that has library experience or regularly engages with frontline work was seen as vital to improving workplace conditions.

Clear Role Boundaries and Reduced Mission Creep — a notable secondary theme.
Many respondents noted that libraries are increasingly expected to provide social services and address community issues such as homelessness and mental health without adequate training or resources. They expressed a desire for clearer boundaries so that library workers can focus on their professional roles.

Improved Communication and Transparency — a notable secondary theme.
Respondents highlighted the need for better communication between administration and frontline staff, as well as greater transparency in decision-making processes. Improved dialogue was seen as essential to addressing workload, morale, and policy concerns.

Safety and Security — a smaller but consistent theme.
Concerns about personal safety and security were frequently mentioned, with calls for more security personnel, better training, and support to handle difficult or unsafe situations involving patrons.

Public Understanding and Valuing of Libraries — a notable secondary theme.
Respondents expressed frustration that the public and decision-makers often misunderstand or undervalue the scope and complexity of library work. They called for greater public awareness and appreciation of the professional roles and community impact of libraries.

Workplace Culture and Respect — a smaller but consistent theme.
Respondents desired a workplace culture marked by mutual respect, professionalism, and equitable treatment among staff. Issues such as favoritism, micro-management, and lack of respect were cited as detrimental to morale.

Professional Development and Training — a smaller but consistent theme.
Respondents noted the importance of ongoing training and professional development opportunities, including training in de-escalation, social services, and technology, to better equip staff for the evolving demands of library work.

Where respondents diverged. While most respondents agreed on the need for better funding, staffing, and support, some expressed concerns about political and ideological divisions within library workplaces, including calls for more political neutrality and balanced viewpoints. Additionally, a few respondents noted tensions around unionization and management approaches, reflecting differing perspectives on workplace governance and staff-management relations.

Open-ended Field 2 — "Anything else you'd like us to know?"

Comments analyzed: 532

Respondents to the survey expressed a complex array of experiences reflecting both deep dedication to their work and substantial challenges in the profession. Many highlighted the increasing demands placed on library workers, including safety concerns, emotional strain, and role expansion into social services beyond traditional library tasks. Funding shortages, understaffing, and administrative disconnect further exacerbate these issues, leading to widespread burnout and low morale. Despite these obstacles, many respondents conveyed a strong commitment to their communities and the essential societal role of libraries. The rise of political pressures, censorship, and rapid technological changes, including those related to AI, also emerged as significant concerns affecting the profession's future.

Emotional Toll and Burnout — mentioned by a majority of respondents.
Library workers frequently described their jobs as emotionally draining due to exposure to societal issues such as homelessness, mental health crises, and harassment. Burnout from high workloads and the expansion of duties has become a pervasive challenge.

Funding and Staffing Challenges — a major recurring theme.
Many respondents pointed to chronic funding shortages and understaffing, which limit their capacity to serve communities effectively and safely. Budget constraints impact everything from security to materials and staff compensation.

Changing Roles and Mission Creep — a major recurring theme.
Respondents noted significant changes in the expectations placed on library workers, requiring them to act as social workers, mental health first responders, and technology support, often without adequate training or resources.

Safety Concerns and Hostile Environments — a notable secondary theme.
Concerns about personal safety and dealing with challenging or violent patrons were common. Some respondents described experiences with harassment and threats, while others discussed the lack of sufficient security measures.

Leadership and Administrative Disconnect — a notable secondary theme.
Several respondents expressed frustration with leadership perceived as out of touch, lacking support, or prioritizing image over staff needs. Issues of favoritism and lack of meaningful communication were also raised.

Impact of Political Climate and Censorship — a notable secondary theme.
Respondents noted increased political pressures affecting libraries, including challenges over materials, programming restrictions, and attacks on intellectual freedom, which contribute to stress and affect service delivery.

Commitment and Passion for the Profession — a smaller but consistent theme.
Despite difficulties, many respondents conveyed strong dedication to library work and appreciation for the meaningful impact they have on their communities.

Challenges with AI and Technology — a smaller but consistent theme.
Several respondents discussed the complexities introduced by AI and rapid technological change, including the need for staff training and concerns about job security.

Workplace Culture and Staff Relations — a smaller but consistent theme.
Issues, including favoritism, bullying, and internal staff conflicts, were highlighted as sources of stress that affect morale and job satisfaction.

Where respondents diverged. While most respondents agree on the challenging nature of library work and the need for better support and resources, some express pride and love for their roles even amid difficulties. There is variation in experiences with leadership and workplace culture, from highly supportive environments to toxic atmospheres. Additionally, views diverge on the impact of AI and technology, with some expressing hope and others concern for job security and adaptation struggles.

---

Closing Synthesis

Read together, the closed-response items and the free-text comments describe a library workforce in a particular kind of trouble. The trouble is not disengagement: three-quarters of respondents plan to stay in the profession, 84% feel supported by their colleagues, and two-thirds feel heard by leadership when they raise safety concerns. Library workers, on this evidence, still believe in the work.

The trouble is a structural mismatch. The single largest verdict in the survey is that institutions are being asked to do more than their resources permit — a point on which 69% of respondents agree, 15% disagree, and a majority of those who agree do so strongly. Mission expansion into mental-health response, social-service triage, and de facto day shelter shows up across the Likert items and dominates the open-ended comments. Half the workforce reports inadequate staffing; nearly half reports inadequate pay; more than half reports feeling emotionally drained by the end of the day; nearly half reports patron-driven harassment; only half feels adequately trained to manage the safety incidents they are now expected to manage.

What is keeping the work standing, on the evidence here, is the people doing it — their relationships with each other, their commitment to the profession, and, in many cases, the basic seriousness of their immediate supervisors. Whether that is a sustainable arrangement is the question this survey raises, but it cannot, by itself, answer.