2011
DOI: 10.1108/03074801111100427
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using workforce structures to enable staff retention and development

Abstract: Purpose-The purpose of this study is to examine the practical context and implications surrounding a workforce review undertaken by the University of Tasmania (UTAS) Library and the measures taken to address the key problems it identified, particularly those relating to the recruitment and retention of new and existing liaison librarians. Design/methodology/approach-Workforce planning methodologies were used to identify the gaps in the Library's projected staffing needs and current situation. Two of the major … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most companies should evaluate their communication methods. Grapevines should not inform teachers (Warren, 2016). School policies and culture affect a person's choice to stay or leave (Jong, 2021).…”
Section: School Staff Change Causesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Most companies should evaluate their communication methods. Grapevines should not inform teachers (Warren, 2016). School policies and culture affect a person's choice to stay or leave (Jong, 2021).…”
Section: School Staff Change Causesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another school may hire dissatisfied teachers (Cranny et al, 2018). Warren (2016) offers ten tips to help companies retain workers. Create an environment that draws teachers who will bond with the school.…”
Section: Improve Team Retention and Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Current literature on academic library structures consists largely of institutional case studies (Andrade & Zaghloul, 2010;Chan & Soong, 2011;Franklin, 2009;Larsen & Riis, 2012;Nesdill, Love & Hunt, 2010;Quinlan & McHarg, 2012;Renfro & Neal, 2012;Shore, 2012;Warren, 2011), with few comprehensive surveys. In North America, ARL last surveyed library organization in 1996, although the organization and staffing of specific elements of research support have been examined more recently, including digital humanities, research data management, and scholarly communication (Bryson, Posner, St. Pierre, & Varner, 2011;Eustis & Kenney, 1996;Fearon, Gunia, Pralle, Lake & Sallans, 2013;Radom, Feltner-Reichert, & Stringer-Stanback, 2012).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%