Finding the Space Between: Leading for Cultural Safety in Australian Public Libraries

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews the research literature in Library and Information Sciences in Australia as well as related disciplines in Australia and internationally with the purpose of identifying leadership approaches best suited for developing and supporting culturally safe libraries in Australia. The paper identifies a lack of debate within Australian Library and Information Sciences in respect to cultural safety and leadership. It looks to research conducted into leadership approaches in related disciplines in Australia and internationally and explores several leadership approaches. It concludes that the intercultural leadership approach, an approach developed with Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory provides Australian library leaders with the most authoritative approach to leadership when embarking on developing culturally safe libraries. Implications for practice also suggest that increasing discussion and research into leadership approaches for Australian libraries is fundamental to growing the capacity of the Australian library sector to conceptualise and discuss leadership strategically and with purpose.

KEYWORDS:

• Leadership
• cultural safety
• indigenous issues
• leadership approaches
• intercultural leadership
• libraries

Background

In 2017 I enrolled in a Masters of Leadership through Monash University with the objective of uncovering and understanding leadership. Leadership being often quoted but a usually misunderstood concept especially by me. Through that study which is now concluded I have come to a much greater appreciation of the complexity and theory which lies behind leadership.

Concurrently whilst I studied, in my role as Assistant Director Library Sector Services at Library & Archives NT I participated in NSLA’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Learning Project whereby accredited online cultural training is being provided to all staff across NSLA libraries (National and State Libraries Australia, 2019). Through this process as a non-Aboriginal Australian, I came to reflect on my own limited cultural competence and awareness. I began to realise the inherent moral importance of cultural safety in libraries. So naturally, these ideas of leadership and cultural safety merged for me and I chose to explore leading for cultural safety as my final research area. The research from that paper is shared below.

Introduction

In 2018, the National and State Libraries of Australia (NSLA) and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) both elected to intensify their focus on Indigenous issues in Australian libraries. This is evidenced through NSLA’s support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Learning Project (National and State Libraries Australia, 2019). In addition, in 2018 ALIA organised several Leadership and Innovation Forums focusing on Indigenous matters (ALIA, 2018b). This increase in focus on Indigenous issues is directly related to the concept of creating culturally safe libraries and organisations. I also acknowledge that much of the debate and engagement around cultural safety is being nurtured and progressed through the activism of Aboriginal Australian professionals within the Library and Information Sciences sector.

Cultural safety in Australian public libraries will be a growing requirement for library managers and leaders. I suggest that for cultural safety to be more than a tokenistic or checklist exercise, cultural safety must be framed as a leadership issue.

Inquiry Question

What can Australian public library leaders learn from research and practice in related disciplines such as remote education and Library and Information Sciences in Australia and internationally about leadership approaches best suited for developing and supporting culturally safe public libraries for Aboriginal Australians?

This paper is divided into two linking sections; A Call to Arms and Seeking Answers. A Call to Arms is an exploration of the warrant for pursuing cultural safety in public libraries as a leadership issue. Seeking Answers presents research from related disciplines in three themed areas; (i) Cross-Cultural Leadership (ii) Social Justice Leadership in Education (iii) Australian Remote Education Leadership. A discussion of this research leads the reader to a final recommendation for an identified leadership approach for leading for cultural safety in Australian public libraries.

Inquiry Approach

The scope of this paper explores leading for cultural safety with respect to the Australian Library and Information Sciences. Research is sourced from multiple fields, including an overview of the literature in the Australian Library and Information Sciences in respect to Indigenous issues and leadership. Leadership studies are reviewed from a global perspective, social justice perspectives in education and Australian remote education leadership approaches. The Australian Library and Information Sciences is a values-based discipline situated within the government sector. The education discipline, as a values-based discipline is also situated within the government sector and provides a source of transferable knowledge. Research from countries with a similar history of colonisation to Australia was examined, such as the United States and Singapore.

Leadership and cultural discourses in both Australia and the United States use terms as varied as multiculturalism, diversity, intercultural competence, intercultural leadership, social justice leadership, ethical or moral leadership, cross-cultural leadership, cross-cultural competence, cultural capability and cultural safety. Terms utilised for discussing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders or First Nations peoples in countries outside Australia is varied and often covered under multiculturalism, diversity or Indigenous issues.

Methodology

The methodology I have utilised to review and recommend a nuanced leadership approach for cultural safety represents a conceptual model based on an analysis of existing leadership approaches and case studies. I have based my analysis of the literature on two argument pattern types; Parallel Case and Authority. Parallel Case makes the argument that where two cases are similar, what is true for the initial case must also be true for the second or comparison case (Machi & McEvoy, 2016). In relation to my inquiry question, I theorise that where no research exists in Australian Library and Information Sciences, transferrable knowledge must be able to be found in related fields of study such as education. In addition to the Parallel Case logic, I am also using the logic of Authority whereby if the expert in an area finds something to be valid then it must be true (Machi & McEvoy, 2016). In this case, I theorise that as my inquiry question relates directly to Aboriginal Australians, then Aboriginal Australians with cultural authority are the true experts and I hold research conducted with Aboriginal Australians as having the greatest authority.

The constraints of my inquiry relate to the lack of discourse and intellectual debate in Australian Library and Information Sciences in relation to both leadership, and issues relating to Aboriginal Australians. Leadership is generally covered in broad terms with studies on succession planning as discussed in Davis and Macauley (2011) and Mccarten (2011). Cultural safety in Australian libraries is discussed in Blackburn (2014) and Thorpe and Byrne (2016) but the issue is framed as community engagement or Indigenous issues rather than leadership. This lack of debate on both issues, as separate and related issues, frames my research methodology and also identifies areas for further research.

A Call to Arms

The Importance of Cultural Safety in Australian Public Libraries

The raison d’etre for Australian public libraries is one of inclusivity, of upholding democratic ideals, of ensuring all Australians have access to literature, learning and digital infrastructure (ALIA, 2018a). These core values are being challenged by the literature in Australian Library and Information Sciences with respect to cultural safety for Aboriginal Australians. Thorpe (2019) and Pawley (2006) argue that libraries are tools for colonisation. Libraries and other collecting institutions hold evidence of Australia’s history of colonisation but also hold evidence of colonial narratives dominated by white colonialists (Thorpe, 2019).

Australian public libraries today continue to use the Dewey Decimal System as a method of information organisation which is a direct reflection of a white, Eurocentric and Christian monocultural worldview. Maddison (2019) refers to this approach as the colonial fantasy and argues that many white Australians believe that colonialism ended years ago with no further action required. Thorpe (2019), an Indigenous library professional argues that within the global library sector there is increasingly widespread recognition that libraries must acknowledge and work towards decolonising libraries with a view to creating culturally safe places. Cultural safety is described by the National and State Libraries Australia as;

Providing an onsite and online environment that is emotionally safe for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and clients; where people feel supported, can express themselves and their culture, history and identity with dignity and pride. An environment which fosters shared respect, meaning, knowledge and an opportunity to learn together without judgement (National and State Libraries Australia, 2019).

The path towards creating and supporting culturally safe public libraries as both places and organisations are however more complicated than following a simple checklist. Structural power inequalities lie at the heart of colonialisation and as argued by Marika, Yunupingu, Marika-Mununggiritj, and Muller (2009) these structural inequalities are embedded in formal governance structures. All Australian public libraries exist within Australian government frameworks, be they Local, State or Federal Government, and as a result embedded power inequalities will exist in organisational structures. Ospina and Foldy (2009) stress that power and leadership are unavoidably entangled, whereby power is a resource that affords privilege to some at the expense of others. This is evident in libraries where the mainstream white eurocentric worldview often dominates the organisation and naming conventions of library collections, spaces and practices. These underlying governance structures exist at the expense of Aboriginal Australians and other marginalised members of society.

The ability to insert or include Aboriginal Australian perspectives into this western paradigm will not occur without strong and genuine leadership. Thorpe (2019) argue that non-Indigenous leadership often contributes to a lack of progress in developing culturally safe organisations due to non-Indigenous leadership not prioritising or understanding Indigenous issues. The link between leadership and power makes any attempt at developing and supporting a culturally safe library without leadership, a tokenistic exercise. Leadership must be the key to developing a pathway for cultural safety in Australian public libraries. This does not mean that leadership cannot be from the ground up, it most definitively should. However, only those in senior positions hold the power required to make strategic structural change. Yet there must be a considered strategic leadership approach. The unequal power relationship between Australian public libraries and Aboriginal Australian Knowledge Systems demands a nuanced approach to leadership.

Cultural safety is complex. It is intertwined with historical colonisation practices which are supported by structural power inequalities. Power is in turn linked to leadership.

Indigenous Issues in the Australian Library and Information Sciences

A search of Australian Library and Information Sciences literature about Indigenous issues, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples, cultural safety, or cultural competence provided few answers. There is no intellectually robust debate occurring within the sector beyond a handful of papers (Blackburn (2014), Thorpe (2019), Thorpe and Byrne (2016)).

Thorpe and Byrne (2016) describe the work conducted by the State Library of NSW to adopt the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protocols for Libraries (Thorpe & Byrne, 2016). Whilst the work described by Thorpe and Byrne (2016) shows tremendous movement forward in adopting the ATSILIRN protocols, the paper has not been framed as a leadership initiative despite both authors being in leadership positions. Their paper is a description of work conducted. Some limitations are mentioned but the paper does not represent a robust discussion of developing a culturally safe library.

Cultural safety is framed as a community engagement issue as detailed in Blackburn (2014), who provides a description of a community engagement project which LibrariesACT conducted from 2011 to 2013. Blackburn reflects on the work completed to adopt the ATSILIRN protocols and the development of ongoing relationships with the local Ngunnawal people. Again this paper is not framed as a leadership issue but rather as a research in practice paper.

Blackburn contributes further to the discussion in 2015 with a paper reflecting on the inclusion of cultural competence specific training in US Library Education Frameworks and whether the same could be applied in Australia. Blackburn notes the lack of discourse in the Australian Library and Information Sciences regarding cultural competence, turning to the US for transferrable learnings (Blackburn, 2015).

In contrast to the limited discourse on Indigenous issues in Australian Library and Information Sciences, there is a long and historical debate within Library and Information Sciences worldwide regarding the subjective and colonising nature of catalogues, classification systems and naming conventions (Cherry and Mukunda (2015), Duarte and Belarde-Lewis (2015) Olson (1998), Olson (2001)). These debates do not however transition or evolve further to debate cultural safety in a broader sense within public libraries. The argument to decolonise and indigenise libraries in Australia is only argued by Thorpe (2019) with no other papers prior to this date debating cultural safety within this framework. Overall, these papers demonstrate that developing culturally safe libraries is not a robust topic of debate within the Australian Library and Information Sciences. In response to my inquiry question, further research was then sought to identify leadership literature in the Australian Library and Information Sciences.

Leadership in the Australian Library and Information Sciences

Much like the review of Indigenous issues in the Australian Library and Information Sciences, the concept of leadership as a topic of intellectual debate was limited. I found few studies or research conducted that might point to specific leadership approaches developed for the library profession or any rigorous debate about how public library leaders lead and for what purpose.

Mccarten (2011) describes research in practice in a paper detailing a Shared Leadership Program developed in 2009 for the State Library of Victoria and Public Libraries Victoria, in response to a lack of succession planning. Throughout the paper, the methodology of the Shared Leadership Program is not mentioned. The program is identified as being based on contemporary approaches to leadership but is not explicit in which leadership approaches the program was based on nor how the approach was integrated into the program. The only mention of cultural discourse is in relation to an appreciation for diversity and the creation of a Cultural Diversity plan.

In Davis and Macauley (2011) library leadership is not discussed as research in practice but rather offers a broad overview of leadership theories for all contexts, and which tries to condense an enormous topic of research into one paper describing several leadership theories without discussing situational context. Davis and Macauley (2011) provide long lists of skills and capabilities for aspiring leaders but their conclusion is that all library staff ‘take leadership personally’. The overwhelming amount of leadership theory covered in the paper lends to a confusing and disjointed argument which does not appear to support the basic principles of why library leaders wish to lead, and a pathway for identifying a strategic leadership approach.

The necessity of understanding situational context is discussed in Romaniuk and Haycock (2011), who review the effectiveness of library leadership programs. The authors argue that research for library-specific leadership development is lacking and that due to this lack of research, leadership approaches are borrowed from other sectors without an understanding of what’s required for the situational context. In particular, transformational leadership is mentioned as often being utilised as the basis for corporate leadership programs. Transformational leadership being concerned with charismatic and motivational aspects of leadership and popular within Western corporate sectors. I theorise that the transformational approach may not be appropriate for the library sector due to the values based nature of librarianship. Libraries are not corporate for profit organisations, they exist for the public good. In addition as evidenced in ALIA’s Workforce diversity trend report 2019, the Australian library sector is predominantly staffed by women (ALIA, 2019). The intersectionality of gender should be considered with respect to library leadership approaches. Fitzgerald (2003) reminds us that traditional western leadership approaches are gendered and raced. How gender fits within library leadership has not yet been researched or discussed in the literature.

Romaniuk and Haycock (2011) argue that further research into the effectiveness of library leadership programs is needed as well as the development of context-specific approaches. The authors’ research provides further evidence that a strategic, nuanced approach to leadership must be developed in order to address cultural safety in Australian public libraries. Answers, however, will not be found in the Australian Library and Information Sciences. Prospective approaches must be sourced from related disciplines, and will be reviewed in Seeking Answers.

Seeking Answers

Contemporary texts in leadership advise that after decades of research, leadership academics have yet to agree on a common definition or understanding of leadership (Northouse, 2016). Definitions of leadership include viewing leadership as a group process, a set of inbuilt personality traits or a set of behaviours. For some academics, leadership is viewed in terms of the power relationship between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2016). This diversity of thought around leadership suggests that there isn’t a one size fits all approach to leadership. For the purposes of this inquiry leadership is defined;

Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2016)

A leadership approach can then defined as a framework or lens that can be utilised by leaders in different situations for a strategic purpose. As explored in Northouse Leadership Theory & Practice (2016), there are dozens of approaches to leadership again suggesting that leadership is situational and highly contextual.

Research into potential leadership approaches for the intent of leading for cultural safety in Australian public libraries is explored under three main themes; (i) an initial exploration of global cross-cultural leadership approaches, (ii) further refinement through exploration of social justice leadership in education, and (iii) concluding with targeted research in Australian remote education leadership.

Cross-Cultural Leadership

An initial scan of the literature related to leading across cultures identifies a rigorous discussion on leadership approaches with a number of research papers identifying the cross-cultural leadership approach (Dickson, Castano, Magomaeva, and Den Hartog (2012), Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, and House (2012), Hanges, Aiken, Park, and Su (2015), Steers, Sanchez-Runde, and Nardon (2012)). This approach has been designed for leaders working across many cultures and engaging with team members in Asia, America and Europe, for example. This approach is particularly prevalent in multinational companies with global business locations. The cross-cultural leadership approach is also often aligned with universal leadership which theorises that a specific group of leadership capabilities exists which can be utilised on a global scale with success (Steers et al., 2012). Steers et al. (2012) describe universal leadership as a form of charismatic or transformational leadership whereby the leader needs only have vision, charisma and the ability to use persuasion in order to achieve goals. However, the authors also argue that universal leadership is based on a western perspective on leadership and ultimately more capabilities are required for leaders working in a truly global context. Steers et al. (2012) stress that the very broad range of opinions on leadership indicates that leadership is highly situational, based on cultural context, and that there is no magic or universal approach. The authors highlight the difference in leadership approaches in individualistic societies such as the United States and mainstream Australia versus collectivistic societies. Sveiby (2011) applies this notion of collectivist societies to Aboriginal Australia, arguing that at the time of colonisation Aboriginal Australian society was collectivist, and the introduction of a foreign hierarchical leadership by white colonialists was disastrous. Sveiby (2011) further argues that there is very little research on power relationships in collectivist leadership societies. I theorise that this lack of research or understanding of collectivist leadership approaches will inevitably mean any leadership approaches developed for the Australian public library sector without an understanding of the local cultural situational context for Aboriginal Australians will end in failure.

The Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectives project (GLOBE) is a 20-year research project developed to explore global leadership and organisational culture (Dorfman et al., 2012). A major aspect of the GLOBE research was the development of a set of global culturally contingent leadership approaches. These approaches are grouped into clusters by country, for example, Anglo includes Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States whilst the Middle East cluster would group Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, etc. The GLOBE project aims to provide a simple pathway for global leaders to understand the situational context prior to leading team members comprising these cluster groups. Dickson et al. (2012) reflect on the GLOBE project and identify that placing countries into clusters does provide some limitations. For example, Australia is rated according to cultural dimensions such as individualism versus collectivism, and long/short term orientations which is related to the extent to which people fulfil societal obligations over short-term tasks. Under the GLOBE project, Australia is only framed as a white, western, monocultural society. It does not take into account the situational context for Aboriginal Australians and also fails to recognise that culture is a dynamic force, that changes with time and events.

The GLOBE project also asserts that leaders who behave according to cultural expectations of leadership will be the most effective (Dorfman et al., 2012). This argument provides a direct correlation to my own argument into leading for cultural safety in public libraries. In order to lead successfully, library leaders must know why they lead and the specific cultural expectations of the cultures with which they wish to engage. A leadership approach for cultural safety with respect to Aboriginal Australians must include a robust knowledge of Aboriginal Australia with a strong focus on local context. A library leader in inner city Sydney will find a different situational context than a library leader in East Arnhem Land. However, the assertion that ‘leaders who behave according to cultural expectations of leadership will be the most effective’ (Dorfman et al., 2012) also highlights a particular dichotomy for Australian library leaders wishing to develop a leadership approach for both their library organisations and often marginalised communities of Aboriginal Australians. If a leader wishes to be successful they must behave according to cultural expectations of leadership. How then will an Australian public library leader find the right approach with potentially two very different conceptualisations of how leadership should be practiced? The answer will lie in finding a leadership approach that can meet both expectations, at the intersection of two cultures.

Social Justice Leadership in Education

There is a suite of leadership approaches developed in response to social justice issues. The education discipline, in particular, demonstrates in-depth research into leadership approaches for cultural safety. Social justice leadership or culturally responsive leadership is an approach discussed by Lopez (2015), who suggests that within the United States, an homogenised approach to leadership is no longer recognised as valuable by the education sector. Alternative leadership frameworks have been researched and created by educational researchers with the purpose of ensuring equitable and inclusive schools (Lopez, 2015). Leaders with a strong social justice approach will ensure that they are highly aware and engaged in social justice issues and advocate to ensure other ways of knowing are incorporated into the curriculum (Lopez, 2015). This targeted focus provides a much closer situational approach for Australian public libraries.

Case studies of the application of social justice leadership within the United States education system are explored by Murray-Johnson and Guerra (2018). These case studies demonstrate the need for strongly developed approaches for social justice leadership and specific training for leaders. Murray-Johnson and Guerra (2018) outline examples where attempts by principals to engage in social justice leadership as a way of addressing cultural safety ends in conflict and divisiveness amongst school teachers. Issues such as deficit thinking and structural power inequalities cannot be addressed through mere goodwill alone. Training, knowledge and reflection of specific skill sets must be cultivated by leaders who wish to engage in any work in relation to cultural safety. Emotional intelligence, highly developed facilitation and communication skills as well as humility are all identified as specific skill sets that leaders in education may not traditionally have been taught.

Moral, ethical and parallel leadership approaches have been explored in the literature, in particular in the Asia Pacific region. Lee (2012) and Wee Pin (2009) both explore the inherent problem of overlaying western notions of leadership onto cultures with their own expectations of leadership and culture in Singapore education. Lee (2012), argues that an understanding of education as a values laden discipline must underpin any leadership approach. This argument relates to Australian public libraries that are also value-laden institutions. I theorise that this notion of being values-based must underpin a strategic leadership approach for libraries. Further research may be required to develop a deeper understanding of the value-based nature of librarianship which can be used to inform further leadership approaches.

Moral leadership is a cultural extension of Chinese beliefs (Lee, 2012). It is an approach driven by deep reflection of the self and for others. It consists of humility with courage for purpose. Parallel leadership, in contrast, focuses less on morality and more on the culture-bound contexts of working across eastern and western philosophies or practice in education (Marika et al., 2009). The notion of imposing western cultural contexts of leadership and education is questioned by Wee Pin (2009), who suggests using a distributed form of decision making to ensure decision making is taken with a number of viewpoints and with equality. Wee Pin (2009) puts forward the argument that school principals should engage more with their teams to build capacity and knowledge in developing culturally responsive schools. There is one aspect lacking in this approach; the community. This approach whilst acknowledging that western notions of leadership are lacking cultural context does not include understanding the situational context of those whom they lead.

In conclusion, this review of social justice leadership approaches explores a variety of approaches which have some transferrable learnings including positioning social justice and core values at the centre of a leadership approach. However, none of the approaches listed were developed with First Nations peoples. The reviewed social justice leadership approaches do not provide true authority for culturally safe leadership approaches for Aboriginal Australians. Answers will only be found in research developed with Aboriginal Australians. Further targeted research into Australian education leadership identifies a significant body of work in remote education.

Australian Remote Education Leadership

The Australian education discipline is rich in research and discourse on leadership approaches. Collard (2007) firmly establishes that within education, traditional western approaches to leadership are no longer considered appropriate or successful due to the relationship between cultural expectations and leadership. Collard (2007) provides a comprehensive history of scholarly research in this space and describes an initial understanding of western notions of leading for diversity within cross-cultural leadership which over time has evolved into a focus on intercultural dynamics and intercultural leadership. An intercultural approach is described as having three broad aspects: (i) knowledge of structural inequalities, (ii) self-reflection and sense of self, (iii) the ability to act as a transformative cultural agent (Collard, 2007). Intercultural leadership can then be tested in two Northern Australia research initiatives; the Linking Worlds Research Project and the Principals as Literacy Leaders with Indigenous Communities (PALLIC) Project.

Frawley, Fasoli, D’Arbon, and Ober (2010) describe Linking Worlds as being an investigative project in remote Aboriginal communities whereby Indigenous education leaders are observed and interviewed to develop leadership approaches for these contexts. Leadership approaches are driven by Aboriginal Australian leaders in the Northern Territory. The project ultimately developed the Intercultural Educational Leadership Framework (Frawley et al. (2010) and Frawley and Fasoli (2012)).

The PALLIC project was a strategy developed by educational researchers to assist education leaders working in remote Australian Indigenous communities (Dempster, Lovett, & Fluckiger, 2016). The authors delve into the structural assumptions beneath structural power inequality and privilege and provide communication strategies for leading a discourse between principals and teachers. This paper builds upon earlier intercultural discourse and provides a detailed, operational communication strategy for communicating with remote Indigenous communities. Dempster et al. (2016) also link to a specific Aboriginal leadership approach; Warrki Jarrinjaku leadership which was developed by senior Anangu and Yapa women in Central Australia.

In 2006, senior Anangu and Yapa (non-Aboriginal) women from the Waltja Tjutangku Palyapayi Aboriginal Organisation developed an early childhood leadership model in partnership with the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) (Priest, King, Nangala, Nungurrayi Brown, & Nangala, 2008). This Warrki Jarrinjaku leadership model formally recognises Aboriginal knowledge as equal to European western ways of knowing. This approach holds true authority because Aboriginal Australians with cultural authority have developed this approach. It provides significant transferrable knowledge in relation to leading for cultural safety.

The Warrki Jarrinjaku approach focuses on both ways, an integral aspect of intercultural leadership where all cultures are seen as equal (Priest et al., 2008). Leaders act from the space between cultures, with a strong focus on reflection, communication and deep knowledge of structural power inequalities including deficit thinking and unconscious bias. Leaders have the ability to uncover embedded structural privilege and power. The authors of this paper provide a powerful and moving argument for a leadership approach developed with equality and voice for both Anangu and Yapa women.

Marika et al. (2009) from Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory add further credibility to this approach, arguing that most bureaucrats and policy makers never see the world beyond their own cultural lens. The authors argue that Aboriginal Australians need a voice and space to find their own solutions (Marika et al., 2009). At the core of intercultural leadership lies the ability to open a space for dialogue and problem-solving – finding the space between.

Conclusion

To be successful, leaders must lead in a culturally consistent manner. Leadership is highly situational and driven by local context. With this understanding the solution is clear, only an approach developed with Aboriginal Australians who have cultural authority can provide library leaders with a leadership approach that will match Aboriginal Australian’s expectations of leadership. Intercultural leadership, based on both ways approach accepts all ways of knowing as equal. It does not impose or elevate one culture above another but provides a new lens of framework to view library services and programs. The Warrki Jarrinjaku leadership model provides three broad areas for leaders wishing to engage with this approach: (i) deep knowledge of social injustices and structural power inequalities, (ii) a strong sense of self and (iii) the ability to act as an intercultural leader. Above all, this leadership approach requires humility and reflection. Intercultural leaders must act with courage and with a genuine desire to uncover structural inequalities, they must see beyond the boundaries of accepted practice to new futures of equality where true cultural safety lies.

Implications for Further Research and Practice

From the 2018 census, 3.3% of the Australian population identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). This data poses a significant challenge in persuading Australian public libraries leaders that they each should invest their time and resources into learning and undertaking an intercultural leadership approach for the purpose of developing culturally safe library services. Even if all public library leaders agree broadly on the development of culturally safe libraries, the small population of Australian Aboriginal peoples may prevent some library leaders from seeing this as an issue for all Australian libraries. It may be seen as a solution for the remote, for the far-flung areas of the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I theorise that uncovering embedded privilege and structural power inequalities must occur not only at a local level but at a national level before broad uptake of the intercultural leadership approach might be accepted by all public library leaders.

Another limitation in this research was the paucity of research and debate in the Australian Library and Information Sciences. The limited discourse in the Australian Library and Information Sciences on leadership, leads me to reflect that it will be challenging to engage library leaders in nuanced discussions on leadership approaches, such as the intercultural leadership approach. There is considerable scope and importance for further research to be designed with Indigenous library professionals in relation to leading for cultural safety.

Leadership and leadership approaches should be researched, discussed and evaluated for strategic purpose. Further research is required to develop library-specific approaches for Australian libraries. As a sector, we must stop borrowing from the latest fads in leadership and design leadership approaches strategically, with purpose and based on evidence and research.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Maeva Masterson

Maeva Masterson is the Assistant Director, Library Sector Services at Library & Archives NT. Maeva’s work includes providing strategic advice and direction focussed on enabling Northern Territory libraries to become sustainable leaders with a focus on contemporary practice and outcomes based evaluation. Maeva has worked in libraries both in Australia and internationally and has a keen interest in the development of nuanced leadership approaches in the library sector.