Leadership Perspectives on Emotional Labour in Large Urban Public Libraries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demands of public library work have intensified, placing strain on both frontline staff and the leaders responsible for supporting them. Emotional labour—the regulation of emotions required in daily work—remains underexplored in library and information sciences research, particularly regarding how leaders manage their own emotional labour while supporting frontline staff. This study examines what library leaders know about emotional labour and how that knowledge influences their leadership and support for staff. Interviews with 27 leaders from three large Canadian public libraries reveal that leaders play a crucial role as middle managers, balancing staff well-being with organizational expectations. As authentic leaders, they strive to build meaningful emotional connections with their teams—often successfully—but at a personal cost. Despite their dedication, they have limited power to address systemic challenges such as precarious work, chronic understaffing, and the increasing pressure of societal issues, all of which intensify emotional labour demands. Addressing these challenges requires a collective effort. Libraries must adopt a proactive approach to emotional labour, emphasizing leadership development, shared responsibility, and comprehensive organizational support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it