In Brief: The practice placing one’s anxieties into circles of concern, influence, and control can be found in philosophy, psychology, and self-help literature. It is a means of cultivating agency and preventing needless rumination. For librarians, however, it is often at odds with a profession that expects continuous expansion of responsibilities. To reconcile this conflict, it is useful to look back at the original intent of this model, assess the present library landscape through its lens, and imagine a future in which library workers truly feel in control of their vocation.

By Jordan Moore

Introduction

It is a beautiful experience when you discover something that reorients your entire outlook on life. This happened to me during one of my first therapy sessions after being diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder. My therapist gave me a piece of paper and a pencil and instructed me to draw a large circle. Next, they told me to imagine that circle was full of everything I was anxious about, all the real and hypothetical problems that stressed me out. We labeled that circle “concern.” Then, they asked me to draw a much smaller circle in the middle of it. I would say it was one-tenth the size of the first circle. “That” they said, “represents what you can control.”

I felt disheartened while looking at that picture, as if it spelled out a grave diagnosis. The second circle was already so small, and I could have sworn it was even tinier when I looked back at the page and compared it to the first circle. Then, we began to populate the circle of control with what was in my power to determine – how much sleep I got, how often I reached out to loved ones, how many hours I spent doomscrolling, and so on. Finally, my therapist asked, “How much time do you spend thinking about things in the outer circle?” If I didn’t answer 100%, the number was close. They tapped a finger on the inner circle and, in the way that therapists often phrase advice as a question, asked “What if you concentrated on what is in your control instead?” What if indeed.

That conversation occurred over a decade ago. Since then, I have grown accustomed to categorizing my anxieties into ones of concern or control. If something is weighing on me, but is outside of my circle of control, I do my best not to ruminate on it, or at least redirect my thoughts back to what I, as a single person, can do. I try to devote most of my energy to practices that keep me in good health and good spirits. This has done wonders for my mental health. It has also proven beneficial in my professional life, keeping me focused on the aspects of my job that fulfill me. It has become so integral to my way of thinking that I have even discussed the concept (and the context I learned it from) at work. Naturally, I was at first hesitant to bring “therapy talk” into work. However, it has proven to be a catchy idea. I have been at numerous meetings where someone describes a situation, often the behavior of patrons or administrators, as “outside of our circle,” with a nod in my direction.

Sometimes, though, instead of accepting the situation for what it is, we discuss what adjustments we need to make to our practice or policy to fix the situation. When these types of conversations occur, I think back to that original drawing of two circles. Suddenly, another circle appears between the circle of concern and control. It is the circle of influence. It’s something that wasn’t in my initial understanding of the model, but is in plenty of other illustrations. It is a place meant for one to use tools in their circle of control to enact a small, person-sized amount of impact to their circle of concern. An example of this would be a librarian informing a lingering patron that the library is closing soon. They are not going to pick the patron up and toss them out the door, but they can encourage them to exit promptly. That is a reasonable expectation of influence. An unreasonable expectation would be if that librarian felt the need to make sure that that patron, or any patron, never had a negative thing to say about the library. In my experience, it appears that librarians and libraries seem to have high expectations of influence. I began to wonder why that is, and what could be done to alleviate that burden. To start, I decided to learn more about the model that had been so life-changing for me. That inquiry would take me back further than I expected.

An Unexpected Literature Review

Because I need to find a new therapist every time my health insurance changes – Great job, American Healthcare system! – I unfortunately could not ask the therapist who introduced me to the model of circles how they learned about it. Fortunately, looking for answers is part of my job, and I was able to play both parts of a reference interview. One of the first websites I visited was “Understanding the Circles of Influence, Concern, and Control,” written by Anna K. Scharffner. I noticed that Schraffner’s qualifications include “Burnout and Executive Coach,” which let me know others were thinking about this concept in the workplace. I also noticed that Schraffner’s model includes a sphere of influence. In her description of that area, she writes, “We may or may not have the power to expand our influence… We can certainly try. It is wise to spend some of our energy in that sphere, bearing in mind that we can control our efforts in this sphere, but not necessarily outcomes.”

As I continued reading interpretations of the circles model, I noticed references to other concepts that I only had passing familiarity with. The oldest among these was Stoicism. To learn more, I decided to speak with my brother-in-law, a Classical Studies professor. After I told him about what I was researching, he said it had a lot in common with Stoics’ quest to lead a virtuous life by valuing logic and self-possession. At the root of Stoicism is the recognition of the difficult truth that humans cannot control much – neither the whims of capricious gods, nor the actions of flawed human beings. The Greek philosopher Epictetus states in the opening lines of his Enchiridion,

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions (I).

Later, the Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius writes in his Meditations, “If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now” (VII. 47).

As unfamiliar and phonetically challenging as these authors and texts were at first glance, I was quickly able to make connections between them and literature in my own frame of reference. I recalled the line in Hamlet, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (II.ii). I thought back to reading Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, which I picked up on the recommendation of another therapist. I remembered being particularly moved by the line, “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way” (75). It turns out I was a fan of Stoicism without knowing it.

Speaking of ideas I learned about in therapy – and you can tell I constantly am – the next concept I came across was cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). Having engaged in CBT work throughout my time in therapy, I was familiar with its thesis that maladaptive behaviors stem from “cognitive distortions,” thoughts and feelings about ourselves and our experiences that do not reflect reality. CBT posits that by challenging these distortions, one can think, feel, and act in a healthier way. What I did not know was that Aaron Beck, one of the pioneers of CBT, was a student of Stoicism. In Cognitive Therapy of Depression, he credits Stoicism as “the philosophical origins of cognitive therapy” (8). The connection made sense once I realized how much of my time with that first therapist was spent battling the cognitive distortion that I could control any situation if I worried about it hard enough.

I still wanted to learn more about the in-between space of influence, and why it seems particularly vast for librarians. As I continued to search for literature about the circle of influence, my references became less tied to philosophy and psychology and closer to self-help and business. One title that kept popping up, and one that I had heard before, was The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. When I started reading it, I felt like I was in familiar territory. Covey supplies anecdotes of people benefitting from concentrating on the elements of their life that they can control, even referencing Viktor Frankl as an example. However, Covey later diverges from the Stoic belief that there are limits to our control. He combines the spheres of control and influence into one circle and instructs readers to pour their energy into it, not necessarily for the sake of their sanity, but for the opportunity to gain more influence. He calls this being “proactive” and writes, “Proactive people focus their efforts in the Circle of Influence. They work on the things they can do something about. The nature of their energy is positive, enlarging, and magnifying, causing their Circle of Influence to increase.” This idea of ever-increasing influence allows Covey to claim, “We are responsible for our own effectiveness, for our own happiness, and ultimately, I would say, for most of our circumstances” (96-98).

Applications in Librarianship

Thinking about Covey’s advice in context of my job made me uneasy. His model, with its arrows pushing ever-outward, gave me the same sense of pressure I got from conversations about how my library or librarianship in general needs to do more to meet that day’s crisis. I also suspected that Covey’s argument for power over all circumstances ignores some basic truths that people, especially those without societal privilege, must face. I knew 7 Habits was popular, with dozens of reprints and special editions since its original publication. However, I was able to find critical voices who shared my skepticism. For instance, in “Opening Pandora’s box: The Unintended Consequences of Stephen Covey’s Effectiveness Movement,” Darren McCabe writes, “Covey preaches freedom, but he fails to acknowledge the constraints on freedom that operate within a capitalist system,” and notes that Covey’s outlook “may be acceptable in a utopian society, but not when one faces inequality, pay freezes, work intensification, monotonous working conditions, autocratic management, or redundancy” (186-187). I also recalled how Schaffner, the burnout specialist, advises against devoting too much energy to the circle of influence, saying we can only control our efforts, not our outcomes. Having brought my research of the history of the spheres model up to the present, I was ready to turn to library literature to see how they play out in the profession.

Giving until it hurts

Since the topic of burnout was fresh on my mind, I began by revisiting Fobazi Ettarh’s “Vocational Awe and Librarianship: The Lies We Tell Ourselves.” In it, she characterizes librarianship’s inflated sense of responsibility and influence like this: “Through the language of vocational awe, libraries have been placed as a higher authority and the work in service of libraries as a sacred duty.” Ettarh describes how this can cause librarians to be underpaid, overworked, and burnt out. After all, it is much more difficult to negotiate the terms of a sacred duty than an ordinary job.

Ettarh is also quoted in Library Journal and School Library Journal’s 2022 Job Satisfaction Survey by Jennifer A. Dixon titled, “Feeling the Burnout: Library Workers Are Facing Burnout in Greater Numbers and Severity—And Grappling with it as a Systemic Problem.” In it, Ettarh states “One of the biggest system-wide problems, when it comes to librarianship, is job creep.” This term describes the continual addition of responsibilities librarians are expected to perform. The report also describes “mission creep,” where libraries, particularly public ones, become response centers for issues that are far afield from routine services. This results in librarians being responsible for assisting patrons experiencing drug overdoses, mental health crises, and homelessness. In these situations, librarians are rarely given additional training or resources, and are indeed dealing with these crises exactly because society at large does not give them adequate attention or funding. In summary, job creep and mission creep cause librarians’ circle of concern to expand, and, as the report illustrates, attempting to exert control or influence over all that new territory can spell disaster. Dixon puts it this way, “With institutions continually cutting budgets without actually reducing their expectations of what library workers can accomplish, those who are committed to service and to their profession will continue pushing themselves to the point of burnout.”

Feeling the disparity

The job satisfaction survey points to another source of discontent for librarians, and that is the cognitive dissonance caused by the gulf between their perceived level of influence and their actual level of influence. For academic librarians, the issue can be seen in the lack of recognition of their expertise in comparison to other professionals on campus. The ambiguous status of academic librarians is also listed as a contribution to low morale in a 2021 Journal of Library Administration review. This review cites Melissa Belcher’s “Understanding the experience of full-time nontenure-track library faculty: Numbers, treatment, and job satisfaction,” which illustrates how academic librarians enjoy less autonomy and less professional courtesy than traditional faculty. I could very much relate to the sentiments expressed in these articles. It is a classic academic librarian conundrum to be expected to be in constant contact with faculty, but not be able to get them to reply to emails. 

For public librarians in the Library Journal survey, the issue can be seen in the disconnect between their perceived status as “heros” or “essential workers” and the antagonism they face from patrons, particularly while attempting to enforce masking during COVID. The Journal of Library Administration review also notes that physical safety is of particular concern to public librarians, stating “It is important to note that morale in libraries can be impacted not only by theoretical or conceptual concerns, but also by qualms about basic physical safety from surrounding communities.” Since hostility toward public libraries has only increased since the report’s publication due to their vilification from federal, state, and local powers, its words are prescient.

Because my experience is limited to academia, I wanted to get a public librarian’s take on the Library Journal job satisfaction survey. When I brought it up to a friend, they were kind enough to share their thoughts, though they wished to remain anonymous. They wrote that during COVID,

“There were a few especially egregious instances of aggression due to patrons’ unwillingness to wear a mask that still affects how I view these folks today. Management was unsupportive, did not originally handle these volatile encounters by stopping people at the door, and expected other staff members lower on the hierarchy to handle these issues.”

In those instances, management had something that was in their control (whether patrons could enter the building without masks) and chose instead to leave it up to librarians to influence patrons’ behaviors.

My friend also provided examples of how management used both vocational awe and job creep to overload staff. They summed up the situation like this, 

“Workloads are never analyzed before staff members are given even more tasks, and if there is any sort of push back, you are viewed as not being a team player. People who speak up are used as examples, and the rest of the staff stays quiet because they fear similar retaliation… I’m always like, ‘OMG, if you don’t like something, please speak up so I’m not constantly viewed as causing trouble and it’s not only me who has the issue.’”

Starting from the top

The stories featured in these articles about job satisfaction and moral, as well as my friend’s account, reminded me of Anne Helen Peterson’s 2022 talk, “The Librarians Are Not Okay,” which appeared in her newsletter, Culture Studies. In it, she lays out the necessity of institutional guardrails to do the work that individual boundaries cannot accomplish alone. She explains that in today’s parlance, “Boundaries are the responsibility of the worker to maintain, and when they fall apart, that was the worker’s own failing.” Guardrails, on the other hand, are “fundamental to the organization’s operation, and the onus for maintaining them is not on the individual, but the group as whole.” An individual’s boundaries can be pushed for many reasons. They could be trying to live up to the ideal that their vocational awe inspires, as Ettarh puts it. Their management may be using that vocational awe to turn any pushback into accusations of betrayal, as both Ettarh and my friend describe. Peterson shows how guardrails can remedy those internal and external pressures by creating a shared understanding of expectations. Those expectations play a critical role in preventing burnout. She gives the example, “an email is not a five-alarm fire, and you shouldn’t train yourself to react as if it was, because that sort of vigilance is not sustainable.” Peterson’s piece caused me to reflect on times that I have talked about the circles of concern, influence, and control in the workplace. I appreciated the moments when all of us, including administration, agreed that something was outside of our responsibility, and we would breathe a sigh of relief. And those occasions when a supervisor or administrator told me not to worry about something I was convinced I needed to worry about? Heaven.

In the interest of exploring what the circles of concern, influence, and control may look like for administrators, I read the most recent Ithaka S+R Library Survey, published in 2022. This survey of academic library leadership offered interesting examples of administrators grappling with the breadth of their concern and the limits of their influence. The report explains,

“Convincing campus leaders of the library’s value proposition remains a challenge. While over 72 percent of library deans and directors report high levels of confidence in their own ability to articulate their library’s value proposition in a way that aligns with the goals of the institution, only 51 percent are confident other senior administrators believe in this alignment.”

The study also lists several key issues, such creating impactful Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, hiring and retaining staff in technology roles, and supporting Open Access, that leaders categorize as high priorities, yet express a low level of confidence in their organization’s strategies to address these concerns. (This is even before the federal government and the Department of Education began attacking DEIA measures and threatening institutional funding.) At the same time, the survey offers examples of administrators resisting mission creep and focusing their efforts on library service inside their control. The report states, “Deans and directors see the library contributing most strongly to increasing student learning and helping students develop a sense of community, rather than to other metrics such as addressing student basic needs or improving post-graduation outcomes.” Survey results about budgetary considerations also demonstrate the leaders’ commitment to recruiting and retaining positions with high customer-service impact. All in all, the survey shows that these leaders recognize that their library cannot do it all. Because of that, they make strategic choices on where to allot resources, and just as importantly, where to not. Being in charge of their institution, that is their prerogative. But what if that kind of decision-making was available to individuals, as well?

Taking it slow

There is an existing philosophy in our field that complements the philosophy of circles very nicely – slow librarianship. On her blog, Information Wants to be Free, in a post titled “What is Slow Librarianship,” Meredith Farkas describes what slow librarianship values. She writes, “Workers in slow libraries are focused on relationship-building, deeply understanding and meeting patron needs, and providing equitable services to their communities. Internally, slow library culture is focused on learning and reflection, collaboration and solidarity.” In describing what slow librarianship opposes, she writes, “Slow librarianship is against neoliberalism, achievement culture, and the cult of productivity.” Similarly to Peterson, Farkas describes how sticking to these principles require not just boundaries, but guardrails. She writes,

“One of the most important pieces of the slow movement is the focus on solidarity and collective care and a move away from the individualism that so defines the American character. If you’re only focused on your own liberation and your own well-being, you’re doing it wrong.”

What I appreciate about this picture of slow librarianship is that it gives librarians a useful framework to decide if they should dedicate time and energy to a task. It must be meaningful to both the patrons and themselves, and it must support the relationship between them. Better yet, when they identify such a task, they are not going at it alone, but with the community they have developed. Even better still, slow librarianship demands that librarians use their influence not to expand what they control, but to protect what is important to themselves and others.

Another benefit of slow librarianship is that it can alleviate some of the causes of burnout. In “Rising from the Flames: How Researching Burnout Impacted Two Academic Librarians,” Robert Griggs-Taylor and Jessica Lee discuss the changes they have made to their management style after studying and experiencing different factors of burnout. Although the authors do not call their approach slow librarianship, several of their adjustments align with its tenets. This includes encouraging staff to pursue avenues of interest during the workday and to take earned time away from work without overdrawn explanation or guilt. The article is another example of how administrative influence can allow librarians to maintain a healthy circle of control.

I’ve spent the majority of this article using circular imagery to get my point across, but let me offer two more ways of thinking about slow librarianship. In “The Innovation Fetish and Slow Librarianship: What Librarians Can Learn from the Juciero,” Julia Glassman uses flowers, specifically the jacaranda, as a metaphor for the importance of rest and reflection. She explains how in order to bloom in one season, flowers go dormant in others. She writes, “It’s supremely unhealthy, for both individuals and organizations, to try to be in bloom all the time.” I am more of an indoor person, so what comes to my mind is The Fellowship of the Rings and Bilbo Baggin’s description of exhaustion as feeling “like butter that has been scraped over too much bread” (40). When I shared this line with my current therapist, they pointed out that the problem in that scenario is not a lack of butter, but an excess of bread. Librarians have enough butter. We are talented, motivated, and knowledgeable people. There is just too much bread to be concerned about! We can continue to spread ourselves thin, or we can take on only what we can manage without scraping.

Conclusion

If this article were a therapy session – and it may as well be – now would be when the therapist says, “we’re just about out of time” and we would take stock of what we’ve learned. So, we know librarians are being pressured by patrons, administrators, and their own sense of duty to overextend themselves. Even librarians in leadership positions seem to recognize that pouring time, energy, or money into a concern does not guarantee influence over it. This may sound like a sad state of affairs, but I still believe in the philosophy of circles, because it has always meant to cultivate agency in the face of adversity. For librarians and libraries, being cognizant and honest about what aspects of the profession are inside each circle is a start. The next challenge is to maintain those distinctions in the face of internal and external pressures to exert influence over every concern, risking job creep, mission creep, and burnout. Even if one’s work environment is not conducive to such thinking, the beauty of this concept is that it starts with the individual. If it remains an internal process to keep anxiety in check? Great! If it ends up being discussed in staff meetings? Also great! I did not begin talking about it with colleagues in a Covey-esque maneuver to increase my influence in the workplace. In the same vein, I did not write this article with the idea that librarians everywhere will suddenly be free of outsized expectations. Although, the idea certainly is appealing. It would mean not being seen as the last bastion of intellectual freedom or the single remaining thread of a ruined social safety net. Librarians would be able to go slower, grow stronger roots, and not try to cover so much ground (or bread). All that would be lovely, but this exercise has taught me to start small. So I will pose this last question: What would happen if one librarian was empowered to reconsider one of their expectations and nurture one part of their practice that is truly in their control? And yes, that was advice phrased as a question.

---

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my reviewers, Brea McQueen and Patrice Williams. Thank you to my publishing editor, Jessica Schomberg. Thank you to Alexander Hall, Teaching Professor of Classical Studies & Latin at Iowa State University, for talking shop during family time. Thank you to the public librarian who shared their challenges in trying to create a healthier environment for themself and their colleagues. Thank you to the mental health professionals who have given me advice throughout the years. I’m glad I wrote so much of it down!

---

Works Cited

Anonymous. Personal interview. 13 March 2025.

Aurelius, Marcus. The Meditations, translated by George Long, 1862. https://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html.

Becher, Melissa. “Understanding the Experience of Full-time Nontenure-track Library Faculty: Numbers, Treatment, and Job Satisfaction.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45, no. 3 (2019) 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.015.

Beck, Aaron T. Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Guilford Press, 1979.

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. 1989. RosettaBooks LLC, 2012.

Dixon, Jennifer A. “Feeling the Burnout: Library Workers Are Facing Burnout in Greater Numbers and Severity—And Grappling with it as A Systemic Problem.” Library Journal 147, no. 3 (2022): 44. https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/feeling-burnout/docview/2634087993/se-2.

Epictetus. The Enchiridion, translated by Elizabeth Carter, 1807. https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html.

Ettah, Fobazi. “Vocational Awe and Librarianship: The Lies We Tell Ourselves.” In the Library With the Lead Pipe, 10 Jan. 2018. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe.

Farkas, Meredith. “What is Slow Librarianship?” Information Wants to Be Free, 18 October 2021. https://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2021/10/18/what-is-slow-librarianship.

Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Translated by Ilse Lasch, New York: Beacon Press, 2006.

Glassman, Julia. “The Innovation Fetish and Slow Librarianship: What Librarians Can Learn from the Juciero.” In the Library With the Lead Pipe, 18 Oct. 2017. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2017/the-innovation-fetish-and-slow-librarianship-what-librarians-can-learn-from-the-juicero.

Griggs-Taylor, R., & Lee, J. “Rising from the Flames: How Researching Burnout Impacted Two Academic Librarians.” Georgia Library Quarterly, 59, no. 4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.62915/2157-0396.2539.

Hulbert, Ioana G. “US Library Survey 2022: Navigating the New Normal.” Ithaka S+R. Last modified 30 March 2023. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.318642. 

McCabe, Darren. “Opening Pandora’s Box: The Unintended Consequences of Stephen Covey’s Effectiveness Movement.” Management Learning 42, no. 2 (2011): 183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610389682. 

Petersen, Anne Helen. “The Librarians are Not Okay.” Culture Studies, 1 May 2022. https://annehelen.substack.com/p/the-librarians-are-not-okay.

Schaffner, Anna Katharina. “Understanding the Circles of Influence, Concern, and Control.” Positive Psychology. Last modified 13 March 2023. https://positivepsychology.com/circles-of-influence.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet from The Folger Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, https://folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/hamlet.

Weyant, E. C., Wallace, R. L., & Woodward, N. J. “Contributions to Low Morale, Part 1: Review of Existing Literature on Librarian and Library Staff Morale.” Journal of Library Administration, 61, no 7 (2021): 854–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2021.1972732.