a...

 

 

 

a 00 ¥ IVIIUI llydli State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

SUPERVISION IN STUDENT AFFAIRS: ‘
SNYERGISTIC SUPERVISION, PERSISTENCE IN
AND COMMITMENT TO THE
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION

presented by

VIRGINIA E. RANDALL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

 

 

Ph.D degree in HALE
aajor Fifegr’s Signatdre
l L)! H Jo (p 3
Date

MSU is an afiinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

SUPERVISION IN STUDENT AFFAIRS:
SYNERGISTIC SUPERVISION, PERSISTENCE IN
AND COMMITMENT TO THE
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION

By

Virginia E. Randall

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to:
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education

2007

 

 

ABSTRACT
SUPERVISION IN STUDENT AFFAIRS:
SYNERGISTIC SUPERVISION, PERSISTENCE IN
AND COMMITMENT TO THE
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
By

Virginia E. Randall

This study explored areas of synergistic supervision, persistence in and
commitment to the student affairs profession. Persistence was defined by an
employee’s intention to continue a career in student affairs, regardless Of the
institution in which they were employed. Commitment to the profession was
defined by employee membership in professional organizations, conference
attendance, conference participation such as presentations, and involvement in
research and publication.

A two—part study was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative
data gathering methods. Two hundred thirty-seven student affairs professionals
working at public Michigan universities responded to an on-line survey.
Regardless of their position title, gender, race/ethnicity, age, the length of time
they had worked in the profession or professional organization membership,
survey respondents reported that the actions of their supervisors were consistent
with components of Winston and Creamer’s (1997) synergistic supervision.

Interviews were conducted with nine student affairs professionals working
in the functional areas of student life, career services or housing at public

Michigan universities. Four discernable themes and patterns emerged related to

the interview participants’ experiences as student affairs professionals and as
supervisors: (a) mentoring, (b) balance, (0) focus on students, and (d) creating
opportunities. Even though interview participants may not have been aware of
the term, they participated in many of the elements of synergistic supervision.
Interview participants perceived that the synergistic supervision they received
gave them the opportunity to develop both personally and professionally and
contributed to their persistence in the student affairs profession.

A different definition of commitment to the student affairs profession
emerged through the interviews in the qualitative portion of this study. The new
definition of commitment was based in a commitment to students and in making
a difference in the lives of students and staff and was supported by synergistic
supervision. Commitment to the profession was complimented by mentoring,
finding balance between personal and professional goals and lives, and by
creating opportunities for others to grow. The components of synergistic
, supervision received allowed both survey respondents and interview participants

to demonstrate their commitment to the profession.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people I would like to thank for their continual support and
encouragement throughout this long journey called dissertation. First, my
advisor, Dr. Marilyn J. Amey. Dr. Amey provided not only support and criticism
but also a friendly ear and quite a few laughs. I would not have finished if it were
not for her.

I appreciate the support of my committee members, Dr. Phil Cusick, Dr.
Jim Fairweather and Dr. Kris Renn. They challenged me to do better.

I would also like to thank my colleagues Dr. H. Bart Merkle, Dr. Diana
Pace, Dr. Barbara Palombi and Dr. Jay Cooper for their encouragement and
interest in my progress. Special thanks go to Dr. Neal Rogness for his patience
and expertise.

Thanks also go to other friends and family who have been there during the
smooth times as well as the rough times. It means a lot to me. Finally, thanks to
the students with whom I have worked over the years who continue to amaze

and inspire me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................................... 7
Supervision ...................................................................................................... 7
Supervision Defined ................................................................................... 12
Supervision as a Component of Staffing Practices or Personnel
Management ........................................................................................... 15
Supervision as a Component of Staff Development ................................... 17
Supervision from Different Perspectives .................................................... 18
Persistence in the Student Affairs Profession ................................................. 20
Commitment to the Profession ........................................................................ 23
Summary ......................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................... 30
Design ............................................................................................................. 30
Quantitative ..................................................................................................... 32
Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 32
Methodological Considerations .................................................................. 33
Participants ................................................................................................ 35
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................ 36
Methods of Analysis ................................................................................... 38
Qualitative ....................................................................................................... 38
Methodological Considerations .................................................................. 38
Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 39
Participants ................................................................................................ 39
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................ 40
Methods of Analysis ................................................................................... 40
Human Subjects Review ................................................................................. 41
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER lV
DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 43
Quantitative: Data Collection and Response Rate .......................................... 43
Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents .................................................... 44
Position Title ............................................................................................... 44
Highest Degree Earned .............................................................................. 45

 

 

Major Field of Highest Degree Earned ....................................................... 46

Pursuing Further Degrees .......................................................................... 47
Sex, Racial/Ethnic Background .................................................................. 48
Age ............................................................................................................. 48
Years Worked in Student Affairs as a Professional .................................... 49
Membership in National Professional Organizations .................................. 49
Membership in Regional and State Professional Organizations ................. 51
Functional Areas of Responsibility ............................................................. 52
Responses to Survey Questions ..................................................................... 53
Question 1: My supervisor and I deveIOp yearly professional goals
that address my strengths and weaknesses ........................................... 55
Question 2: My supervisor and I meet regularly on a pre-deten'nined
basis ........................................................................................................ 57

Question 3: My supervisor provides me the information I need to do
my job and supports my efforts to improve my knowledge, and

personal and professional goals .............................................................. 60
Question 4: My supervisor and I both contribute when making
decisions that affect my area of responsibilities ...................................... 60
Question 5: My supervisor helps me understand how my individual
goals contribute to the goals of the division and the institution ................ 62
Question 6: My supervisor and l have a level of trust which allows
me to give honest feedback, both positive and negative ......................... 64
Persistence in the Profession .......................................................................... 66
Commitment to the Profession ........................................................................ 68
Summary of Quantitative Data ........................................................................ 68
Qualitative Data Collection and Responses .................................................... 69
Mentoring ................................................................................................... 74
Balance ...................................................................................................... 78
Focus on Students ..................................................................................... 81
Creating Opportunities ............................................................................... 84
Persistence in the Profession .......................................................................... 86
Commitment to the Profession ........................................................................ 91
Summary of Qualitative Data .......................................................................... 95
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 98
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .............................................. 99
Quantitative Study ......................................................................................... 100
Methodology ............................................................................................. 100
Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 100
Sample ..................................................................................................... 102
Qualitative Study ........................................................................................... 102
Methodology ............................................................................................. 102
Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 103
Sample ..................................................................................................... 104
Major Findings ............................................................................................... 104

vi

Persistence in the Student Affairs Profession .......................................... 110

Commitment to the Profession ................................................................. 113
Research Questions ...................................................................................... 117
Implications of Major Findings ....................................................................... 119
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 122
Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................ 123

APPENDICES
Appendix A Supervision Survey .................................................................... 126
Appendix B On-Line lnfonned Consent Form ............................................... 129
Appendix C Initial Email Message Requesting Participation in Survey ......... 131
Appendix D Second Email Message Requesting Participation in Survey ...... 132
Appendix E Third Email Message Requesting Participation in Survey .......... 133
Appendix F Interview Questions .................................................................... 134
Appendix G Interview Informed Consent Form ............................................. 135
Appendix H Membership in National Professional Organizations ................. 137
Appendix I Membership in Regional or State Professional Organizations 140
Appendix J Functional Area of Responsibilities ............................................. 142

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 144

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Respondents by Position Title ............................................................ 45
Table 2. Highest Degree Earned by Respondents ........................................... 46
Table 3. Major Field of Highest Degree Earned by Respondents .................... 47
Table 4. Racial/Ethnic Background of Respondents ........................................ 48
Table 5. Age Range of Respondents ............................................................... 49
Table 6. Years worked as Student Affairs Professional ................................... 50
Table 7. Responses to Questions on Supervision ............................................ 54

Table 8. Responses by Position Title to Question 1: My supervisor and I
develop yearly professional goals that address my strengths and
weaknesses ............................................................................................. 56

Table 9. Responses by Race/Ethnicity to Question 2: My supervisor and I
meet regularly on a pre—determined basis ................................................ 57

Table 10. Responses by Years as a Student Affairs Professional to Question
2: My supervisor and I meet regularly on a pre-determined basis ............ 58

Table 11. Responses by Position Title to Question 2: My supervisor and I
meet regularly on a pre—determined basis ................................................ 59

Table 12. Responses by Position Title to Question 3: My supervisor
provides me the information I need to do my job and supports my
efforts to improve my knowledge, and personal and professional goals .. 61

Table 13. Responses by Years as a Student Affairs Professional to Question
4: My supervisor and I both contribute when making decisions that
affect my area of responsibility ................................................................. 62

Table 14. Responses by Gender to Question 5: My supervisor helps me
understand how my individual goals contribute to the goals of the
division and the institution ........................................................................ 63

Table 15. Responses by Years as Student Affairs Professional to Question

5: My supervisor helps me understand how my individual goals
contribute to the goals of the division and the institution .......................... 63

viii

Table 16. Responses by Position Title to Question 6: My supervisor and I
have a level of trust, which allows me to give honest feedback,
both positive and negative ........................................................................ 65

Table 17. Correlations of Years as a Student Affairs Professional with
Responses to Survey Questions .............................................................. 67

Table 18. Correlations of Years as a Student Affairs Professional with
Responses to Survey Questions 1, 3-6 .................................................... 67

ix

Chapter I
Introduction

Both faculty and student affairs professionals share core ideas about
higher edumtion, including a dedication to serving the interests of individuals and
society (\Mnston & Creamer, 1997; Young, 1996). Individuals who become
involved in the student affairs profession are committed to the education and
nurturance of the whole student (Creamer & Winston, 1999) and find
opportunities to create positive environments for student Ieaming. They also
develop programs to address evolving and increasing student needs while facing
endless challenges, rewards, controversy, and critics (Ellis, 2002). The
challenges confronting student affairs professionals, including limited resources
and greater accountability (Grace-Odeleye, 1998; Lovell & Kosten, 2000;
Woodard, 1998), have led to concerns about staff retention (Blackhurst, 2000;
Evans, 1988; Johnsrud & Rosser, 1997; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Scott, 2000;
Taylor & von Destinon, 2000; Ward, 1995; Woodard & Komives, 1990) and
commitment and contribution to the field (DeCoster 8 Brown, 1991; Kruger,
2000; Nuss, 2000; VVInston 8 Creamer, 1997).

New professionals entering the student affairs field come from a wide
variety of backgrounds and experiences; some with experience in higher
education, some with experience in other fields, and others with no professional
experience (Janosik 8. Creamer, 2003). They typically find themselves in
positions that are at the low end of the pay scale; require a total professional life

commitment, often at the expense of a personal life, lack professional

development and mentoring opportunities, and require at least regional mobility
for career advancement (Woodard & Komives, 1990). The relationship that new
professionals have with their first supervisor may be critical in the development of
their commitment to a career in student affairs work (Harned & Murphy, 1998).
Janosik and Creamer (2003) believe “...supervision of new professionals may be
among the most critical supervision tasks or responsibilities of a college or
university” (p. 1). It is especially important that a new employee receive bedback
from a supervisor during the first few months on the job along with assistance in
becoming socialized to the organization’s culture and politics (Amey, 2002).
Careful supervision of new professionals can help them begin career-long
development (Carpenter & Miller, 1981). Absence of a supervisor concerned
about the employee’s personal and professional growth can contribute to the
employee’s decision to leave the organization, and even the profession, after a
short period of time. Quality supervision may influence an employee’s decision to
remain at the employing institution.

More experienced professionals with years of service may find limited
opportunities for advancement and may also leave the profession. The
organization of educational institutions resembles a pyramid, with many more
jobs at the bottom of the pyramid than at the top (Benke & Disque, 1990;
Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito & Kelly, 1987; Mills, 2000). A perceived lack of
opportunity for promotion within the institution contributed to the intention of mid-
level student affairs administrators to leave more than administrators in

academic, business, and external affairs (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1997). Providing

means for experienced professionals to contribute to the profession through
membership in professional associations, conference attendance and
presentations, through research and publication (Komives, 1992), opportunities
for continued graduate studies, or by increasing responsibilities in their position
will help them continue their commitment to the profession. The skills gained
through professional organization activities are skills that can be brought back to
the employing institution, benefiting both the institution and the individual.
Supervisors of more experienced professionals can play an important role in the
continued development of student affairs professionals and their commitment
and contribution to the field. Carpenter (2001) believes the collaborative process
of supervision continues throughout a career: “All staff members, no matter the
length of their tenure in the field or expertise, deserve regular, thoughtful
supervision” (Winston & Creamer, 1997, p. 212).

Good supervision not only leads to greater employee satisfaction, which
might result in less turnover; it can lead to greater productivity as well (Cooper,
Saunders, Howell & Bates, 2001; Schuh & Carlisle, 1991). Good supervision also
“. ..improves the quality of the work, enhances the work environment and
develops more supportive relationships among colleagues” (Palombi, 2002, p.
39). “Effective supervision can greatly stimulate the professional and personal
growth required to develop and maintain quality staff” (Baier, 1985, p. 216).
Young (1990) believes the relationship that mid-managers have with their

supervisor may be the most critical of any relationships in student affairs.

Wrnston and Creamer (1997) defined supervision in higher education as
“a management function intended to promote the achievement of institutional
goals and to enhance the personal and professional capabilities and
performance of staff" (p. 186). They proposed a theoretical model of effective
supervision, called synergistic supervision, which should be viewed essentially as
a helping process provided by the institution to benefit or support staff rather than
as a mechanism for punishment for unsatisfactory performance. Characteristics
of synergistic supervision include: dual focus; joint effort; two—way
communication; focus on competence (knowledge, work-related skills, personal
and professional skills, and attitudes); goals; a systematic and ongoing process;
and growth orientation (\Nrnston & Creamer, 1997). This definition acknowledges
that meeting the goals of both the individual and the institution is a crucial
component of supervision.

There are concerns in student affairs about retention of employees and
their persistence in the profession. The terms retention and persistence will be
used interchangeably throughout this study. There are also concerns about
commitment to the student affairs profession as demonstrated by participation in
professional associations and conferences and through contributions of research
and publication. The practice of synergistic supervision, with its dual focus on
benefits for both the institution and the individual, can improve retention and

increase demonstrated commitment to the profession.

Research Questions

After a review of current student affairs literature on supervision, retention,
and commitment to the profession, the following research questions were
designed to meet the purpose of the study and direct the study and methods of
data analysis.

1. Is synergistic supervision practiced in the student affairs
profession at public universities in Michigan?

2. Do individuals’ perceptions of synergistic supervision received
and its focus on meeting the goals of the institution and the
personal and professional goals of the employee influence
persistence in the student affairs profession?

3. Do individuals’ perceptions of synergistic supervision received
influence commitment to the student affairs profession?

In order to answer these research questions, a two-part study was
conducted using both quantitative and qualitative data gathering methods to
determine if the use of behaviors and characteristics of synergistic supervision
influence the persistence of staff in the profession and their commitment to the
profession.

After an introduction to the purpose and Significance of this study in
Chapter I, a literature review of supervision, persistence in the student affairs
profession and commitment to the student affairs profession is found in Chapter
II. Chapter III provides a description of the methodologies used for this study.

Data analyses of results of this study are presented in Chapter IV followed by a

discussion of results, major findings, implications and recommendations in

Chapter V.

Chapter II
Review of the Literature

In order to understand the issues surrounding the problem of supervision,
a review of the literature regarding the current state of supervision in student
affairs is warranted. Areas to be explored include: the definition of supervision;
supervision as a component of staffing practices, personnel management, and
staff development; supervision from different perspectives; persistence in student
affairs; and commitment to the profession of student affairs.
Supervision

Student affairs professionals are hired, in part, for positions based on a
number of specific skills they possess. Rarely is the skill of supervision a strong
consideration in hiring decisions, yet it is often a major responsibility of the
student affairs practitioner. “Few practitioners have received adequate
preparation as supervisors...and frequently pay little attention to those roles after
entering the freld” (Schuh 8 Carlisle, 1991, p. 495). A meta-analysis of 30 years
of research relating to successful student affairs administration (Lovell 8 Kosten,
2000) suggests that administration, management, and human facilitation
(including staff supervision) skills are critical to success. Chief student affairs
officers ranked staff supervision as the area of expertise or knowledge most
important in the performance of their duties (Lunsford, 1984) and personnel
management skills as essential for success at the midlevel (Saunders 8 Cooper,
1999). Past presidents of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA)

and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)

identified supervision as one of the most critical skills necessary for Chief
Student Affairs Officers (CSAOs) (Cooper, Miller, Saunders, Chemow, 8 Kulic,
1999). Winston and Creamer (1997) argue “...that the most important function of
any administrative-level professional is to select, assign, supervise, and develop
the people who staff the division’s units” (p. 6). Harned and Murphy (1998)
believe “there may be few organizations as deprived of traditional managerial
and supervisory training and development protocols as colleges and universities”
(p. 45). The quality of education is connected to the quality of institutional staffing
practices, especially with regards to supervision (Wrnston 8 Creamer, 1997).
The importance of supervision is recognized in standards established for
training new student affairs professionals. The Council for the Advancement of
Standards in Higher Education (CAS) includes supervised practice as one of the
required elements in the curriculum of masters-level graduate programs for
student affairs professionals (CAS Standards, 2003). According to CAS
Standards, supervision must be provided by competent student affairs
professionals possessing appropriate student affairs education and experience.
Even though they may have experienced effective supervision from a
competent student affairs professional as a graduate or undergraduate student,
many practitioners entering the field have had little experience or preparation as
supervisors (Schuh 8 Cartisle, 1991; Stock-Ward 8 Javorek, 2003: Woodard 8
Komives, 1990). Staff members may enter the profession directly from graduate

preparation programs, from other fields, or with years of professional experience.

They join the organization and may have immediate responsibility for the
supervision of staff including new professionals and graduate assistants.

Although most student affairs practitioners spend a substantial part of
each day managing staff (Dalton, 1996), few student affairs divisions include
supervision training as part of professional or staff development. In a survey
conducted by Wrnston, Torres, Carpenter, McIntire and Peterson (2001) of 263
Senior Student Affairs Officers, 43% reported that they provided no training in
supervision to their staff. Thirty-eight percent reported training was offered
occasionally, 14% provided annual training, and 6% provided training at the time
a person assumed supervisory responsibilities.

Additionally, student affairs staffs often indicate that they do not receive
adequate supervision (Anninio 8 Creamer, 2001; Saunders, Cooper, Winston 8
Chemow, 2000; Wrnston 8 Creamer, 1997). For many student affairs
professionals, the context for a definition of supervision can mean “being called
on the carpet” for poor performance (VVInston 8 Creamer, 1998), or making a
mistake and being “caught” by a supervisor and “punished” or corrected
(Carpenter, 2001). Supervision should be viewed essentially as a helping
process provided by the institution to benefit or support staff rather than, as is
often reflected in the literature, a mechanism for punishment inflicted on
practitioners for unsatisfactory performance.

Given that much of the supervision literature focuses on discipline and
control as a way to improve performance, there is a perception that professionals

who are performing well in their jobs do not need supervision (Wrnston 8

Creamer, 1998). Supervision can be perceived as an insult to the practitioner
who is doing a good job and is often seen as important only when dealing with
employees who have problems or are new to the organization (Winston 8
Creamer, 1997). Carpenter (2001) presents a different view when he says that
supervision is a collaborative process that continues throughout a career.
Wrnston and Creamer (1997) add: “All staff members, no matter the length of
their tenure in the field or expertise, deserve regular, thoughtful supervision” (p.
212). The supervision provided to staff in entry-level positions, seasoned
professionals, employees suffering performance problems, or those who are
performing well in their positions will not be identical. It should reflect the
collaboration between supervisors and supervisees in meeting the organization’s
goals while helping the supervisee meet personal and professional goals
(Winston 8 Creamer, 1997).

Although supervision is acknowledged to be important in the
administration of student affairs, a review of the literature shows there has been
little research on the topic (Stock-Ward 8 Javorek, 2003). Cooper et al. (2001)
note that much of the literature on supervision is descriptive of general trends
about supervisory practices or is limited to satisfaction surveys. They believe that
such research is a good first step in identifying effective supervision strategies,
but further research should use more rigorous research methodologies that
measure changes resulting from training sessions or supervision practices.

Supervision has usually been examined as one of several interrelated

functions of staffing practices or as one component of staff development

10

(Carpenter, 2001; Carpenter, Torres 8 Winston, 2001; Dalton, 1996; Wrnston 8
Creamer, 1997, 1998). Some researchers have examined specific aspects of
supervision fiom business or the human resource management perspective
(Dalton, 1996; Holmes, 1998; Miller 8 Winston, 1991; Taylor 8 von Destinon,
2000). Others have examined supervision at different levels in the administrative
structure (Ellis 8 Moon, 1991; Fey 8 Carpenter, 1996; Mills, 2000; Schneider,
2002; Waite, 1993.) Still other researchers provided definitions of supervision,
and some attempted to describe quality supervision (Anninio 8 Creamer, 2001;
Mills, 2000; Rowley 8 Sherman, 2004; Schuh 8 Carlisle, 1991; Winston 8
Creamer, 1997).

In an extensive review of the student affairs literature on supervision,
Cooper et al. (2001) found one hundred forty-five articles published in either the
NASPA Journal or the Joumal of College Student Development during the period
of 1969-1999. They separated these articles into three categories: general
supervision and personnel management; staff development; and supervising
paraprofessional staff. Eighty-three percent of the articles during this thirty-year
period focused on either staff development or supervising paraprofessional staff.
They found twenty-five articles related to general supervision and personnel
management. Fifteen of these did not focus on outcomes and were not included
in their analysis. The ten remaining articles assessed the outcomes of
supervision or management practices and could be classified by topic, functional
area, types of staff, treatment, and instrument or measurement utilized. Cooper

et al. note that associations between perceptions of positive supervision and

11

productivity, longevity in the profession, and general organization effectiveness
have not been empirically demonstrated. They recommend rigorous research
that obtains outcome measures other than perceptions or satisfaction; includes
empirical methodology using comparison groups; and uses validated instruments
within the quantitative studies.

Supen/ision defined.

A number of authors have provided definitions of supervision. Mills (2000)
viewed supervision as accomplishing goals by working through others. Schuh
and Carlisle (1991) defined supervision in a broad sense “...to include any
relationship where one person has the responsibility to provide leadership,
direction, information, motivation, evaluation, or support for one or more persons”
(p. 497). Rowley and Sherman (2004) noted that supervisory management was a
process of general characteristics that included leadership, managing human
resources, planning, organizing, and evaluation and feedback, and specific
characteristics that were part of a system and an on-going process.

Anninio and Creamer (2001) offer the following as a grounded definition of
high quality supervision:

Quality supervision is an educational endeavor demonstrated through

principled practices with a dual focus on institutional and individual needs.

It requires (a) synergistic relationships between supervisor and staff

members, (b) ubiquitous involvement with and constant nurturing of staff

members and (c) a stable and supportive institutional environment to be

effective. (p. 42)

12

In recognizing the dual focus on institutional and individual needs, Wrnston
and Creamer (1997) defined supervision in higher education as “a management
function intended to promote the achievement of institutional goals and to
enhance the personal and professional capabilities and performance of staff" (p.
186). They proposed a theoretical model of effective supervision, called
synergistic supervision. Characteristics of synergistic supervision include: dual
focus; joint effort; two-way communication; focus on competence (knowledge,
work-related skills, personal and professional skills, and attitudes); goals; a
systematic and ongoing process; and growth orientation.

The dual focus in synergistic supervision emphasizes that both the goals
of the institution and unit are accomplished as well as the personal and
professional goals of staff. Staff members need to be involved in setting and
accomplishing goals. When supervisors and staff have relationships built on
trust, respect, openness, and mutuality, and work together to establish the staffs
personal and professional goals, the staff members are more likely to show
loyalty to the supervisor and the institution. This cooperative activity involves a
joint effort, with both supervisors and staff making contributions. This
combination of energy makes the approach synergistic, with the outcome equal
to more than the sum of its parts. Two-way communication is more likely to occur
when a high level of tmst has been established between the supervisor and staff
members and will create a climate in which honest and direct feedback is given.

Synergistic supervision also focuses on competence (Wrnston 8 Creamer,

1997). Competence in student affairs includes knowledge and information about

13

student development; legal, professional, and ethical standards; and institutional
policies. There is also an expectation of competence in work-related Skills,
personal and professional skills, and appropriate attitudes.

Wrth a focus on growth orientation rather than correcting problems or
discipline, staff can benefit from a work place that is stimulating and rewarding
(Wrnston 8 Creamer, 1997). When potential problems are identified, the
proactivity aspect of synergistic supervision allows problems to be identified
early, and the supervisor and staff member can work together on the resolution
of issues.

Goal-based synergistic supervision carries an expectation that goals are
periodically reviewed and evaluated and that supervisor and staff meet regulariy
to monitor progress and make adjustments. Synergistic supervision is a
systematic and ongoing process that becomes a routine part of professional life.
Holistically, synergistic supervision responds to not only people’s professional
concerns but also their personal attitudes and beliefs: “Synergistic supervision
concentrates on helping staff become more effective in their jobs and personal
lives, and supports them in their quest for career advancement" (Vlfrnston 8
Creamer, 1997, p. 211).

The definition of synergistic supervision offered by Wrnston and Creamer
(1997) is consistent with fundamental values of the student affairs profession.
Synergistic supervision’s focus on meeting both the goals of the organization and
the personal and professional goals of the individual supports core values based

on human dignity, equality, and community (Wrnston 8 Creamer, 1997). Both

14

organizations and individuals benefit when “...employees are viewed as
individuals with diverse talents that can be tapped and developed. .." (Dalton,
1996, p. 499) and “if the goals of the organization and the individual are met,
then the supervisor is successful” (Saunders, et al., 2000, p. 182). Focusing on
the people who work in student affairs indicates the centrality of the student
affairs profession’s concern for people (Winston 8 Creamer, 1997) and
enhancing the development of staff as well as students is consistent with the
profession’s values (Saunders, et al., 2000). Carpenter (2001) also believes that
“nothing is more important to effective practice in student affairs administration
than the people who serve the students and manage the institution” (p. 211).

Supervision as a component of staffing practices or personnel

management.

Supervision is often viewed as one of the interrelated functions of staffing
practices, along with recruitment, selection, orientation and departure of
employees; performance appraisal; and professional development (Carpenter,
Torres 8 \Mnston, 2001). Vlfinston and Creamer (1997) identify similar complex,
overlapping components of staffing systems that include recruitment and
selection, orientation to position, supervision, staff development and performance
appraisal. They note, however, that most colleges and universities conceptually
merge the topics of supervision, staff development and performance evaluation
into a general discussion about staffing practices or personnel management.
Another perspective from Winston et al. (2001) separates the functions as

selection, orientation, supervision, development and evaluation. Conley (2001)

15

identified a lack of attention paid to the separation of employees and
recommended that staffing models be extended to “. ..include mechanisms for
coping with employee separation and for helping staff through the transition
process” (p. 63). Although all these separate functions or components are critical,
most of the student affairs literature focuses on one of the components rather
than the integration of all of them (Winston et al., 2001 ).

Personnel management skills were ranked most important among skills
needed for their positions by mid-level student affairs administrators (Fey 8
Carpenter, 1996). At times, supervision is not even included in the range of
personnel management Skills. Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAOS) ranked, by
importance, personnel management skills in the middle of seven functional
categories of competencies they seek when hiring for mid-level student affairs
positions (Gordon, Borders Strode, 8 Mann, 1993). However, supervision was
not one of the five specific skills listed in the personnel management category,
which included dealing effectively with interpersonal problems, providing effective
staff evaluation and feedback, allowing for due process, staffing equitably
according to department needs, and developing behavioral job descriptions
(Gordon et al., 1993). This in spite of the fact that CSAOS ranked staff
supervision as the most important area of expertise or knowledge in the
performance of duties common to CSAOS and that a substantial percentage of
their time was Spent on staff supervision and personnel administration (Lunsford,

1984).

16

Supervision as a component of staff development.

Staff development can provide Ieaming and growth opportunities for
employees, which can enhance both their personal and professional lives,
ultimately benefiting the organization. “Optimally, it is a process that leads to the
development of quality professional staff and, in turn, to organizational
effectiveness” (Bryan 8 Schwartz, 1998, p. 99). Development of the organization
and the institution’s needs and goals determine the way staff development is
conceived and implemented and sets the context for enhancement of individual
performance (DeCoster 8 Brown, 1991 ). Staff development can serve as a
bridge between graduate education and professional practice for new
professionals and should provide a baseline for content and skills training
(Dalton, 1991). It is most effective when it focuses on the individual and the
institution and includes both professional and personal development (Hirt 8
Wrnston, 2003).

One of the most important skill areas in staff development should be
training of supervisors. Staff development activities and staff supervision should
be integrated for maximum effectiveness (Winston 8 Creamer, 1998). Carpenter
(2001) sees staff development as tightly coupled with supervision; however, most
of the discussion in the literature is about the other aspects of staff development
and there is generally little mention of supervision. In actuality, there are no
prescribed guidelines and little consistency in staff development programs in
student affairs divisions, if programs are offered at all. There is also a lack of

agreement on the essential knowledge and skills necessary for professional

17

practice (Dalton, 1991). Even in a description of model staff development
programs in student affairs divisions at four universities (Grace-Odeleye, 1998),
supervisory training is one of many competing elements of staff development and
is not included in recommendations to maintain and support staff development
programs.

Seasoned professionals can use opportunities in their supervisory
relationships to influence the quality and character of professional development
of new professionals (Cooper 8 Miller, 1998). The role of the supervisor in
providing professional development opportunities is especially crucial given the
varied educational background and experience new employees bring to the
organization.

Supen/ision from difierent perspectives.

Specific perspectives or aspects of supervision have been reviewed in the
literature from other professions. Some authors have looked to business and
industry and their human resource practices for applicability to student affairs.
Others have examined supervision at different levels in the administrative
structure.

Dalton (1996) recognizes changes taking place in American business and
industry that require more flexible, creative, and team-oriented workplaces.
Changes in technology, competition and consumer demands are also becoming
increasingly common in American colleges and universities. Dalton believes this
orientation toward flexibility and change will benefit from supervisors who are

visionary leaders. This orientation will also benefit from practical managers with

18

Skills of articulating goals and motivating staff to commit to them. Miller and
Wrnston (1991) also recommend looking to business to guide evaluations of
student affairs practitioners by qualified supervisors and transferring the
emphasis placed on evaluation from the corporate community to higher
education. Taylor and von Destinon (2000) suggest that because of the
similarities between human resource departments and student services, student
services can model human resources’ staff training and development programs.
Holmes (1998) also believes performance-based human resource development
practices are relevant in student affairs.

Some of the research on supervision in student affairs has focused on the
level of the professional in the administrative structure recognizing that
supervision is different for employees at the entry level than for those in middle
management positions. Schneider (2002) attempts to fill the gap left by graduate
preparation programs in helping new professionals enhance their supervisory
ability by using multiple flames to view the issues supervisors may face.
Schneider (2002) believes that supervisors should act as architects, catalysts,
advocates, or interpreters using approaches tailored to each situation, individual,
or team. Understanding and viewing the organization in which they work through
these multiple lenses will lead to improved decision making, working
relationships, and performance (Schneider, 2002). In studying novice
supervisors, Waite (1993) found that graduate students in a supervision class
had different expectations of supervision and defined it differently than did

practitioners and in the way supervision is described in the literature. They held

19

unrealistic expectations of supervisory traits including skills, experience,
knowledge, and dispositions, and they identified supervisor tasks including
cheerleading and modeling not identified in the literature.

Fey and Carpenter’s (1996) survey of 276 mid-level Student Affairs
Administrators revealed that mid—level administrators ranked personnel
management skills (presumably to include supervision) as the most important of
seven skills categories for their positions. Mills (2000) notes that while middle
managers may have responsibility for supervising staff, they often lack the
authority for making staffing levels and compensation decisions. He believes “the
ability to manage staff successfully is generally the determinant of success for
the middle manager” (p. 141). The quality of the relationship that midlevel
administrators have with their supervisors is important to them and when they
perceive high levels of career support, leading to higher morale, they are less
likely to intend to leave (Johnsrud, Heck, 8 Rosser, 2000). Additionally, providing
recognition for growth and accomplishment is one of the most significant acts in
the supervision of middle managers (Ellis 8 Moon, 1991).

Persistence in the Student Affairs Profession

The largest proportion of an institution’s (Hirt, Collins, 8 Plummer, 2005)
and a student affairs division’s (Barr, Desler, 8 Associates, 2000; Dalton, 1996)
budget is spent on personnel. Lowering staff turnover and increasing retention at
the institutional level and persistence in the profession then becomes a critical
issue for colleges and universities today (Blackhurst, 2000; Evans, 1988; Rosser

8 Javinar, 2003; Scott, 2000; Taylor 8 von Destinon, 2000; Woodard 8 Komives,

20

1990). While staff turnover provides advantages to institutions through the new
perspectives staff members bring, opportunities for increased diversity, and
potential salary savings, disadvantages include additional recruitment costs, loss
of expertise and stability and training costs (Johnsrud, Heck, 8 Rosser, 2000;
Lorden, 1998). When staff members leave, the institution loses their experience,
job knowledge, and skills that have contributed to the effective management of
the institution (Johnsrud 8 Rosser, 1997). New staff members’ persistence at the
employing institution and in the student affairs profession can be enhanced by
the support of good, caring supervisors (Woodard 8 Komives, 1990). In fact,
Harned and Murphy (1998) believe that “. . .the relationship with one’s first
immediate supervisor can be critical in creating a lasting commitment to the
field”.

There is concern about retention and the numbers of professional staff in
student affairs who intend to leave the field (Bender, 1980; Evans, 1988; Lawing,
Moore 8 Groseth, 1982; Lorden, 1998; Ward, 1995). Several hallmark studies on
retention in student affairs were conducted in the early 19803. These studies
were followed by additional research published through 1999 but since that time
there has been a dearth of research on the topic of retention.

Only 36% of NASPA Region II student affairs professionals surveyed by
Bender (1980) planned to spend their entire career in student affairs. In a small
study of graduate students with housing assistantships, Hancock (1988) found
that ten percent of the students planned to leave the profession immediately after

graduation. Ting and Watt (1999) found that approximately one-third of

21

professionals in their study intended to leave student affairs within five years
even though they had been in the field for a relatively long period of time.

Concern about the intent to leave the profession increases when looking
at the numbers of professionals who actually do leave the profession. In a study
of 170 graduates of a master’s program in student personnel at an eastern
university, 66% of the graduates reported they were working in the student affairs
field (Holmes, Verrier 8 Chisholm, 1983). However, the rate of participation
dropped to 39% by the sixth year of employment (Holmes et al., 1983). Burns
(1982) found that 64% of the 192 preparation program graduates within the last
five years from two eastern universities surveyed remained in the profession. For
those who graduated more than five years previously, the percentage of those
remaining in student affairs dropped to 49% (Burns, 1982).

Although the number of professional positions at all levels in student
affairs has grown since these earlier studies, the longevity of department heads
and others in upper management positions limits the upward mobility of those in
entry and middle level positions (Benke 8 Disque, 1990; Evans, 1988; Lorden,
1998; Sagaria 8 Johnsrud, 1988; White, Webb 8 Young, 1990). Many
professionals find they need to move to a different functional area or to a different
institution to advance (Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito 8 Kelly, 1987; Evans, 1988). Still
others may find that the transferable skills developed in student affairs prepared
them well for positions outside higher education, and they leave higher education
for better paying positions in other fields (Carpenter, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-
DiBrito 8 Kelly, 1987; Conley, 2001; Lorden, 1998).

22

Commitment to the Profession

It is essential for student affairs professionals to promote their own growth
and development in order to be effective practitioners (Bryan 8 Mullendore,
1990; Cutler, 2003; DeCoster 8 Brown, 1991). Student affairs practitioners
demonstrate their commitment to the profession by improving and expanding
their skills through membership in professional associations, attendance at
conferences, making presentations at conferences, and through research and
publication. These professional development activities provide student affairs
practitioners opportunities to refine and expand their skills and to improve their
job performance, thus benefiting not only the practitioners, but the employing
institution as well (Schwartz 8 Bryan, 1998). Student affairs professionals can
gain Ieaming experiences through involvement in professional associations that
they can not receive at their own institution (Reesor, 2002). The fulfillment an
employee gains through professional association involvement can also be
brought back to the job setting where there may be little opportunity for similar
activities (Hamrick 8 Hemphill, 2002).

Past presidents of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA)
and the National Association of Personnel Administrators (NASPA) advise
student affairs professionals to pursue opportunities for professional
development and commit to Iong-tenn professional development goals even at
the beginning of their careers (Cooper, et al., 1999). Some student affairs
divisions offer formal staff development programs that provide opportunities to

improve existing skills as well as develop new ones (Schwartz 8 Bryan, 1998).

23

However, formal staff development programs are not available for student affairs
professionals at all institutions, so individuals must often take responsibility to
develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities to enhance their work with students
and to advance in the profession (Kruger, 2000).

Some have equated commitment to the field with a sense of
professionalism and professional identity. “One Sign of professionalism is
affiliation with associations devoted to the advancement of the field” (Wrnston 8
Creamer, 1997, p. 98). Nuss (2000) believes that “at a minimum, anyone
intending a serious career in student affairs should be a member of at least one
professional association” (p. 493). Student affairs professionals commit to
encouraging students to become involved and connected. Professionals working
in student affairs have that same need for involvement and commitment, which
can be enhanced through their involvement in professional organizations
(Hamrick 8 Hemphill, 2002; Reesor, 2002). Professional associations not only
provide opportunities for leadership skills development and a vehicle for job
searches, they can offer individual professionals training, access to information
and networking opportunities with professionals at other institutions (Belch 8
Strange, 1995; Blackhurst, Brandt, 8 Kalinowski, 1998; Bryan 8 Mullendore,
1990; Chemow, Cooper 8 Wrnston, 2003; Cooper et al., 1999; Ellis, 2002;
Harned 8 Murphy, 1998; Schwartz 8 Bryan, 1998). Nuss (2000) summarizes the
major reasons professionals join and become involved with associations as to:
“...enhance their own professional development; make a contribution to the

association; and to help the profession” (p. 499). Chief Student Affairs Officers

24

acknowledge that “...the personal and professional networks developed through
professional associations play an integral role in their advancement to the
position of CSAO” (Lunsford, 1984, p. 55).

Professional associations remain current with institutional and societal
issues facing higher education and student affairs. Student affairs practitioners
often learn about critical issues and appropriate responses through their
professional associations (Moore 8 Neuberger, 1998). Members can also reach
out to their associations for additional assistance and guidance in the issues they
face at their institutions. Not only can members offer expertise to their
association colleagues, but they, and in turn their employing institutions, benefit
from the collected wisdom and experience of other professionals across the
country.

By attending professional conferences and associating with other student
affairs professionals, practitioners gain the informal knowledge of those who
know how to do the job, thus going beyond what can be learned by reading the
literature and in the classroom (Blimling, 2001). Making conference presentations
at the local, state, regional, or national level not only helps professionals to
develop their communication and public speaking skills but can also advance the
profession and reflect a commitment to the profession (DeCoster 8 Brown, 1991;
Kruger, 2000).

The importance of a commitment to the profession is emphasized by two
major professional organizations in the student affairs field. Both the NASPA

Standards of Professional Practice (1998) and the ACPA Ethics Statement

25

(1993) identify the contribution professionals can make to the profession by
participating in association activities and conducting and reporting the results of
research. NASPA members are expected to contribute to the development of the
profession by enhancing their own personal knowledge and skills, facilitate the
professional growth of their staff, and conduct and report research (NASPA,
1998). NASPA also expects its members to agree with the mission and goals of
their employing institutions. The ACPA Ethics Statement (1993) specifies four
areas of ethical standards for student affair professionals. These include
professional responsibility and competence; identifying Ieaming opportunities and
reducing barriers that inhibit development; displaying responsibility to their
institutions; and demonstrating a responsibility to society.

Contributing to the development of the profession includes conducting and
reporting research (ACPA Ethics Statement, 1993). Lawing, Moore and Groseth
(1982) found that student affairs practitioners who expected to remain in the field
were more likely to have written articles published in professional journals.
Submitting original research to professional publications not only contributes to
individual professional growth but is another way to demonstrate a commitment
to the profession (DeCoster 8 Brown, 1991).

Summary

CSAOS and midlevel administrators consider supervision skills important
in student affairs (Cooper, et al., 1999; Lunsford, 1984; Saunders 8 Cooper,
1999). CAS Standards (2003) also recognize the importance of supervision in

training new professionals. Yet many supervisors enter the student affairs field

26

with little supervisory experience and are given little training by their
organizations (Dalton, 1996; Schuh 8 Carlisle, 1991; Stock-Ward 8 Javorek,
2003; Winston, et al., 2001; Woodard 8 Komives, 1990). Additionally, student
affairs staffs often indicate that they do not receive adequate supervision
(Anninio 8 Creamer, 2001; Saunders et al., 2000; Vlfrnston 8 Creamer, 1997).
There is a perception that professionals who are performing well in their jobs do
not need supervision or that supervision is seen as important only when dealing
with employees who have problems or are new to the organization (Winston 8
Creamer, 1997; 1998).

The literature review suggests that supervision is often viewed as one of
the interrelated functions of staffing practices, along with recruitment, selection,
orientation and departure of employees; performance appraisal; and professional
development (Carpenter, 2001; Carpenter, et al., 2001; Dalton, 1996; Vlfinston 8
Creamer, 1997, 1998). Although all these separate functions or components are
critical, most of the student affairs literature focuses on one of the components
rather than the integration of all of them.

Specific perspectives or aspects of supervision have been reviewed in
other literature. Some authors have looked to business and industry and their
human resource practices for applicability to student affairs (Dalton, 1996;
Holmes, 1998; Miller 8 Winston, 1991; Taylor 8 von Destinon, 2000). Others
have examined supervision at different levels in the administrative structure (Ellis
8 Moon, 1991; Fey 8 Carpenter, 1996; Mills, 2000; Schneider, 2002; Waite,
1993).

27

Staff turnover creates both opportunities and costs for institutions of higher
education and student affairs divisions. Staff vacancies provide opportunities to
bring in employees with new perspectives, to increase diversity in the work force,
and realize potential salary savings. However, staff turnover results in a loss of
expertise and stability and the investment made in employee training as well as
an increase in additional recruitment costs (Johnsrud et al., 2000; Johnsrud 8
Rosser, 1997; Lorden, 1998). Although the number of professional positions in
student affairs has grown, the longevity of department heads and others in upper
management positions limits the upward mobility of those in entry and middle
level positions (Benke 8 Disque, 1990; Evans, 1988; Lorden, 1998; Sagaria 8
Johnsrud, 1988; White et al., 1990). This has led to concern about retention of
professional staff in student affairs (Bender, 1980; Evans, 1988; Lawing et al.,
1982; Lorden, 1998; Ward, 1995).

There is also concern about the commitment of student affairs
practitioners to the profession. It is essential for student affairs professionals to
promote their own growth and development in order to be effective practitioners
(Cutler, 2003; DeCoster 8 Brown, 1991). While some student affairs divisions
offer formal staff development programs and training opportunities, individuals
need to take responsibility to develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities to
enhance their work with students and advance in the profession (Kruger, 2000;
Schwartz 8 Bryan, 1998). Not only do student affairs practitioners benefit
individually by improving their skills and job performance through involvement in

professional organizations, attending and making presentations at conferences

28

and conducting and reporting research, their employing institutions benefit
through better trained employees able to contribute to the goals of the institution
(DeCoster 8 Brown, 1991; Lawing et al., 1982; Reesor, 2002; Schwartz 8 Bryan,
1998)

Wrnston and Creamer (1997) proposed a theoretical model of effective
supervision, called synergistic supervision. The dual focus in synergistic
supervision emphasizes the accomplishment of the goals of the institution and
unit as well as the personal and professional goals of individual staff. The
definition of synergistic supervision offered by V\finston and Creamer is consistent
with fundamental values of the student affairs profession in its dedication to
serving the interests of individuals and society (Winston 8 Creamer, 1997;
Young, 1996) and enhancing the development of staff as well as students
(Saunders et al., 2000).

This research project will be helpful in understanding how the practice of
synergistic supervision, with its dual focus on benefits for both the institution and
the individual, can improve persistence and increase demonstrated commitment
to the profession. The research will fill a gap in the current literature, which falls
to describe connections between supervision, retention and commitment to the

profession.

29

Chapter III
Research Methods

The purpose of this study was to determine if the perception of behaviors
and characteristics of synergistic supervision influence the persistence of student
affairs staff in the profession and their commitment to the profession. Persistence
was defined by an employee’s intention to continue a career in student affairs,
regardless of the institution in which they are employed. Commitment to the
profession was defined by employee membership in professional organizations,
conference attendance, conference participation such as presentations, and
involvement in research and publication.

Wrnston and Creamer (1997) developed a theoretical model of effective
supervision called synergistic supervision. Synergistic supervision has a two-
dimensional focus, one on the goals of the institution and one on the goals of the
individual. Very little research has been done to test this model. Saunders et al.
(2000) developed and tested a Synergistic Supervision Scale that supported the
validity of the model. The validity of the Synergistic Supervision Scale was also
tested in the research conducted by Tull (2004).

Design

In their review of the literature on supervision in student affairs from 1969
through 1999, Cooper et al. (2001) noted that few of the studies - qualitative or
quantitative - involved rigorous research. They recognize that “part of the
difficulty of completing rigorous research about supervision and professional

development is the challenge of obtaining outcome measures other than

30

perceptions or satisfaction” (p. 90). They go on to suggest that both staff
members and supervisors who participate in a thorough study of the efficacy of
staff supervision may perceive potential risks related to their involvement, which
may make research more difficult. However, they believe that until supervision iS
adequately researched, the elements that comprise effective supervisory
performance will not be fully understood. It was important to provide assurance to
participants in this study that results would not be used in a way that identified
individual supervisors.

This research project included both quantitative and qualitative methods of
data collection to better understand the concept of synergistic supervision. A
survey was conducted to gather any evidence whether or not synergistic
supervision was being practiced in student affairs at public universities in
Michigan. Interviews were conducted to elicit views and opinions from the
participants that would not have emerged from the survey data and to focus on
the supervision experiences of an appropriate sample of student affairs
professionals. The two methodologies would help determine what impact, if any
synergistic supervision has on persistence in and commitment to the profession.
Data were collected sequentially, first through an on-line survey and then through
interviews. Both stages of data collection were given equal priority and results
were integrated at the data analysis phase to address the following research
questions:

Is synergistic supervision practiced in the student affairs profession at

public universities in Michigan?

31

Do individuals’ perceptions of synergistic supervision received and its
focus on meeting the goals of the institution and the personal and
professional goals of the employee influence persistence in the student
affairs profession?

Do individuals’ perceptions of synergistic supervision received influence

commitment to the student affairs profession?
Quantitative

Instrumentation.

In building a staffing model in student affairs, Wrnston and Creamer (1997)
developed and administered a nationwide survey to examine staffing practices.
The survey covered the areas of staff recruitment and selection, new position
orientation, job satisfaction, supervisory approaches and content, staff
development organization and activities, and performance appraisal practices.
Respondents included staff at all levels of the organization. Issues related to both
supervision given and supervision received were included. Saunders et al. (2000)
explored the validity of the Winston and Creamer staffing model by developing
the Synergistic Supervision Scale (SSS). The 888 measures staff member
perceptions of the following supervisor behaviors: concern about staff members’
personal and career development; equitable staff treatment; and management
that encourages productivity, cooperative problem solving with staff, systematic
goal setting, and two-way communication and mutual feedback.

The SSS included 22 items intended to assess the degree to which a

supervisor was perceived, by the supervisee, to demonstrate synergistic

32

supervision behaviors. Subjects rated the frequency of each described behavior

based on their perceptions of their current supervisory relationship. Ratings were

on a five-point Likert scale (1=never or almost never; 2=seldom; 3=sometimes;
=often; 5=always or almost always).

I developed a questionnaire (Appendix A) consisting of six questions,
informed by the SSS, to address participants’ perceptions of their supervisor’s
use of synergistic supervision. Questions reflected the components of synergistic
supervision including dual focus; joint effort; two-way communication; focus on
competence; goals; a systematic and ongoing process; and growth orientation.
Participants were asked to rate the frequency of each described behavior based
on their perceptions of their current supervisory relationship. Ratings were on a
five-point Likert scale (1 =never or almost never; 2=seldom; 3=sometimes;

=often; 5=always or almost always).

Participants were asked to provide demographic information regarding job
title, educational background and plans, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and years in
the profession. Responses to the questions were used to examine potential
generational differences, or differences based on respondents’ race, gender,
years in the profession, or functional areas in which they work. Participants were
also asked to list membership in professional organizations as an additional
measure to determine their level of commitment to the profession.

Methodological considerations.

After designing the survey, I had to determine how it would be

administered. The ubiquity of the internet and access to the World Wide Web

33

(WWW or Web) has allowed researchers new opportunities for data collection
(Griffis, Goldsby, 8 Cooper, 2003). Expanded access to email gave researchers
the new option of sending surveys via email rather than through traditional mail.
The novelty of early email surveys may have contributed to faster response rates
but the email format limited the use of high quality images and color in
questionnaires (Tse, 1998). The use and design of surveys embedded in email
messages evolved into Web-based surveys (White, Carey, 8 Dailey, 2001).

Advantages in using Web-based surveys include a reduction in cost
compared to paper surveys sent through the mail, increased speed and
efficiency of data collection, and ease of connecting collected data directly to a
database that can be accessed by a statistical package (Griffis, et al., 2003; Ray
8 Tabor, 2003; Schaefer 8 Dillman, 1998; Sheehan 8 Hoy, 1999; Tingling,
Parent, 8 Wade, 2003; White, et al., 2001; Yun 8 Trumbo, 2000). As Web-based
survey methodology became more readily available in the mid to late 1990s,
disadvantages included the large startup costs and the level of technical
sophistication required to design Web sites (Tingling, et al., 2003). These
disadvantages have been minimized with an increase in the number of
companies providing low cost, survey-hosting or “tumkey' Web sites and offering
survey templates, which require little design technical expertise on the part of the
researcher.

Another disadvantage of Web-based surveys is that in order to participate,
subjects must have access to the internet and have a minimum level of comfort

in completing a survey online (Ray 8 Tabor, 2003; Sheehan 8 Hoy, 1999;

34

Tingling, et al., 2003). While this may have been a major concern ten years ago,
use of the internet has grown substantially since that time and Web-based
surveys can be as effective as mail surveys when the sample demographics fit
and respondents can access the Web Site (Griffis, et al., 2003; McCabe, Boyd,
Couper, Crawford, 8 D’Arcy, 2002; Ray 8 Tabor, 2003). Internet users may differ
from those without internet access in socioeconomic and education levels and
may cause sampling errors if the general population is the target of a study (Ray
8 Tabor, 2003). For this study, potential survey subjects were not drawn from the
general population but from employees of public Michigan universities. University
employees have access to and familiarity with the use of the internet so the use
of an on-line survey should not inhibit their participation.

Researchers have come to different conclusions about whether response
rates are higher for Web-based surveys or for paper and pencil surveys
(McCabe, et al., 2002; Ray 8 Tabor, 2003; Sheehan 8 Hoy, 2003; Tingling, et al.,
2003; Yun 8 Trumbo, 2000). Response rates may be increased through
improved design, better targeting of respondents, and identification of interested
parties (Tingling, et al., 2003) and through multiple contacts with subjects
requesting participation (Schaefer 8 Dillman, 1998). An acceptable response rate
for this study would be 25.0% to 30.0%.

Participants.

There are 15 public universities in the State of Michigan, with student
enrollments ranging from 3,225 to 44,452 (Higher Education Directory, 2005).

Each of these institutions has an identifiable Chief Student Affairs Officer

35

(CSAO), with varying titles of Dean of Students; Vice President of Student
Affairs, Student Services, or Student Life; Associate or Vrce Provost; or
Associate or Vrce Chancellor. The first stage of a multistage sampling procedure
was to identify student affairs staff members at the Michigan public institutions.
Since one of the components of synergistic supervision to be explored was
related to commitment to the profession, I did not use professional organization
membership lists as a way to identify respondents. Additionally, professional
organization membership lists would not provide as complete a list of current
professionals working in the student affairs field as would gathering information
directly from the public institutions in Michigan. The 2005106 NASPA membership
directory lists 133 professional affiliates. Thme of the 15 public universities do not
hold institutional membership and no professional affiliates are listed.

Names and email addresses of 553 student affairs professionals were
identified through institutional websites and through organizational charts
obtained from each university. Potential survey respondents worked primarily in
the areas of housing and residence life, student life, career services, academic
advising, minority student programs and student affairs administration. Identified
staff were emailed an invitation to participate in the survey.

Data collection procedures.

Data collection was done through a Web-based survey and participants
were asked to complete the survey instrument online. Student affairs
professionals at the fifteen public Michigan universities with identifiable email

addresses were emailed a letter that included a description of the study and

36

potential implications their participation may have. It is rare that a student affairs
professional working at a public university in Michigan would not have a minimal
level of experience and comfort in using computers, an email address and
internet access and experience in its use. Use of a Web-based survey for this
study did not limit participation.

Participants were able to access the instrument from a link to a Web
address provided in the email. Participants who visited the web site read
information about the purpose of the study and lnfonned consent. Those who
chose to complete the survey had to select a continue button to participate in the
survey, thereby giving their informed consent. Vrsitors to the web site could
choose to exit the site before viewing the survey and could exit the survey at any
time. A copy of the informed consent form that was used in the on-line survey is
provided in Appendix B.

Participants were given three weeks to complete the survey. Steps were
taken in administering and following up on the survey to obtain a high response
rate. A reminder email was sent at the beginning of the second week and the
beginning of the third week. Each reminder email contained a link to the survey
Website. Contact information for the researcher, the dissertation chair and the
Michigan State University Institutional Review Board was provided in the emails
and on the survey Website so participants had the opportunity to contact any of
the three with questions or concerns they may have had about the study or their
participation. Copies of the initial email, the second reminder and the final

reminder are included in Appendices C, D, and E.

37

Methods of analysis.

Descriptive analyses of survey responses were conducted to classify and
summarize characteristics of the sample. Inferential statistics, specifically chi-
square tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, Spearrnan rho and t-tests were
conducted to determine significant differences in responses to survey questions
by various groups.

Qualitative

Methodological considerations.

One method of qualitative data gathering is conducting interviews. One of
the advantages of interviews is their adaptability. The interviewer can follow up
on a response leading to a more in-depth answer (Gall, Gall, 8 Borg, 2005) and
interviews allow the researcher control over the line of questioning (Creswell,
2003). The use of open-ended questions allows respondents to answer using
their own terms rather than selecting from a fixed set of responses (Gall, Gall, 8
Borg, 2005).

A disadvantage of interviews is that there is direct interaction between the
researcher and the interviewee which can lead to subjectivity and bias (Creswell,
2003; Gall, Gall, 8 Borg, 2005). Tape recordings of the interviews provide an
unbiased account of each interview for data analysis. Another limitation of
interviews as a research method is that not all people are equally articulate and
perceptive and information is filtered through the views of the interviewee
(Creswell, 2003). Even though there are some limitations with interviews, as

there are with all data collection strategies, I decided to use interviews to collect

38

qualitative data. Interviews allowed participants to describe their experiences and
provided the opportunity for themes related to supervision and persistence in and
commitment to the student affairs profession to be developed.

Instrumentation.

Interview questions were developed using a semi-structured open-ended
protocol, informed by the Winston and Creamer staffing survey (1997). Questions
asked participants to reflect on the personal experiences that have encouraged
them to remain in the student affairs profession. They were also asked what they
do to keep new professionals in the field, their definition of commitment to the
profession and how they developed that commitment, and how supervision has
played a role in their retention in and commitment to the profession. Interview
questions differed from survey questions in that they focused not only on
participants’ perceptions of synergistic supervision received but also on the
components of synergistic supervision interview participants practiced. In
addition, demographic information about the participants (i.e., age, gender,
educational background, and years in the profession) was gathered. (Appendix
F)

Participants.

Interview participants were purposefully selected from student affairs
professionals employed by public Michigan universities with at least five to ten
years of experience in the profession. I asked my colleagues working in the
areas of Career Services, Housing and Residential Life, and Student Life to

provide several names of their colleagues working at public Michigan

39

universities. I contacted student affairs professionals working in each of these
three areas from the list of names provided and requested interviews.
Participants were selected for interviews based on their availability and while
they were in the pool of potential participants for the online survey it is unknown if
they completed the survey. A face-to-face interview lasting approximately one
hour was conducted with each of nine participants at their work sites.

Data collection procedures.

One—on-one, hour-long, face-to-face interviews were conducted with each
participant at a site chosen by the participant. A semi-structured open-ended
protocol was used to ask questions about their plans to remain in the student
affairs profession and ways they have demonstrated their commitment to the
profession. As interviewer, I decided the sequence and wording of questions
during the course of the interview following the opening question (Patton, 2002).

Each participant was given contact information for the researcher, the
dissertation chair and the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board so
they had the opportunity to contact any of the three with questions or concerns
they may have had about the study or their participation. Each participant was
asked to sign an informed consent form (see Appendix G) before participating in
the interview. Identity of the participants was kept confidential and pseudonyms
were used.

Methods of analysis.

Notes were taken during the interviews, which were tape recorded and

then transcribed. A first read of the data provided a general sense of the

40

information and a general impression of its depth, credibility and use (Creswell,
2003). The data were reviewed again to identify emerging common themes.
Detailed analysis began with a coding process that was used to break down the
data into major topics and unique topics. A descriptive narrative discussed each
theme and sub-theme, which was then analyzed to interpret, or make meaning
of, the data.
Human Subjects Review

Prior to the start of this study, I received the necessary approval for
research involving human subjects from the Michigan State University
Institutional Review Board and from Grand Valley State University Human
Research Review Committee.
Limitations

Survey participants were identified through university Web sites and
organizational charts. Examination of all university Web sites and organizational
charts in the United States for potential participants would not be possible, so
only public universities in Michigan were included in the study. This limited the
number of potential participants to approximately five hundred and may have
excluded some individuals who are not listed on Web sites or those in units
without accessible and detailed organizational charts.

Participants were employees of Michigan public universities and were not
evenly divided among institutional types, sizes and functional areas of
employment. Results of the study may not be generalizable to other universities

in the United States. In addition, the structure of student affairs divisions is

41

defined differently at various institutions. A functional area considered part of a
student affairs division at one university may not be part of the student affairs
division at another. Survey respondents may not be representative of all
functional areas.

An on-line survey may have limited participation of some participants who
are not familiar with the methodology or distrust the security of the information
they provide.

The purposive sampling procedure for interviews decreased the
generalizability of the findings. ln-person interviews also have limitations.
lnforrnants’ responses in interviews may be biased by the researchers presence.
Additionally, not all informants are equally articulate or perceptive. The findings in

this qualitative research method may be subject to other interpretations.

42

Chapter IV
Data Analysis

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of individuals’
perceptions of synergistic supervision received on persistence in and
commitment to the student affairs profession. This was accomplished by the
collection of data in an on-Iine survey and through nine interviews conducted with
selected participants. The findings from the study are presented in this chapter.
The first section outlines the basic descriptive statistics of survey participants.
The second section presents analysis of data collected through the interviews.
Quantitative: Data Collection and Response Rate

Data for the quantitative portion of this study were collected through the
use of an online survey. Demographic information was collected so that answers
to survey questions could be examined for differences in responses by Position
Title, Highest Degree Earned, Major Field of Highest Degree Earned, if
respondents were pursuing further degrees, Sex, Racial/Ethnic Background,
Years Worked as a Student Affairs Professional, Membership in National,
Regional/State Professional Organizations or Functional Areas of Responsibility.
The survey included six questions related to supervision received. (Appendix A)

A total of 553 subjects were sent an initial email message (Appendix E) on
Monday, April 3, 2006 describing the study and its implications, and asking for
their participation. Subjects were given a link in the email message connecting
them to the online survey. Twenty-seven (27) emails were returned with a notice

that there was either a delivery failure or that the person no longer worked at the

43

institution. All remaining subjects were sent a second reminder email message
(Appendix F) on Monday, April 10, 2006, and a third and final reminder email on
Monday, April 17, 2006. (Appendix G)

A final population of 526 participants were eligible to complete the survey
after the purging process. Of those, 240 participants visited the survey website.
However, three participants chose to exit the survey rather than agree to the
consent form and continue. This left 237 participants who at least partially
completed the survey, resulting in a 45.1% response rate. This response rate
was calculated after purging those participants who exited the survey website
and those who did not receive any of the email messages due to incorrect or
faulty addresses or because they had left their institutions.

The use of an online survey expedited the amount of time required for
data collection and reduced the number of errors and missing values for survey
responses. The 45.1% response rate was deemed acceptable and exceeded the
expectation of a 25.0% to 30.0% response rate. It was thought that the ease with
which respondents could respond to the survey by clicking on a link in the email
message contributed to the high response rate. The survey length (six questions
and demographic data) and the time it took to complete the survey (less than ten
minutes) may have also contributed to the positive response rate for the survey.
Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents

Position title.

Two hundred twenty-four respondents (94.5% of the total responding to

the survey) identified their position title. Five (2.3%) indicated their position title

44

was Associate/Assistant VIce President; three (1.4%) indicated the title of Dean;
six (2.7%) Associate/Assistant Dean; 33 (14.9%) Department Head/Director; 73
(32.9%) Associate/Assistant Department Head/Director", 49 (22.1%) Residence
Area Coordinator; 36 (16.2%) Coordinator; and 19 (8.6%) as Other. Position titles
provided by those who checked the Other category for Position Title included
Counselor (five); Academic Advisor (three); Ombudsman (three), and one each

in lnforrnation Technology in Housing; Administrative Associate; Manager Job
Development; Assistant to the President; Student Activities Supervisor; Librarian;

Disability Specialist; and Graduate Administrative Professional. (See Table 1.)

 

Table 1
Respondents by Position Title

 

Position Title f %

 

Vice President

Associate/Assistant Vice President 5 2.3
Dean 3 1 .4
Associate/Assistant Dean 6 2.7
Department Head/Director 33 14.9

Associate/Assistant Department Head! Director 73 32.9

 

Residence Area Coordinator 49 22.1

Coordinator 36 16.2

Other 19 8.6

Total Respondents 224 100.0
Highest degree earned.

Two (.4%) respondents indicated their highest degree earned was a High

School and/or Technical School Diploma; three (1.3%) an Associate’s degree; 31

45

(13.0%) a Baccalaureate degree; 167 (74.2%) a Master’s degree; and 20 (8.8%)
a Doctorate. The two (.4%) respondents who selected the Other category for
Highest Degree Earned indicated they held a Juris Doctorate and a Counselor

Training Certification. (See Table 2.)

 

Table 2
Highest Degree Earned by Respondents

 

 

Highest Degme f %
High school and/or technical school diploma 2 .4
Associate's 3 1 .3
Baccalaureate 31 13.0
Master’s 167 74.2
Doctorate 20 8.8
Other 2 .4
Total Respondents 224 100.0

 

Major field of highest degree eamed.

Fifty-six (24.9%) of a total 225 respondents indicated the Major Field of
their Highest Degree Earned was in Student Affairs. Twenty-seven (12.0%)
indicated Counseling or Counseling Psychology; 48 (21.3%) indicated Higher
Education; 20 (8.9%) indicated Business; and 74 (32.9%) indicated Other. In the
Other category, Education was mentioned most often as the Major Field of the
Highest Degree Earned by 15 (6.7%) respondents; Public Administration by eight
(3.6%); and Communications, Human Resources and Recreation Management

by four (1.8%) each. Major fields of English, Law, Physical Education/Exercise

46

Science, Social Work and Sociology were indicated by three respondents each.
Major fields of Engineering, Library Science, Natural Resource Management, and
Political Science were indicated by two respondents each. Each of the following
Major Field of Highest Degree Earned was indicated by one respondent:
Administrative Management; American Literature; Anthropology; Architecture;
Criminal Justice and History; Divinity; Economics; English and German; History;
Human Ecology; Humanities; Learning Disabilities; Psychology; Spanish
Literature; Sports Administration; and Women’s Studies/Gerontology. (See Table
3.)

 

Table 3
Major Field of Highest Degree Eamed by Respondents

 

Major Field f %

 

Student Affairs 56 24.9
Counseling or Counseling Psychology 27 12.0

 

Higher Education 48 21.3

Business 20 8.9

Other 74 32.9

Total Respondents 225 100.4
Pursuing further degrees.

Two questions were asked about current and future plans to complete a
further degree. Fifty-three (24.1%) of 220 respondents indicated they were
currently pursuing further degrees and 167 (75.9%) responded they were not.

One hundred twenty-two (56.5%) of the 216 responding to the second question

47

indicated they planned to pursue a further degree and 94 (43.5%) responded
they were not planning to pursue a further degree.

Sex, racial/ethnic background.

Of the 220 respondents who indicated their gender, 141 (64.1%) were
female, 79 (35.9%) male. Of the 222 respondents who indicated their
racial/ethnic background, 177 (79.5%) indicated they were Caucasian/White and

45 (20.3%) indicated they were a member of a minority group. (See Table 4.)

 

Table 4
Racial/Ethnic Background of Respondents

 

 

Race 1' %
African American 32 14.4
Asian American/ Pacific Islander 2 0.9
Caucasian/White American (non-Hispanic) 177 79.7
Hispanic American 4 1.8
Multicultural/Biracial 5 2.3

North American Indigenous/Am. Indian/Native American 2 0.9
Total Respondents 222 100.0

 

Age.

Twenty-four (10.8%) of the 222 respondents to this question indicated
they were 25 or younger; 47 (21.2%) were 26-30; 43 (19.4%) were 31-35; 28
(12.6%) were 36-40; 22 (9.9%) were 41-45; 23 (10.4%) were 46-50; 21 (9.5%)
were 51-55; 10 (4.5%) were 56-60; and two (.9%) indicated they were in each of
the age ranges of 61-65 and 66 or older. One hundred fourteen (61.4%) of the

respondents indicated they were age 35 or younger. (See Table 5.)

48

 

Table 5

 

 

Age Range of Respondents

Age f %
25 or younger 24 10.8
26-30 47 21.2
31 -35 43 19.4
36-40 28 12.6
41-45 22 9.9
46-50 23 10.4
51-55 21 9.5
56-60 10 4.5
61-65 2 0.9
66 or older 2 0.9

Total Respondents 222 100.1

 

Years worked in student affairs as a professional.

Forty-two (19.0%) of the 221 respondents to this question indicated they
had worked as a student affairs professional for 1-3 years; 53 (24.0%) for 4-6
years; 33 (14.9%) for 7-9 years; 29 (13.1%) for 10-12 years; 14 (6.3%) for 13-15
years; 16 (7.2%) for 16-18 years; 11 (5.0%) for 19-21 years; and 23 (10.4%) for
22 or more years. One hundred twenty eight (57.9%) of the respondents
indicated they had worked as a student affairs professional for less than ten
years. (See Table 6.)

Membership in national professional organizations.

Sixty of the total 237 survey respondents gave no indication whether or

not they held membership in any national professional organizations. Unlike

49

 

Table 6
Years worked as Student Affairs Professional

 

 

Years Worked f %
1-3 42 19.0
4-6 53 24.0
7-9 33 14.9
10-12 29 13.1
13-15 14 6.3
16-18 16 7.2
19-21 11 5.0
22 or more 23 10.4
Total Respondents 221 100.0

 

other survey questions that provided options from which survey participants
could choose an answer, this question required participants to fill in a blank,
listing the names of organizations in which they held membership. This may have
led to the large number who did not respond to the question. Six who did respond
to the question indicated they held no memberships. The remaining 171
respondents indicted they held membership in 94 different national professional
organizations. Membership in ACPA (American College Personnel Association)
was indicated most frequently by 68 (39.8%) respondents. Sixty-four (37.4%)
listed membership in NASPA: National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators; and 30 (17.5%) in ACUHO-l (Association of College and
University Housing Officers-Intemational). Other organizations were listed by 18

or fewer respondents. Appendix H includes a complete list of national

50

professional organizations in which respondents held membership as well as the
number reporting as belonging to each organization.

Of the total 171 respondents who indicated national professional
organization membership, 101 (59.1%) reported membership in either ACPA or
NASPA or both and 70 (40.9%) did not belong to either ACPA or NASPA.
Seventy-one (41 .5%) of the 171 respondents reported holding membership in
just one national organization; 57 (33.3%) in two; 28 (16.4%) in three; seven
(4.1%) in four", three (1.8%) in five; three (1.8%) in six; one (.6%) in eight; and
one (.6%) held membership in ten national professional organizations.

Membership in regional and state professional organizations.

One hundred eighteen of the total 237 survey respondents gave no
indication whether or not they held membership in any regional or state
professional organizations. Unlike other survey questions that provided options
from which survey participants could choose an answer, but similar to the
question regarding national professional organization membership, this question
required participants to fill in a blank listing the names of organizations in which
they held membership. This may have led to the large number who did not
respond to the question, just as it may have contributed to the response rate in
the preceding question. Three who did respond to the question indicated they
held no memberships. The remaining 116 respondents indicated they held
membership in 63 different regional or state professional organizations.
Membership in GLACUHO (Great Lakes Association of College and University

Housing Officers) was most frequently mentioned by 39 (33.6%) respondents,

51

followed by twenty-seven (23.3%) who indicated membership in a state student
personnel association (MCPA). Other organizations were listed by seven or
fewer respondents. Appendix I includes a complete list of regional or state
professional organizations in which respondents held membership as well as the
number reporting as belonging to each organization.

Of the total 116 respondents who indicated regional or state professional
organization membership, 66 (56.9%) reported membership in either GLACUHO
or MCPA, or both. Sixty-nine (58.0%) of the total 116 respondents indicated they
held membership in just one state or regional organization; 39 (32.8%) in two; 5
(4.2%) in three; and 3 (2.5%) in four organizations.

Functional areas of responsibility.

There is no one organizational structure for functional areas in student
affairs. Because student affairs divisions are defined differently at institutions, a
functional area is considered part of student affairs at one university but not at
another. For example, at some institutions, career services functions is part of
the student affairs organization. At other institutions student affairs functions may
be more decentralized and career services may be part of another administrative
unit. The same is true for other areas such as minority student services,
international student services and academic advising.

Respondents were asked to indicate their primary functional area of
responsibility. Eighty-nine (40.8%) indicated that Housing/Residence Life was
their most time consuming area of responsibility. Thirty-two (14.7%) indicated

Career Services as their most time consuming area of responsibility; 11 (5.0%)

52

indicated Minority Student Programs; ten (4.6%) Student Affairs Division
Administration; nine (4.1%) Campus Activities; and eight (3.7%) Academic
Advising. Respondents with additional areas of responsibility were also asked to
indicate the functional area that was less time consuming than their primary area
and the area that was least time consuming. Judicial (discipline) was the area of
responsibility mentioned most frequently as the second most consuming
functional area by 24 (13.6%) respondents and as least time consuming by 16
(9.7%). Appendix J includes a complete listing of functional areas.
Responses to Supervision Questions

Respondents were asked to rate six questions related to supervision using
a Likert-type scale ranging from Never or Almost Never, to Seldom, to
Sometimes, to Often, to Always or Almost Always. Answers to each of the six
questions by all respondents are included in Table 7. Given the small number of
respondents in many of the categories (Position Title, Race/Ethnicity, Years as a
Student Affairs Professional, Gender and Age) as well as groups within the
categories, the two possible ratings on the left of the Likert Scale (Never or
Almost Never and Seldom) were combined for analysis. The two possible ratings
on the right of the Likert Scale (Ofl’en and Always or Almost Always) were also
combined for analysis. This resulted in three ratings for analysis by category:
Never or Almost Never and Seldom, Sometimes, and Often and Always or
Almost Always.

Responses to each question were then examined by groups within the

Position Title, Race/Ethnicity, Years as a Student Affairs Professional, Gender

53

 

v.00?

0.00..

0.00?

.200?

0.00

0.00“

03..

2.0

0..N

9.0

000

0..N

0.0V

vim

..._.v

v.00

F.0v

0N0

00?

00

00

00

00

0.00

0.0m

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.5..

.00

05

on

00

00

0.0..

..NN

v.2.

N.0..

0.0..

...0N

00

0v

00

Nv

00

0.0

0.1.

0.0

«.0

0.0V

0....

0e

..0

0..

0..

VN

00

0.v

50

v...

0.0

0.0

0.N..

0..

..N

0?

RN

.9582 can 2288 58 .5388.
«3:2. 020 2 8E 23...... 5...; .25
“.o .26. m 99. . new 3023......“ >5. .0

.5033...

9.. can :o_m.>_u 05 “.o 230 85

2 235:8 «.80 .3220... ..E 39.
3823:: OE 8.9. 58.233 >5. .0

.85
..E Scum 55 2.63.000 0....me c2.)
835:8 53 _ new 8.8.233 >5. .v

.m_._xm 35.839“.

new .2083 new 603.265.

..E 988E. o. 9.0...» ..E 2.03:»

can no. ..E on o. coo: _ coszBE.
on. 0E 3.8328 5223:» >5. .0

.2me 355.900.»... m
:0 2.6302 .00.: _ new 82233 >5. .0

.mommecxwos new 2.05.8
..E 82%.... 55 280 3:23.303
Eco» 3.26.. . 95 82233 22 .-

 

.x.

.80..

.x.

.

m>m2<
69:2

.6 9957..

cc

c000

o\o

mossmEow

$

E0200

.x.

852 .moE_<
.o .052

22.330 .6230

 

5.5.2330 to 39.830 0. 3383c.

n 0.20...

 

54

and Age categories to determine if responses from each group were higher than
or lower than total responses from all survey participants. Responses from some
groups within the Position Title category were either higher or lower than total
responses in Questions 1, 2, 3 and 6. Responses by one group in the
Race/Ethnicity category were higher than other groups and total responses in
Question 2. Responses by some groups within the Years as a Student Affairs
Professional category were either higher or lower than total responses in
Questions 2, 4 and 5. Differences in responses by Gender were found in
Question 5. Responses by each group within the Age category were consistent
with total responses for each of the six questions. Chi-Square tests were
conducted for each of the areas to determine if the differences were statistically
significant. Results are discussed in the following sections.

Question 1: My supervisor and I develop yearly professional goals that

address my strengths and weaknesses.

One hundred twenty-two (55.7%) respondents indicated Often and Always
or Almost Always to Question 1. F ifty-three (24.2%) indicated Never or
Almost Never and Seldom. A review of responses by category to total Question 1
responses shows differences only in the category of Position Title. (See Table 8.)

Wrthin the Position Title category, those in the Coordinator group
responded Often and Always or Almost Always at the highest rate of 65.8%.
When the groups of Associate/Assistant Vice-President, Dean and Associate!
Assistant Dean are collapsed into one group given there were a total of only 14

respondents in these three positions, those in this new group responded Often

55

 

Table 8

Responses by Position Title to Question 1: My supervisor and I develop yearly professional goals

that address my strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

Never or Always or
.. . Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total
PosrtIon Trtle Never Always
f % f % f % f % f % f %

Assoc/Asst
Vice-President 1 20.0 2 40.0 2 40.0 5 100.0
Dean 2 66.7 1 33.3 3 100.0
Assoc/AsstDean 2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7 1 16.7 6 100.0
DepartmentHead/
Director 2 6.3 6 18.8 4 12.5 6 18.8 14 43.8 32 100.2
Assoc/Asst
Department 8 11.3 8 11.3 11 15.5 14 19.7 30 42.3 71 100.1
Head/Director
ResidenceArea
Coordinator 7 14.6 4 8.3 16 33.3 9 18.8 12 25.0 48 100.0
Coordinator 5 14.3 4 11.4 3 8.6 8 22.9 15 42.9 35 100.1
Other 2 10.5 2 10.5 6 31.6 1 5.3 8 42.1 19 100.0
Total Respondents 27 12.3 26 11.9 44 20.1 39 17.8 83 37.9 219 100.0

 

and Always or Almost Always at the lowest rate of 35.7%. While these

percentages are different than the 55.7% by all respondents, Pearson Chi-

Square tests determined the differences are not statistically significant (p<.05).

56

Question 2: My supervisor and I meet regularly on a pre-detennined basis.

One hundred fifty (68.1%) respondents indicated Often and Always or

Almost Always to Question 2. Thirty-seven (16.8%) indicated Never or Almost

Never and Seldom.

Wrthin the Race/Ethnicity category, respondents who identified

themselves as African American indicated Often and Always or Almost Always at

a rate of 83.9%. This was the highest rate of all racial/ethnic groups and higher

than the total response rate of 68.1% but a Pearson Chi-Square test determined

the difference is not statistically significant (p<.05). (See Table 9.)

 

Table 9

Responses by Race/Ethnicity to Question 2: My supervisor and I meet regularly on a pre-

 

 

determined basis.

Never or Always or
Race/ Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total
Ethnicity Never Always

f % f % f % f % f % f %

African American 2 6.5 3 9.7 12 38.7 14 45.2 31 100.1
Asian American!
Pacific Isla n der 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 100.0
Caucasian!
WhiteAmerican/ 12 6.8 18 10.2 29 16.5 39 22.2 78 44.3 176 100.0
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic American 1 25.0 3 75.0 4 100.0
Multicultural!
Biracial 2 40.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 5 100.0
N. American]
Indigenous/Am. 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 100.0
Indian/Native Am.
Total Respondents 13 5.9 24 10.9 33 15.0 55 25.0 95 43.1 220 99.9

 

57

There were differences in responses to Question 2 depending on the
number of years respondents worked as a Student Affairs Professional. (See
Table 10.) While all respondents indicated Often and Always or Almost Always at
a rate of 68.1%, professionals who had been in the field one to three years
indicated Often and Always or Almost Always at the highest rate of any of the
groups in the category at 85.7%. Those in this group represent the newest

employees in the field. When the remainder of the categories were collapsed into

one category of four or more years as a Student Affairs Professional,

respondents indicated Often and Always or Almost Always at a rate of 63.9%. A

Pearson Chi-Square test determined the difference between the 85.7% response

rate of those in the field one to three years and the 63.9% response rate of all

others is statistically significant at .25 (p<.05).

 

Table 10

Responses by Years as a Student Affairs Professional to Question 2: My supervisor and I meet

regularfy on a pre-detennined basis.

 

 

Never or Always or
Years in Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total
Profession Never Always
f % f % f % f % f % f %
1-3 Years 3 7.1 3 7.1 10 23.8 26 61.9 42 99.9
4-6Years 3 5.7 9 17.0 10 18.9 9 17.0 22 41.5 53 100.1
7-9 Years 2 6.1 2 6.1 4 12.1 9 27.3 16 48.5 33 100.1
10-12 Years 4 13.8 3 10.3 4 13.8 9 31.0 9 31.0 29 99.9
13-15 Years 1 7.1 2 14.3 3 21.4 4 28.6 4 28.6 14 100.0
16-18 Years 1 6.7 1 6.7 2 13.3 4 26.7 7 46.7 15 100.1
19-21 Years 1 9.1 3 27.3 4 36.4 3 27.3 11 100.1
22 or more 2 9.1 3 13.6 4 18.2 5 22.7 8 36.4 22 100.0
Total Respondents 13 5.9 24 10.9 33 15.0 55 25.0 95 43.1 220 99.9

 

58

There were also differences in responses to Question 2 depending on the

Position Title respondents held. (See Table 11.) A review of responses by

Position Title indicates that those in the Residence Area Coordinator group

responded Often and Always or Almost Always at the highest rate of 81.6%

rather than the 68.1% rate by all respondents. A Pearson Chi-Square test

 

Table 11

Responses by Position Title to Question 2: My supervisor and I meet regularly on a pre-

 

 

determined basis.
Neveror . Always or

Position We Almost Seldom SW?” Often Almost Total

Never Always

f % f % f % f % f % f %
Assoc/Asst
Vice-President 1 20.0 2 40.0 2 40.0 5 100.0
Dean 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3 3 100.0
Assoc/Asst Dean 1 16.7 2 33.3 3 33.3 6 100.0
Department
Head/Director 3 9.1 4 12.1 1 3.1 9 27.3 16 48.5 33 100.1
Assoc/Asst
Department 5 6.9 8 11.1 16 22.2 22 30.6 21 29.2 72 100.0
Head/Director
Residence Area
Coordinator 2 4.1 2 4.1 5 10.2 12 24.5 28 57.1 49100.0
Coordinator 1 2.9 5 14.3 8 22.9 5 14.2 16 45.7 35 100.0
Other - - 3 15.8 3 15.8 4 21.1 9 47.4 19 100.1
TOW 13 59 24 108 34 153 55 248 96 432 222 1000
Respondents ' ' ' ' ' '

 

59

determined the difference between the highest 81.6% response rate and the
lowest 68.1% respOnse rate is not statistically significant (p<.05).

Question 3: My supervisor provides me the information I need to do my

job and supports my efforts to improve my knowledge, and personal and

professional goals.

One hundred fifty-five total respondents (70.1%) indicated Often and
Always or Almost Always as a response to Question 3. Twenty-six (11.8%)
responded Never or Almost Never and Seldom. A review of responses by
category to total Question 3 responses shows differences only in the category of
Position Title. (See Table 12.)

Wrthin the Position Title category, those in the Residence Area
Coordinator group responded Often and Always or Almost Always at the second
lowest rate of 59.2%. When the groups of Associate/Assistant Vice-President,
Dean and Associate/Assistant Dean are collapsed into one group given there
were a total of only 14 respondents in these three positions, those in this group
responded Often and Always or Almost Always at the lowest rate of any group at
57.1%. While these percentages are different than the 70.1% by all respondents,
Pearson Chi-Square tests determined the difference between the lowest rate of
57.1% and the 70.1% rate of total respondents is not statistically significant
(p<.05).

Question 4: My supervisor and I both contribute when making decisions

that affect my area of responsibilities.

6O

 

Table 12

Responses by Position Title to Question 3: My supervisor provides me the information I need to do

my job and supports my efforts to improve my knowledge, and personal and professional goals.

 

 

Neveror Always or
.. . Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total
Posrtlon Trtle Never ll ys
f % f % f % f % f % f %

Assoc/Asst
Vlce-President 1 20.0 2 40.0 2 40.0 5 100.0
Dean 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 100.0
AssoclAsstDean 1 16.7 1 16.7 1 16.7 3 50.0 6 100.0
Department
H ead/Director 1 3.0 8 24.2 13 39.4 11 33.3 33 99.9
Assoc/Asst
Department 2 2.8 4 5.6 10 14.1 23 32.4 32 45.1 71 100.0
Head/Director
ResidenceArea
Coordinator 1 2.0 6 12.2 13 26.5 17 34.7 12 24.5 49 99.9
Coordinator 1 2.9 4 11.4 4 11.4 10 28.6 16 45.7 35 100.0
Other 1 5.3 2 10.5 3 15.8 5 26.3 8 42.1 19 100.0
Total Respondents 6 2.7 20 9.0 40 18.1 69 31.2 86 38.9 221 99.9

 

One hundred sixty (73.4%) total respondents indicated Often and Always

or Almost Always as a response to Question 4. Twenty (9.2%) responded Never

or Almost Never and Seldom. A review of responses by category to total

Question 4 responses shows differences only in the category of Years as a

Student Affairs Professional. (See Table 13.)

61

 

Table 13
Responses by Years as a Student Affairs Professional to Question 4: My supervisor and I both

contribute when making decisions that affect my area of responsibility.

 

 

Never or Always or
Years in Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total
Profession Never Always
f % f % f % f % f % f %
1-3Years 1 2.4 6 14.3 18 42.9 17 40.5 42 100.1
4-6Years 1 1.9 6 11.3 9 17.0 20 37.7 17 32.1 53 100.0
7-9 Years 1 3.0 3 9.1 5 15.2 12 36.4 12 36.4 33 100.1
10-12 Years 4 14.3 5 17.9 7 25.0 12 42.9 28 100.1
13-15Years 1 7.1 4 28.6 3 21.4 6 42.9 14 100.0
16-18Years 1 6.7 1 6.7 2 13.3 4 26.7 7 46.7 15 100.1
19-21 Years 3 27.3 3 27.3 5 45.5 11 100.1
220r more 1 4.5 4 18.2 8 36.4 9 40.9 22 100.0
Total Respondents 4 1.8 16 7.3 38 17.4 75 34.4 85 39.0 218 99.9

 

Note. One respondent to Question 4 did not indicate years worked as Student Affairs
Professional.

Wrthin the Years as a Student Affairs Profession category, those in the

one to three years group responded Often and Always or Almost Always at the

highest rate of 83.3%. While these percentages are higher than the 73.4% by all

respondents, Pearson Chi-Square tests determined the differences are not

statistically significant (p<.05).

Question 5: “My supervisor helps me understand how my individual goals

contribute to the goals of the division and the institution.

One hundred seventeen (53.9%) total respondents indicated Often and

Always or Almost Always as a response to Question 5. Fifty-two (24.0%)

responded Never or Almost Never and Seldom. A review of responses by

62

category to total Question 5 responses shows differences in the Gender (Table

14) and Years as a Student Affairs Professional (Table 15) categories.

 

Table 14

Responses by Gender to Question 5: My supervisor helps me understand how my individual goals

contribute to the goals of the division and the institution.

 

 

Never or Always or
G ender Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total
Never Always
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Females 13 9.6 16 11.8 25 18.4 41 30.1 41 30.1 136 100.0
Males 8 10.1 15 19.0 22 27.8 22 27.9 12 15.2 79 100.0
Total Respondents 21 9.7 31 14.3 48 22.1 64 29.5 53 24.4 217 100.0

 

Note. Two respondents to Question 5 did not indicate gender.

 

Table 15

Responses by Years as Student Affairs Professional to Question 5: My supervisor helps me

understand how my individual goals contribute to the goals of the division and the institution.

 

 

Never or Always or
Years in Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total
Profession Never Always
f % f % f % f % f % f %
1-3Years 4 9.5 7 16.7 7 16.7 13 31.0 11 26.2 42 100.1
4-6 Years 5 9.6 9 17.3 12 23.1 13 25.0 13 25.0 52 100.0
7-9Years 4 12.1 4 12.1 9 27.3 12 36.4 4 12.1 33 100.0
10-12 Years 4 14.3 6 21.4 7 25.0 5 17.9 6 21.4 28 100.0
13-15Years 2 14.3 2 14.3 2 14.3 6 42.9 2 14.3 14 100.1
16-18orMore 1 6.7 2 13.3 5 33.3 7 46.7 15 100.0
19-21 Years 4 40.0 3 30.0 3 30.0 10 100.0
22 ormore 2 9.1 1 4.5 4 18.2 7 31.8 8 36.4 22 100.0
Total Respondents 21 9.7 30 13.9 47 21.8 64 29.6 54 25.0 216 100.0

 

 

63

Responses to all questions from males and females were similar to each
other and to total responses with the exception of Question 5. Within the Gender
category, females selected Often and Always or Almost Always at a rate of
60.2% and males at a rate of 43.0%. While 53.9% of all respondents selected
one of these responses, Pearson Chi-Square tests determined the difference
between the higher responses by females and the lower responses by males is
not statistically significant (p<.05).

Wrthin the Years as a Student Affairs Professional category, those who
had worked 10 to 12 years as a Student Affairs Professional responded to Often
and Always or Almost Always at the lowest rate of 39.3% and those who had
worked for 16 to 18 years responded at the highest rate at 80.0%. While all
respondents indicated Often and Always or Almost Always at a 54.6%,

Pearson Chi-Square tests determined the difference between the higher
responses of those in the profession 16 to 18 years and the lower responses of
those in the profession 10 to 12 years is not statistically significant (p<.05).

Question 6: My supervisor and I have a level of tmst which allows me to

give honest feedback, both positive and negative.

One hundred sixty (72.3%) total respondents indicated Often and Always
or Almost Always as a response to Question 6. Thirty (13.6%) responded Never
or Almost Never and Seldom. A review of responses by category to total
Question 6 responses shows differences only in the category of Position Title.

(See Table 16.)

 

Table 16
Responses by Position Title to Question 6: My supervisor and l have a level of trust, which allows
me to give honest feedback, both positive and negative.

 

 

Never or Always or
. . . Almost Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Total

Posrtron Trtle Never a I y s

f % f % f % f % f % f %
AssoclAsst
Vice-President 1 25.0 3 75.0 4 100.0
Dean 1 33.3 2 68.7 3 100.0
Assoc/Asst Dean 1 16.7 1 16.7 4 66.7 6 100.0
Department Head!
Director 1 3.0 5 15.2 7 21.2 20 60.6 33 100.0
Assoc/Asst
Department 2 2.8 5 6.9 9 12.5 19 26.4 37 51.4 72 100.0
Head/Director
Residence Area
Coordinator 5 10.2 4 8.2 10 20.4 12 24.5 18 36.7 49 100.0
Coordinator 3 8.8 6 17.6 3 8.8 5 14.7 17 50.0 34 99.9
Other 2 10.5 2 10.5 8 42.1 7 36.8 19 99.9
Total 11 5 0 19 8 6 30 13 6 52 23 6 108 49 1 220 99 9
Respondents ’ ' ' ' ' '

 

Wrthin the Position Title category, those in the Department Head/Director
group responded Often and Always or Almost Always at the highest rate of
81.8% and those in the Resident Area Coordinator group at the lowest rate of
61.2%. While the percentage reported by those in the Department Head/Director

group is higher and the percentage reported by those in the Resident Area

65

Coordinator group is lower than the 72.3% by all respondents, Pearson Chi-
Square tests determined the differences are not statistically significant (p<.05).
Persistence in the Profession

The number of years a practitioner remains in the student affairs
profession is one indicator of persistence. Survey respondents were asked to
select one of eight ranges representing the number of years they have worked in
student affairs as a professional. I wanted to know if there was any relationship
between the length of time practitioners had spent in the profession and their
perceptions of synergistic supervision received. Correlational research is helpful
in determining not only if a relationship exists between two variables, but also the
extent of any relationship. Given the large quantity of data and the use of a five-
point scale in the survey, scatterplots were not helpful in identifying outliers or
determining a relationship between the variables. Responses to each of the six
survey questions were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients and
Spearrnan rho, with an alpha of .05 and two-tailed tests of significance.

Analyses demonstrated there are no statistically significant differences in
responses to survey questions by any of the ranges of Years Worked as Student
Affairs Professional with the following exception. Responses to Question 2: My
supervisor and I meet regularly on a pre-determined basis indicate a small
negative relationship between years worked in the profession and regular
meetings with a supervisor, with an rof -.128 and a rho of -.164. (See Table 17.)

Further examination of Question 2 reveals that career stage bias may be

built into this question. In the student affairs profession, as in many other fields,

66

 

Table 17

Correlations of Years as a Student Affairs Professional with Reponses to Survey

 

 

Questions.
n r p Rho p

Question 1 218 .043 .528 .018 .787
Question 2 219 -.128* .058 -.164* .015
Question 3 218 .023 .737 .018 .788
Question 4 219 .069 .310 .052 .447
Question 5 216 .110 .105 .071 .296
Question 6 217 .074 .275 .060 .378

 

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

supervisors typically meet with new employees more often than they meet with
more seasoned professionals. It therefore follows that the newest employees
(those with one to three years in the profession) would report they meet regularly
with their supervisors on a pre-determined basis at a higher rate than other
employees. When Question 2 is eliminated from the analysis, examination of
responses to the other five questions shows that there is no negative correlation
between the Years Worked as Student Affairs Professional category and

responses to the survey questions. (See Table 18.)

 

Table 18

Cone/ations of Years as a Student Affairs Profession with Reponses to Survey

 

 

Questions 1, 3-6

n r p Rho p
Responses
to Survey
Questions 213 .101 .142 .075 .280
1, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

67

Commitment to the Profession.

Membership in professional organizations has been identified as one
indicator of a commitment to the student affairs profession. Survey respondents
were asked to list national and regional/state professional organizations in which
they held membership. Using t-tests, the means of responses to survey
questions by those indicating membership in national organizations were
compared to the means of responses of those who did not list any memberships.
At an alpha level of .05 there are no statistically significant differences. The
means of responses to survey questions by those indicating membership in
regional/state organizations were compared to the means of responses of those
who did not list any memberships using t-tests. At an alpha of .05 there are no
statistically significant differences.

Summary of Quantitative Data

Data for the quantitative section of this study were analyzed for 237
student affairs professionals, representing a 45.1% response rate, who
completed the online survey consisting of six questions related to perceptions of
supervision received. For each of the six questions, more respondents answered
Often and Always or Almost Always than Never or Almost Never and Seldom.
Responses to each question were examined to determine if there were
differences in responses by groups within the categories of Position Title,
Race/Ethnicity, Years as a Student Affairs Professional, Gender and Age. While

differences in responses to questions by groups were found, only responses to

68

 

 

f;

Question 2: My supervisor and I meet regularfy on a pre-detennined basis were
determined to be statistically significant. Pearson Chi-Square tests determined
the responses by those working one to three years as Student Affairs
Professionals to Question 2 were statistically significantly different than
responses given by other groups in the category and by total respondents.
Additionally, Pearson correlation coefficients and Spearrnan rho indicated a small
negative relationship between years worked in the profession and regular
meetings with a supervisor. However, when Question 2 was eliminated from
analysis because of possible built-in career stage bias, no negative relationship
was evident between the Years Worked as Student Affairs Professional category
and responses to survey questions.

Responses to survey questions were also examined for differences by
respondents’ affiliation with professional organizations. In examining responses
by those who indicated membership in national and regional/state professional
organizations and those who did not indicate membership in professional
organizations, t-tests determined there were no statistically significant differences
in responses.

Qualitative Data Collection and Responses

Data for the qualitative portion of this study were collected through face-to-
face interviews. Interview participants were purposefully selected from student
affairs professionals with at least five to ten years of experience in the profession
employed by public Michigan universities. I asked my colleagues working in the

areas of Career Services, Housing and Residential Life, and Student Life to

69

provide several names of their colleagues working at public Michigan

universities. I contacted student affairs professionals working in each of these
three areas from the list of names provided and requested interviews.
Participants were selected for interviews based on their availability and while
they were in the pool of potential participants for the online survey it is unknown if
they completed the survey. A face-to-face interview lasting approximately one
hour was conducted with each of nine participants at their work sites.

Three of the interview participants held the job title of Department Director,
two were Associate Directors, two Assistant Directors, one Assistant Manger and
one held the title of Coordinator. One of the participants held a doctorate, seven
held master’s degrees, and one was currently working on a master's degree.
Two of the participants were African American males, three were Caucasian
males, and four Caucasian females. Six of the participants were working at the
institution where they earned their undergraduate degrees and two of the six had
not worked at any other higher edumtion institution.

Pseudonyms are used for the actual participants. Larry is in his early
thirties and working at the same institution where he earned his undergraduate
degree. He earned his master’s at an out-of-state institution and took his first
professional position at an institution in a third state. He was recruited by a
former supervisor to apply for a position at his undergraduate institution where he
has now been five years. He plans on earning his doctorate with the goal of

becoming a senior student affairs administrator.

7O

Laura is working at the institution where she earned her bachelor's,
master‘s, and doctoral degrees. There have been times over her twenty years of
professional work when she considered working at a different higher education
institution but the opportunities she has been given at what she considers her
“home” institution have kept her there. She has worked in several different
student services areas providing direct services to students and expects to end
her career in about five years by retiring.

Donna was a nontraditional married student with children who started her
undergraduate degree in her early thirties at an out-of-state institution. She has
spent eight years at her current institution working in two different areas and
receiving several promotions. She is completing her master’s degree but does
not want to move up through the administrative ranks where she believes she
would become too disconnected from students.

Greg is working at the institution where he earned his undergraduate
degree. After graduating, he lived out-of-state for a short time then returned to his
undergraduate institution where he earned his master’s and has now worked for
25 years. He has held a number of progressively more responsible positions in
the same functional area. Although at one time, before he married, he considered
moving to another institution, he now anticipam finishing his career at his
current institution because of his love of his job and his family.

Tom is also working at his undergraduate institution, spending most of the
last 20 years in various student affairs positions. He earned his master’s degree

at his employing institution as well. At one point he took a position in a different

71

area of the university for a couple of years but found the required travel was not
conducive to his family life and that he missed the work with students. An
opportunity arose to return to student affairs and he has been in his current
position for five years. Although he does not want to spend the rest of his career
in his current position he plans to stay at the institution and continue to live in the
community where he and his family are closely connected to séhool, church and
friends.

Jean completed both her bachelor’s and master’s at institutions on the
east coast. She has spent 25 years working in student affairs but feels it was
something she fell into by accident. She took her first position working at a
college because she needed a job. She found she liked the work and was given
more responsibility. This led to her acceptance of a position with more
responsibility at another institution in the same state. She has held her current
director position 13 years at her Michigan institution. Although she is considering
retiring in a few years and possibly will open a business she plans on remaining
in the area she now considers her home.

Ron completed both his undergraduate and master’s degrees at his
current institution. He spent three years in his first professional position at an out-
of-state institution, followed by a few years at another instihltion in the same
state. He retumed to Michigan for a position with more responsibility in a different
functional area and stayed there about two years. An unexpected opportunity
came up at his undergraduate institution and even though it meant uprooting his
family, he accepted the position and returned to what he considers “home”. He

72

has held his current position for six years. He knows he can not advance further
at his institution without a terminal degree. At this time he does not plan on
earning a doctorate and has not decided whether he will leave the institution and
remain in the community that is important to him and his family, or if he will take a
position with another institution.

Paul has been at his current institution for seven years. During that time
he held three different positions in two different functional areas, advancing
within the organization to his current director’s position. He previously worked
one year at an institution in the south, earned his master’s at an institution in
another state and his bachelor’s at an institution in the east. He loves his
challenging work at his current institution and plans to stay until he feels he has
accomplished all he can and it is time for the next person to take over. In his
early thirties, he also feels pressure related to making "family type decisions” and
knows he may have to relocate at some point to maintain his long distance
relationship.

Lisa is the mother of college-aged children who has been at her current
institution, where she earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees, for eight
years. Prior to her current position, Lisa worked as a teacher and then in a
professional educational setting providing services to students. Her master’s
thesis actually helped her make the transition from some human resources
related work to her current position. She has no desire to earn a terminal degree
and plans on staying at her current institution as long as she continues to have

the freedom to take on new projects and is challenged.

73

AS the interview transcripts and field notes were analyzed, four
discernable themes and patterns emerged related to the interview participants’
experiences as student affairs professionals and as supervisors. The remainder
of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of these themes and patterns. The
themes and patterns include (a) mentoring, (b) balance, (c) focus on students,
and (d) creating opportunities.

Mentoring.

Each of the interview participants made reference to a mentor or
mentoring during the course of the interview. When interview participants talked
about mentors, the mentor was usually mentioned by name with a brief
description of how that person played the role of mentor. Mentors recognized the
potential of the interview participants and provided encouragement, support and
motivation. This positive experience prepared interview participants to take on
the role of mentor to others as they progressed through their careers. A mentor
was often, although not always, a supervisor. Larry mentioned two mentors by
name who influenced him in his undergraduate career by encouraging him to
become an RA (Resident Assistant) in housing and to continue on to graduate
school, where he received further mentoring. His first Dean of Students at his
undergraduate institution recognized him and “planted the seed” by asking him if
he had thought about going into student affairs; if he had thought about graduate
school. Larry believes the mentoring he received was “...very crucial as far as
keeping me motivated and keeping my perspectives fresh as far as student

affairs is concerned”. Laura felt she was lucky to have many mentors, not just

74

one. According to Laura, “I never necessarily went officially looking for mentors
but I seemed to have people who cared for me and that I’ve really respected”.
She continued to receive mentoring in her graduate programs and professional
career from both faculty and colleagues and believes she would not have stayed
in her doctoral program without the support of mentors.

In her first position at her current institution, Donna worked for a director
who saw potential in her. As her mentor, the director encouraged Donna to
stretch and go beyond what she normally would have done. Much of her style in
working with students was learned by watching another mentor “masterfully work
with students”. Torn holds a great amount of respect for one of his early mentors,
who is now a colleague. He continues to be not only Tom’s mentor but also his
friend. They live near each other, their families spend time together and continue
to have many conversations about professional goals and support one another.
Jean believes she gravitated toward people who wanted to mentor her and she
would not be where she is if it had not been for the dean of students at the
college where she worked earlier. She explains that one of the most important
things he did for her was to give her confidence.

One of Ron’s early mentors is the person he credits with encouraging him
to go to graduate school and enter student affairs. More than ten years later, he
even credits that mentor with leading him to the position he currently holds.
Another early mentor has influenced his thinking even today. One of the
principles that was important to her and has stuck with Ron is that “. ..everyone

deserves to be treated with dignity and self-worth”. Ron reports “that’s a phrase

75

that I saw over and over with her and I thought those are things to aspire to in life
in general”. Paul recalls an early mentor who used Paul’s interest in sports to
connect him to student affairs through recreation and intramural sports. Paul
considers him to still be his mentor to this day “...in regards to really keeping me
focused on something I love to do”.

Not only was receiving mentoring important to the interview participants,
several also stressed the significance of opportunities presented to them to
become mentors to others. One of the things Larry said keeps him in the
profession is “mentoring professionals and seeing their energy continue on”.
Laura credits the mentoring she received with contributing to her success and
believes “I probably replicate some of the things that people did for me” with her
staff. She sees herself as “...helping to be a guide, helping my staff figure out the
university and why people do the things they do”. One of her points of pride is
that graduate assistants and staff she has trained do well as they interview for
other positions, giving her feedback that what they learned from her was
valuable, and that they still look to her for advice. Donna describes her mentoring
role as one which includes a “...lot of teaching time, one on one time, displaying
and demonstrating what I expect, what I want to see”. Jean acknowledges that
she will not be a mentor to all the staff she supervises. While she does not see
herself as a mentor to some older staff she inherited, she has found mentoring
opportunities with younger staff members by helping them develop and achieve
their career goals. Paul mentors his staff by modeling behavior he expects from

them, including how he works with students. Lisa works with each of her staff to

76

identify their skills and areas of expertise and “...pays attention to what someone
considers important”. She then works with each individual to give them
opportunities to develop their areas of interest so that it benefits the work
everyone does in the department.

Several participants mentioned nurturing as a part of what they do as
mentors. Larry states that one of the things that keeps him in the profession is
being able to nurture the “energy, love, and passion” for students he sees in staff.
He sees his role working with professional and student staff as “...help[ing]
nurture them as professionals or future professionals or as growing professionals
as far as student affairs” is concerned. Greg believes one way he can help new
staff find their place in the profession is by “nurturing their desires, following up
on their goals, and your own goals.” He sees his role as a supervisor to his staff
as “nurturing, encouraging, giving them opportunities.” Jean does not see all new
professionals with a commitment to the profession but believes it is “something
you need to feed, and can nurture.”

The mentoring role becomes significant with students as well. Jean
benefited from mentoring, believes it is important, and finds mentoring
opportunities not just with younger staff but with also with students. She
discovered She liked mentorship through her role as a mother. While Lisa did not
identify a mentor who sparked her interest in entering the student affairs
profession, she became excited about mentoring and incorporated it into the
progressive career ladder she developed through her master’s thesis and

implemented in her work.

77

Balance.

Wrth the exception of Laura and Lisa, the participants believed working in
Student Affairs provided them opportunities to balance a professional life with a
personal life. Laura shared that at times during her career, her passion for
working in student affairs and making a difference in students’ lives was so
primary that she did not take care of herself. She has seen student affairs
professionals “. ..put up with adverse working conditions”, suffer long work hours
and experience few opportunities for promotions and salary increases due to
their commitment and passion for working with students. Lisa believes student
affairs work makes balancing a personal and professional life difficult, observing
that “it’s common to work long hours and furthering your own formal education
may be possible for some but not for most in student affairs.” She has seen
colleagues who were unable to complete a doctoral program because of work
commitments. Lisa also believes it may be different depending on the type of
work. She sees those doing residence life work as having less balance than
others in student affairs but that in general, it is common, and at times even the
expectation, that everyone works 50 to 60 hours each week during the academic
year so balancing a personal and professional life is difficult.

Torn also thinks it may be more of a challenge for professionals working in
housing to find balance than for those working in student activities because they

are required to live on site, but making time for activities not related to work can

78

be difficult for everyone. He tries to be a role model for staff and finds at times he
needs to just “kick people out” of the office and send them home. However, Tom
recognizes that the student affairs profession can also provide opportunities for
balance between the personal and the professional aspects of life. For example,
his job allows him the flexibility and “if I need to run down to the school for some
function I can” so he doesn’t miss his children’s events.

Jean believes that a flexible work schedule is an advantage of working in
student affairs, especially if you have children. She helps her staff find balance
between their personal and professional lives and says “I insist they don’t work
too much and I watch. I have two [staff] who would do it”. If she sees they are
working too much, she will encourage them to take some time for themselves.
She also tries to be aware of her own work schedule and takes time off when she
needs it. Ron thinks that it is hard for new professionals to find balance but that
everybody defines balance differently and it is not always “dualistic, either/or”. If
you are in student affairs for the “right reasons” finding balance “...won’t be as
much of a challenge or issue”. Ron states there really is no such thing as a 40
hour work week and some people can work 60 or 70 hours a week and still have
great balance. He believes you have to look for signs and if you are not keeping
your commitments to others and to yourself, you are not in balance. He
mentioned a former supervisor as a good example of someone who did not have
balance and was a workaholic. Ron says “I am not one of the people who wears
that value with pride. I work hard, but I work hard to get work done in the office so

I’m not taking it home”.

79

Paul feels that balance in student affairs is difficult depending on family
and other responsibilities so he tries to model expectations for his staff. He
encourages staff to take time away from work, to take a break, and to challenge
themselves. He and his staff often socialize outside of work but take care to talk
about anything but work. Greg also tries to role model finding a true balance for
young staff as they move “up the ladder” in the profession. Lany believes that
someone who is committed to the profession not only supports professional
development but also encourages “balance and taking time for yourself.” As he
says, “you have to remind them of staying focused, take a break, reminding them
of that balance, so they can stay energized.

While most participants believed the student affairs profession allowed
one the ability to balance a personal and professional life, at times doing so
required a concerted effort. For some, getting married and starting a family
provided the incentive to focus more on a personal life. Both Tom and Paul noted
that staff who are not married tend to focus primarily on work, often at the
expense of a personal life. Tom jokingly says the best way to find balance is to
“...get married and have kids”. He finds that staff who are not married and do not
have family commitments tend to spend too much time in the office and “live”
there. Paul acknowledges that if his girlfriend lived in the local area, his
colleagues would not see him spend as much time at work. Lany makes a
concerted effort to maintain contact with old friends who do not work in student

affairs or higher education and have conversations about topics that are totally

80

unrelated to his work. He believes connecting with friends outside the profession
helps him “...find out what’s going on in the world”.

Focus on Students.

During the interviews participants frequently returned to the importance of
students in the work they do and the opportunities they had to make a difference
in the lives of students. Lany emphasized the focus on students when he stated:

I’ve always been told if I ever get bored or if I ever lose sight of why I’m

really in the profession, then it’s time to change jobs. So if I ever forget

about the students or if I lose sight about the students and students aren’t
my priority, there’s no reason for me to be here.

Donna was succinct in her description of her motivation and reason for
doing what she does as: “the students”. Lisa appreciates that the student affairs
profession values “. . .everything you do, you do with students, you engage them
in the Ieaming.”

Jean thinks people are in the student affairs profession because “...they
believe they can make a difference too and that’s important and [they] encourage
students to make a difference in their lives.” Ron finds his motivation for being in
student affairs from the “...opportunity to contribute and make a difference in the
lives of students.” He continues by saying his staff do not work for him, they work
for the students. Paul echoes this sentiment by saying “...it’s not about self, it’s
about the students.” One of the things Greg loves about working in student affairs
is the interaction with students. “It’s fun with students, exciting to see them as

freshmen, see them as seniors and graduate students as they move on.”

81

Tom has held positions in several areas at his university but loves his role
in student life because the contact with students allows him to be himself and
have fun. Torn likes to make fun of himself and says, “I’m really not a mature
person. I’m really an idiot most of the time.” He may want to move to a different
position at his institution but he does not “...want to have to be a stuffed shirt
sitting with vice-presidents. Let me take the trash out on welcome day. I’m okay
with that.”

Success may be defined by the number of former students who go on to
work as student affairs professionals or simply by students going on to lead
successful lives, regardless of the profession they choose. Donna was one of
several participants who defined their own success as being tied to student
success and said, “I’ve had three of my student employees 90 on to student
affairs positions...". But she also feels she has had success with another student
who graduated and accepted a position out of state that was not in student
affairs. When students she worked with found success in life, Donna felt she had
succeeded. As Paul explained, “It’s about students being successful in whatever
career they’ve chosen.” Laura stated, “students and the needs my students had,
their successes, kept me in it. I am so internally motivated by my students
succeeding. It’s like feeding a junkie.” Larry knows he has been successful when
former students stay in touch and let him know they appreciate what he did for
them. He knows he has had an impact on their lives when they invite him to

weddings, write him letters or call him and when they continue to call him for

82

advice on a particular issue. He describes “having those moments when you
least expect it” as one of the rewards for the work he does.

As did several other participants, Donna gave an example of a student
She had worked with who was struggling. As she learned more about his
background and the obstacles he faced and overcame, she realized his potential
and helped him recognize it as well. She ended up hiring him as a student worker
and connecting him to a professor, which led to an internship. “I was able to see
him blossom... and [he was] so excited that somebody cared.” She also learned
that he grew up in foster homes and no one had ever come to one of his
graduations. She told him she would attend his graduation and see him receive
his master's degree. Donna reflected, “to watch this 6 foot tall, 230 pound,
African-American young man cry because nobody in his life has ever done that -
it makes it worth it.”

Several participants kept tangible indicators of their connections with
students or the importance of student success. Jean and Ron both keep thank
you cards and notes they receive from students in a desk drawer. Ron keeps two
awards on a bookcase in his office that are special to him because they came
from students. Paul showed me a poster he keeps in his office that was made by
a student. The student interviewed him for a class assignment and then created
a poster with symbols and notes reflecting Paul’s leadership style and
characteristics.

The focus placed on students by these student affairs professionals is a

constant reminder of why they do the work they do. Students are the priority and

83

student success is important. These student affairs professional make
connections with students which often continue long after they graduate. The
tangible indicators from students they keep at hand serve as symbolic reminders
of why they do the work they do and provides continued motivation to continue
their work.

Creating Opportunities.

Most participants believed it was important to create opportunities to grow
professionally for staff who reported to them. Professional growth could mean
developing skills that enable one to be more effective in a current position.
Competent student affairs professionals possess skills in leadership and
administration, interpersonal communication, critical thinking, and problem
solving. These skills could be developed by serving on institutional committees,
teaching, and even coaching. Professional growth could also mean gaining the
experiences necessary for promotion. Promotion may mean moving up within the
current organization or leaving for an advanced position at another higher
education institution. Participants shared many examples of how opportunities
had been created for them early in their careers and they wanted to do the same
for others. Creating opportunities often became a collaborative or team effort.

At times, creating opportunities meant opening doors for someone: at
other times, it meant giving them a little push. Larry created opportunities by
helping staff develop a professional development plan from “day one”, as soon
as they started the job. He believed that “getting them involved in committees,

taking classes, going to conferences, providing those opportunities to develop

84

those skills keeps them interested in the profession and in their own growth and
development”. Laura tried to “. . .create opportunities for people to shine”. She
understood the impact this could have on professional development as she
reflected on her own experience. Her participation on a panel with senior
university administrators led to a joint appointment between student and
academic affairs which provided her an opportunity to not only use her skills but
to develop new ones. She expressed concern that attention to the careers of
colleagues was often lost and believed “we need to also turn our talents to make
sure others grow in their profession”.

Donna grooms staff members so they can take advantage of opportunities
to move up in the profession, even though it would be hard to lose them as her
employees. Greg “. ..likes to open doors and give opportunities for [them] to work
in other areas, other parts of the university”. He sees communicating with staff
and creating opportunities as part of team building. Greg also believes in
“...talking about what the next step is and ...giving them that little shove so they
can move on.” Jean thinks if you “know your strengths and test it out, there are
many opportunities in student services.” Paul encourages his staff to develop
each other and their life skills. If they want to move up in the profession, he will
help provide them experiences, encouragement and opportunities. If his
employees are not interested in moving up, he will not push them, but he will
challenge them to continue to grow professionally.

Some participants described creating opportunities for staff who report to

them in terms of helping people find their niche. Laura emphasized this as one of

85

her goals. Greg felt it was especially important to “help them [staff] find their
niche if they're not sure where they’re headed” in their careers. Lisa believed that
there is a niche within 10 to 20 percent of every job. That 10 to 20 percent is the
part of the job that an employee really enjoys or excels at, and responding to that
niche allows you to stretch people a bit and create opportunities for growth. The
advice Jean would give to new professionals is to tell them to “seek out their
niche.” She recommended trying out the many opportunities in student affairs
and “...know your strengths and test it out.” Helping staff find a place where they
can grow was not limited to opportunities on campus. For example, Paul believed
staff also have “their own little niche” in regards to the professional associations
in which they choose to become involved. In his experience, people think and
talk differently in different associations so Paul encouraged his staff to find one
that suits them.

Interview participants supported professional growth for staff who reported
to them and helped create opportunities for growth. Often they created
opportunities for staff which resulted in them moving to other positions or even
other institutions, but they still believed it was what they should be doing as
supervisors. Even though hiring and training new staff requires supervisors” time
and resources, interview participants were supportive of staff who wanted to
move on and were committed to continue creating opportunities for them.
Persistence in the Profession

Interview participants acknowledged that high turnover and a lack of

persistence in the student affairs profession can be an issue. However, turnover

86

can be defined in more than one way. If an employee leaves student affairs for a
position outside higher edumtion, they have not persisted in the profession. If
employees leave their institutions for positions in student affairs at other higher
education institutions, they have persisted in the student affairs profession. Their
persistence in the profession may be due to the support they received from their
supervisors for their professional growth and development. While persistence in
the profession can be seen in a positive light, the department and institution the
employee has left may be more concerned with the immediate issue of filling the
vacancy created by that departure than the fact the employee persists in the
profession. This is not an unreasonable response given that filling vacant
positions requires financial and staff resources. There is often a Ieaming curve,
which may last several months as a new employee learns the position,
contributing to an additional loss of productivity.

Participants in the interviews for this study demonstrated support of the
career goals of staff who reported to them, regardless of whether that would lead
them to student affairs positions outside their current university or if they planned
on staying where they were. They believed the benefits to the profession and to
the individual outweighed the negative consequences involved in replacing staff.
Jean talks to her staff about their professional goals on a regular basis. If a staff
member is interested in advancing in the profession and needs to leave her
department or the institution to do so, she is supportive of them. She says “I lost
an excellent staff person because he wanted to move to the next level”. She

believed it was important to support him in meeting his goals even though it

87

meant he moved to another institution. For those interested in staying in their
same positions, she helps them find fulfillment in other things, even if those
things are outside of work. The challenge she presents and the conversations
She has are different for each employee depending on how they feel rewarded.

Greg emphasizes communication about professional goals, especially with
new employees. He will do an assessment and “. . .try to get a feel for what they
are interested in” and what direction they want their career to take. He will then
help them follow up on their goals. Tom has had the same staff for five years and
states, “one of my personal goals is to push one or two of them out, not because
they’re not doing the job or they're not great people but because it’s time.” He
believes the fact his staff has stayed constant is because “it reflects on them, the
fact that they are challenged and the type of supervisor they have.” He does not
believe it is because he does all the right things as a supervisor but he listens to
them and gives them opportunities for fulfillment and to reach their career goals
whether they stay in their current positions or advance to others.

Larry helps his staff put together a professional development plan and has
“. ..conversations with them about where they want to go, what they want to do
and nurture that along the way.” He wants them to walk away feeling not only
that they had an experience that was rewarding, but they also “...had the
opportunity to make the experience what it was themselves so they have
investment and autonomy in that". Laura sees her role as a guide by “helping my

staff figure out the university and why people do the things they do.” She and her

88

staff set personal goals for the year. She then sets benchmarks for each
individual, a process she believes helps reduce attrition.
Ron wants his staff to know what their internal motivation is and suggests
they:
have to look for things to help feed that. Sometimes that means moving up
and moving on to another job. Sometimes it means changing the way you
do your job now. Sometimes that will mean working with different people,
sometimes that will mean taking on a different project.
He advises staff to look at what is missing from their current experience and to fill
in the gaps. “If you approach things from that mind set things that come your way
and present you with opportunities.”
In her commitment to staff development, Lisa explains:
Some people operate that they have the fear if they train someone, they
will leave. Our other option is to not train them and keep them! I would
rather try and develop people and lose them, because I like that. I see
their confidence and competence is up and that’s what being an educator
is about.
She considers her style of supervision to be one of developing people and pays
attention to what people consider important. She recognizes that not everyone
has the same needs and will respond to different intrinsic rewards. Her role is to
help staff identify those needs and develop ways to fulfill them.
While participants are supportive when staff decide to leave, they still

make efforts to maintain a high level of satisfaction among their employees.

89

Donna thinks it is important to give employees a sense of self-worth. “You have
to show them that what they’re doing is very important. And that where they’re at,
they’re valuable, they matter, they count.” She tries to Show staff that she values
them in very tangible ways. She feels many of those ways are very small and
sometimes silly, but she makes an effort to acknowledge the work of her staff,
give them credit for their ideas and Show them she appreciates the things they
do. She may give them a card, or bring donuts to a meeting, or invite them to her
house for a cookout. She believes that through these efforts and letting them
know their input is as important as hers that she is building a team spirit that will
help her staff feel good about the work they do.

Paul considers turnover at his institution an important issue that needs to
be addressed. He feels constant turnover will begin to affect the quality of
services his office can provide to students. His area of student life is understaffed
so everyone is doing more than one job. He says, “I would love to bring in other
people and maybe the turnover wouldn’t be so high. People are doing more than
they were originally hired for”. He does what he can to keep his staff by pointing
out how they are developing their skills and talents through the extra work they
do. Paul also gives them credit for their work and shows his appreciation in
various ways since he can not compensate them monetarily. Even though he can
see the effects of high turnover, he is still supportive when staff feel they need to

leave to advance in their career.

90

Commitment to the Profession

Most participants felt that a commitment to the student affairs profession
was demonstrated by membership and involvement in professional organizations
and following guidelines for practice spelled out by these organizations. Guiding
principles established by professional organizations provide a basis for
consistent delivery of quality services to students. Jean encourages her staff to
get involved in professional associations right away, work into leadership
positions, and take advantage of networking opportunities. For Greg,
demonstrating a commitment to the profession is encountered on several fronts
“through professional organizations, presentations, and what you do within the
system [on campus].” An expectation he has for his staff is that they will become
involved in a professional organization and “...take the lead in some things”.

Paul and Jean both see involvement in professional organizations and the
opportunities for networking as especially beneficial for new staff. Paul says,
“they’re great for young professionals. Great place to network, get your feet wet.”
His opinion is based on his own experience, in that he can still pick up the phone
and call colleagues he met through networking at conferences years ago.

Some look to professional organizations such as NASPA and ACPA to
guide their practice or profession. Ron refers to the Guidelines/Principles of Good
Practice provided through NASPA and ACPA as one of the basic pieces that
guides him and helps him guide his staff. Donna finds that the Code of Ethics
through her professional association helps in her work with facilities. She also

points to the nine guiding principles that her division of student affairs adheres to

91

as an “...extra added component that students” needs are looked at”. They share
these guidelines and principles with their staffs.

Interview participants found ways to take advantage of the resources
provided by professional organizations. In addition to attending conferences,
reading professional journals, reports and publications; participating in list serves
and discussion lists are some of the ways that student affairs professionals can
keep current and fresh, according to Lany and Tom. Larry views professional
organizations as providing opportunities for him to present at conferences, serve
on committees, and submit articles for publication. He has been encouraged by
his supervisors to:

Stay actively involved in regional and national organizations as well as

getting trained in different institutes such as the crises management

institute to help develop my skills and help me as far as what I want to do
and where I’m going.
Laura took advantage of opportunities offered by professional associations by
testing some of her team building skills. This helped further her own professional
development by gaining experience in organizational leadership which eventually
enabled her to become founding president of an organization.

While interview participants believed that involvement in professional
organizations was one aspect of a demonstrated commitment to the student
affairs profession, along with other methods of skill development that make
someone administratively sound, it was not necessarily the defining issue related

to commitment to the profession. Laura believes commitment to the profession is

92

based in “our passion for human development which I think has guided my
personal life and career decisions” and that “most of us who choose student
affairs [do so] because we have a passion for it”.

In describing someone who is committed to the profession, Lany says:

You can see not only in their energy and excitement but their love and

passion for the job and that’s shown through how they supervise

professional staff and how they interact with students and how they put

students first on a lot of levels as much as they can.
Larry believes the energy, excitement and passion he experiences in interacting
with students also shows in how he supervises staff. He takes pride in “seeing
the energy, that love, that passion for students and seeing it develop along the
way” in his staff. Ron is not only passionate about his beliefs but also reflects
that, “I developed my passion for student affairs from my own experiences as a
student with student affairs professionals.” Paul models behavior he expects from
his staff that he believes demonstrates his commitment to the profession by
focusing on students” needs, not his own. “Number one, it’s not about self. It’s
about the students, seeing them through the good and the bad times, the
development that comes, become leaders in their chosen profession.” Paul
believes the behavior he has modeled and the fact that his staff sees the
“passion I have” has helped them “to keep having passion and really stay
committed.”

Donna also believes one way she helps new professionals develop

commitment is by demonstrating how she handles situations. Her staff can see

93

how she always puts the needs of students at the forefront. Donna states the
number one thing for committed professionals is “. . .the realization that students
are valuable people. That the student is an individual and [we should] have
respect and give that person dignity, as an individual person no matter what their
individual choices, no matter what their background.” She goes on to say,
“they’re not just dispensable people who come and go. They’re valuable
individuals. That’s one of the core things that a student affairs professional really
has to grab on to”. Ron echoes this value that “. . .everyone deserves to be
treated with dignity and self-worth.” He believes that while some professionals
are more committed to the profession and others are more committed to the
institution for which they work, he does not believe that those two commitments
have to be mutually exclusive. Ron sees his commitment to student affairs as a
commitment to teaching and Ieaming with students.

Tom describes someone committed to the student affairs profession by
saying, “to me, it’s someone who has to enjoy and thrive on the energy that our
students bring to us.” The way he thinks about professional commitment also
affects his own career path. Torn indicated that he does not want to give up the
energy, fun and excitement he gets from working directly with students by
moving up a level in administration, which often results in less student contact.
Jean thinks committed professionals “...believe they can make a difference too
and that’s important and [to] encourage students to make a difference in their
lives.” She said the students” energy and the success they find, as well as the

“thank you’s” from students are what keep her in the field. Lisa bases her

94

commitment to the profession on the value experiential Ieaming is given and
appreciates “one of the values that student affairs has is everything you do, you
do with students, you engage them in the Ieaming.”

Summary of Qualitative Data

Data for the qualitative portion of this study were collected through in-
person interviews with student affairs professionals working at public Michigan
universities. Interviews were conducted with three student affairs professionals
working in the area of Career Services, three in Housing and Residential Life and
three in Student Life.

Four discernable themes and patterns emerged related to the interview
participants” experiences as student affairs professionals and as supervisors.
These themes and patterns included (a) mentoring; (b) balance; (0) focus on
students; and (d) creating opportunities. Each of the interview participants
discussed the importance of mentoring in their lives. Several had mentors who
had played a role in the decision to enter or remain in the student affairs
profession. Others relish the opportunity to serve as a mentor to staff and/or
students. Some benefited from the experience of both having a mentor and
becoming a mentor.

The majority of interview participants believed working in Student Affairs
provided them opportunities to balance a professional with a personal life
although maintaining a healthy balance often required concerted effort. Changes
in marital status or family often made achieving the right balance more of a

priority. Interview participants were concerned not only about finding the right

95

balance between personal and professional lives for themselves, but also in role
modeling that balance for staff who reported to them.

A focus on students was a constant theme throughout the interviews.
Interview participants consistently reported that the reason they do the work they
do was because of the students. Working with students is important because
there are opportunities to make a difference in the lives of students. Interview
participants often defined their own success by that achieved in life by the
students with whom they worked.

It was also important to interview participants that they created
opportunities for staff who report to them. They were supportive of the career
goals of their staff, even if that meant leaving the department or institution to
advance in the careers. Interview participants viewed the creation of
Opportunities for staff as part of their responsibilities as supervisors.

Although some interview participants were concerned about staff turnover,
they supported the career goals of their staff, even if that meant staff who wanted
to advance would leave the institution. Interview participants saw their role as
helping staff grow professionally by opening doors so they could move up the
career ladder or by helping staff find fulfillment and satisfaction in their current
positions.

While interview participants believed that involvement and participation in
professional organizations were ways to demonstrate a commitment to the
student affairs profession, it was not the defining issue. Their commitment to the

profession was based in the excitement and passion they felt about working with

96

students and the energy they gained in the process. They role model their
interactions with students for their staff and demonstrate that the growth and

development of students is central to the work they do.

97

Chapter V
Discussion

Wrnston and Creamer (1997) defined supervision in higher education as
“a management function intended to promote the achievement of institutional
goals and to enhance the personal and professional capabilities and
performance of staff” (p. 186). They proposed a theoretical model of effective
supervision, called synergistic supervision, which should be viewed essentially as
a helping process provided by the institution to benefit or support staff rather than
as a mechanism for punishment for unsatisfactory performance. Characteristics
of synergistic supervision include: dual focus; joint effort; two-way
communication; focus on competence (knowledge, work-related skills, personal
and professional skills, and attitudes); goals; a systematic and ongoing process;
and growth orientation (Winston 8 Creamer, 1997). This definition acknowledges
that meeting the goals of both the individual and the institution is a crucial
component of supervision.

There are concerns in the student affairs profession about persistence of
employees and about commitment to the profession as demonstrated by
participation in professional associations and conferences and through
contributions of research and publication. The practice of synergistic supervision,
with its dual focus on benefits for both the institution and the individual, can

improve retention and increase demonstrated commitment to the profession.

98

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to determine if the perception of the use of
behaviors and characteristics of synergistic supervision received influence the
persistence of staff in the profession and their commifinent to the profession.
Persistence was defined by an employee’s intention to continue a career in
student affairs, regardless of the institution in which they are employed.
Commitment to the profession was defined by employee membership in
professional organizations, conference attendance, conference participation such
as presentations, and involvement in research and publication. Both quantitative
and qualitative research methods were used to conduct this study.

After a review of current student affairs literature on supervision,
persistence and retention, and commitment to the profession, the following
research questions were designed to meet the purpose of the study and direct
the study and methods of data analysis.

1. Is synergistic supervision practiced in the student affairs profession at

public universities in Michigan?

2. Do individuals’ perceptions of synergistic supervision received and its
focus on meeting the goals of the institution and the personal and
professional goals of the employee influence persistence in the student
affairs profession?

3. Do individuals” perceptions of synergistic supervision received

influence commitment to the student affairs profession?

99

Quantitative Study

Methodology.

Data for the quantitative portion of this study were collected through the
use of an online survey. In addition to demographic information, the survey
included six questions related to supervision received. Descriptive analyses of
survey responses were concluded to classify and summarize characteristics of
the sample and to examine responses to the supervision questions. Responses
to survey questions were examined for differences by Position Title, Gender,
Race/Ethnicity, Years Worked as a Student Affairs Professional, Age and
Professional Organization membership. Pearson Chi-Square, Pearson
correlation coefficients, Spearrnan rho and t-tests were conducted to determine
whether or not differences were significant.

lnstmmentation

In building a staffing model in student affairs, Wrnston and Creamer (1997)
developed and administered a nationwide survey to examine staffing practices.
The survey covered the areas of staff recruitment and selection, new position
orientation, job satisfaction, supervisory approaches and content, staff
development organization and activities, and performance appraisal practices.
Respondents included staff at all levels of the organization. Issues related to both
supervision given and supervision received were included. Saunders et al. (2000)
explored the validity of the Wrnston and Creamer staffing model by developing
the Synergistic Supervision Scale (SSS). The SSS measures staff member

perceptions of the following supervisor behaviors: concern about staff members”

100

personal and career development; equitable staff treatment; and management
that encourages productivity, cooperative problem solving with staff, systematic
goal setting, and two-way communication with mutual feedback.

The SSS included 22 items intended to assess the degree to which a
supervisor was perceived by the supervisee to demonstrate synergistic
supervision behaviors. Subjects rated the frequency of each described behavior
based on their perceptions of their current supervisory relationship. Ratings were
on a five-point Likert scale (1 =never or almost never; 2=seldom; 3=sometimes;
4=often; 5=always or almost always).

I developed a questionnaire (Appendix A) consisting of six questions,
informed by the SSS, to address participants” perceptions of their supervisor’s
use of synergistic supervision. Questions reflected the components of synergistic
supervision including dual focus; joint effort; two-way communication; focus on
competence; goals; a systematic and ongoing process; and growth orientation.
Participants were asked to rate the frequency of each described behavior based
on their perceptions of their current supervisory relationship. Ratings were on a
five-point Likert scale (1 =never or almost never; 2=seldom; 3=sometimes;
4=often; 5=always or almost always).

Participants were asked to provide demographic information regarding job
title, educational background and plans, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and years in
the profession. Responses to the questions were used to examine potential
generational differences, or differences based on respondents’ race, gender,

years in the profession, or functional areas in which they work. Participantswere

101

asked to list membership in professional organizations as an additional measure
to determine their level of commitment to the profession.

Sample.

Since one of the components of synergistic supervision to be explored
was related to commitment to the profession, I did not use professional
organization membership lists as the only way to identify potential survey
participants. Staff names and email addresses were identified through
institutional websites and through organizational charts obtained from each of the
15 public universities in Michigan.

Five hundred twenty-six potential participants were identified and emailed
an invitation to participate in the survey. The initial invitation was followed by two
additional email reminders with requests for participation. Two hundred thirty-
seven participants responded to the survey resulting in a 45.1% response rate.
This response rate was calculated after purging those participants who visited
the website but exited without responding to questions and those who did not
receive any of the email messages due to incorrect or faulty addresses or
because they had left their institutions.

Qualitative Study

Methodology.

Data for the qualitative portion of this study were collected through
interviews. Interview participants were purposefully selected from student affairs
professionals employed by public Michigan universities with at least five to ten

years of experience in the profession. I asked my colleagues working in the

102

areas of Career Services, Housing and Residential Life, and Student Life to
provide several names of their colleagues working at public Michigan

universities. I contacted student affairs professionals working in each of these
three areas from the list of names provided and requested interviews.
Participants were selected for interviews based on their availability and while
they were in the pool of potential participants for the online survey it is unknown if
they completed the survey. A face-to-face interview lasting approximately one
hour was conducted with each of nine participants at their work sites.

Notes were taken during the interviews, which were tape recorded and
then transcribed. A first read of the data provided a general sense of the
information and a general impression of its depth, credibility and use (Creswell,
2003). The data were reviewed again to identify emerging common themes.
Detailed analysis began with a coding process that was used to break down the
data into major topics and unique topics. A descriptive narrative discussed each
theme, which were then analyzed to interpret, or make meaning of, the data.

Instrumentation.

Interviews were conducted with selected participants using open-ended
questions (Appendix B). Questions were developed, lnfonned by the Wrnston
and Creamer staffing survey (1997), which asked participants to reflect on their
personal experiences that have encouraged them to remain in the student affairs
profession. They were also asked what they do to keep new professionals in the
field, their definition of commitment to the profession and how they developed

that commitment, and how supervision has played a role in their retention in and

103

commitment to the profession. Interview questions differed from survey questions
in that they focused not only on participants” perceptions of synergistic
supervision received but also on the components of synergistic supervision
interview participants practiced. In addition, demographic information about the
participants (i.e., age, gender, educational background, and years in the
profession) was gathered.

Sample.

Interview participants were purposefully selected from student affairs
professionals employed by public Michigan universities with at least five to ten
years of experience in the profession. Three participants worked in the areas of
Career Services, three in Housing and Residential Life and three in Student Life.
A face-to-face interview lasting approximately one hour was conducted with each
of nine participants.

Major Findings

Survey participants reported that the actions of their supervisors were
consistent with \Mnston and Creamer’s (1997) definition of synergistic
supervision regardless of their position title, the length of time they had worked in
the profession, their race/ethnicity or gender. When asked to respond to the
question “My supervisor and I both contribute when making decisions that affect
my area” 74.1% indicated “Often or Always or Almost Always”. Seventy-three
point four percent responded “Often or Always or Almost Always” to the question
“My supervisor and I have a level of trust which allows me to give honest

feedback both positive and negative”. In response to the question “My supervisor

104

provides me the information I need to do my job and supports my efforts to
improve my knowledge, and personal and professional skills”, 70.4% responded
“Often or Always or Almost Always”. Respondents also reported “Often or Always
or Almost Always” that “My supervisor and I meet regularly on a predetermined
basis” at a rate of 68.1%. When asked to rate “My supervisor and I develop
yearly professional goals that address my strengths and weaknesses” 55.7%
responded “Often or Always or Almost Always”. Finally, 53.9% of respondents
indicated “Often or Always or Almost Always” for the question “My supervisor
helps me understand how my individual goals contribute to the goals of the
division and the institution”.

Of the total 237 survey respondents 171 (72.2%) reported membership in
a national professional organization and 116 (48.9%) indicated fliey held
membership in regional or state professional organizations. ACPA and NASPA
were mentioned most frequently as the national organizations in which
respondents held membership with 70 (29.5%) reporting membership in ACPA
and 64 (27.0%) in NASPA. Even though respondents could list more than one
membership, and some reported membership in both organizations, still only 101
(42.6%) of the total respondents reported belonging to ACPA and/or NASPA,
considered to be two of the premier national organizations in the student affairs
profession. It is clear from the broad range of organizations (Appendices H 8 I) in
which survey participants held membership that student affairs professionals
seek professional development related to their functional areas of work through

various organizations in addition to ACPA and NASPA. Other organizations

105

included the Association of College 8 University Housing Officers — International,
Association of Student Judicial Affairs, National Association for Campus
Activities, and the National Academic Advisors Association. Additionally, survey
respondents listed organizations that may not be directly related to the student
affairs profession but indicate their involvement in social, discipline-specific or
community based organizations such as Alpha Kappa Alpha, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, and the Lions Club.

Interview participants also indicated through flteir comments they
practiced the characteristics of synergistic supervision, without using this
terminology. Characteristics of synergistic supervision include: dual focus; joint
effort; two-way communication; focus on competence (knowledge, work-related
skills, personal and professional skills, and attitudes); goals; a systematic and
ongoing process; and growth orientation (Wrnston 8 Creamer, 1997).

The dual focus in synergistic supervision emphasizes that both the goals
of the institution and unit are accomplished as well as the personal and
professional goals of staff. Staff members need to be involved in setting and
accomplishing both personal and professional goals. At times, it may appear that
institutional goals and personal goals may conflict. Supervisors have the
responsibility to ensure that tasks are accomplished and that work gets done.
However, they may have supervisees who are aware that to advance in the
profession they will have to leave the institution. Interview participants
demonstrate their support for their supervisees who may leave but do not lower

their standards or expectations for the work that needs to be accomplished. In

106

fact, they often nurture their staff and feel a sense of accomplishment or pride in
the success of staff they supervise.

For student affairs professionals is this study, professional life is not totally
separate and distinct from a personal life. As supervisors, interview participants
acknowledge this by being sensitive to personal issues with which staff may be
dealing. The flexibility of work schedules in student affairs often provides one
supportive measure supervisors can make available to staff who need to respond
to personal issues. Interview participants recognize the job often requires long
hours but make a point of paying attention to their own personal needs and/or the
needs of their families. They also try to role model this behavior for their staffs
and encourage them to find a healthy balance between their personal and
professional lives.

Supervisors and their supervisees work together to establish personal and
professional goals for the supervisee. It is a relationship built upon trust, respect
and openness. This combination of energy makes the approach synergistic, with
the outcome equal to more than the sum of its parts (Wrnston 8 Creamer, 1997).
Interview participants try to create a work environment built on the concept of
teamwork. They often view themselves as just one part of the team rather than
playing the more traditional hierarchical role of supervisors who give instructions
to supervisees and expect their “orders” will be carried out with little input from
supervisees and without providing an understanding of how each person’s work
fit into the overall goals of the unit, the division or the university. As “team

leader", supervisors still have responsibility to ensure that work is done, but the

107

tasks are accomplished in an atmosphere based on a level of trust and in which
everyone contributes to the goals.

Two-way communication is more likely to occur when a high level of trust
has been established between the supervisor and staff members. A relationship
between the supervisor and supervisees predicated on trust will create a climate
in which honest and direct feedback flows both ways (Vlfrnston 8 Creamer, 1997).
Two-way communication is important to interview participants as they welcome
feedback from supervisees and maintain what was often described as an “open
door” policy. One method they use to build trust is to ensure confidentiality.
Another is to take responsibility for not just the successes, but also the failures of
work performed by their staff.

Synergistic supervision also focuses on competence. Both the supervisor
and the supervisee strive to enhance their knowledge and information about
student development; work-related skills such as interpersonal communication,
goal setting, public relations, leadership, confrontation, conflict resolution,
computer usage, bookkeeping, and clerical skills; personal and professional skills
including time management, personal management such as diet or exercise,
retirement planning, anger control, career planning, or stress management; and
attitudes (\Mnston 8 Creamer, 1997). There is also an expectation of
competence in intercultural knowledge and skills, critical thinking and problem
solving skills as well as familiarity with legal, professional, and ethical standards
and institutional policies. One way interview participants help staff gain

competence is to ensure they have the skills and information they need to do

108

their jobs. The supervisors in this study provide support for conference and
workshop attendance and participation as well as professional organization
memberships. Even though providing this kind of support can be difficult when
resources are scarce, the supervisors I interviewed manage to find ways to do
so. They read professional publications and join internet list serves that focus on
topics related to their work, modeling behavior for their staff and encouraging
them to do the same.

Goal-based synergistic supervision carries an expectation that goals are
established then periodically reviewed and evaluated through regular
supervisor/supervisee meetings (Vlfinston 8 Creamer, 1997). Adjustments are
made as needed. Several interview participants spoke specifically about the way
they help staff develop goals and emphasized the input that supervisees have in
developing their own goals. Discussions about goals occur both formally and
informally and are developed based on the strengths, weaknesses and interests
of staff in the context of achieving departmental and institutional goals. As
supervisors, they then support the goals and meet with supervisees several
times during the year to assess and reevaluate the goals.

Synergistic supervision is a systematic and ongoing process that becomes
a routine part of professional life. Holistically, synergistic supervision responds to
not only people’s professional concerns but also their personal attitudes and
beliefs. The supervisor and supervisees engage in an on-going dialogue process
to help supervisees be more effective in their professional performance, personal

living, and career development (Winston 8 Creamer, 1997). Interview

109

participants believe strongly that performance appraisal is not an evaluation that
occurs once each year but is a process that happens on a regular basis.
Typically, supervisors meet with staff as a group and individually weekly or
biweekly. In addition, an evaluation of an activity or project is conducted at its
completion. As supervisors, interview participants also take interest in and some
responsibility for the career development of staff who report to them. They
support participation in professional development activities which help staff gain
Skills that will improve their job performance or help them gain experiences to
advance in the profession.

Wrth a focus on growth orientation rather than on correcting problems or
discipline, staff can benefit from a work place that is stimulating and rewarding
(Winston 8 Creamer, 1997). When potential problems are identified, the
proactivity aspect of synergistic supervision allows problems to be identified
early, by the supervisor and/or the supervisee and both can work together on the
resolution of issues. On-going conversations and frequent contact with their
staffs give interview participants opportunities to identify problematic situations
quickly. Having built a level of trust and established open communication, staff is
more likely to come to interview participants, as supervisors, with information that
might be perceived as negative.

Persistence in the Student Affairs Profession.

Earlier in this study, I defined persistence in the profession as an
employee’s intention to continue a career in student affairs, regardless of the

institution by which they are employed. The number of years a practitioner

110

remains in the student affairs profession is one indicator of persistence.
Responses to survey questions were fairly consistent regardless of the number
of years practitioners had been in the profession. Analysis using Pearson Chi-
square, Pearson correlation coefficients and Speannan rho demonstrated
statistically significant differences in responses to Question 2: My supervisor and
I meet regularly on a pre-detennined basis depending on the number of years
survey participants had worked in the student affairs profession. The Significance
of r is strongly influenced by the size of the sample. In a large sample (N=100+)
as in this study, very small correlations may be statistically significant. Further
examination of Question 2 reveals that career stage bias may be built into this
question. In the student affairs profession, as in many other fields, supervisors
typically meet with new employees more often than they meet with more
seasoned professionals. It therefore follows that the newest employees (those
with one to three years in the profession) would report they meet regularly with
their supervisors on a predetermined basis at a higher rate than other
employees report. When Question 2 is eliminated from the analysis, examination
of responses to the other five questions shows that there is no negative
correlation between the Years Worked as Student Affairs Professional category
and responses to the survey questions. Survey respondents indicated their
supervisors practiced components of synergistic supervision consistently and
regardless of the number of years those who were supervised had been in the

profession.

111

As people make career choices, salary is often one of the factors taken
under consideration. Potential for increasing annual income often influences
decisions to remain in a profession. None of the interview participants identify
high salaries as one of the reasons they entered or continue working in the
student affairs profession. In fact, Larry emphatically states it is “definitely not the
money” that keeps him in the profession. Rather, he thinks “it’s those intrinsic
things, seeing students grow, develop.” Interview participants who had advanced
in their careers, often moving to new institutions or accepting new positions, did
not make their career choices based on salaries. Decisions to take new positions
were often based on family and “quality of life” issues, to gain new experiences,
or to advance a career.

None of the interview participants indicate plans to leave the student
affairs profession in the near future although several are beginning to think about
retirement. These student affairs practitioners have been in the field from 8 to 25
years and are not considered new professionals by any means. The longer
student affairs professionals remain in the field and in higher education, the more
likely it is they will remain in the profession for their careers. (Wood, Wrnston 8
Polkosnik, 1985). Interview participants share their enthusiasm and excitement
about student affairs work with their supervisees, encourage their staffs to
develop personally and professionally, and support them when they want to
advance in the profession. They are also supportive if staff want to continue to
grow in their current positions or if their career paths lead them out of student

affairs and higher education.

112

Each of the interview participants gives credit to a person for sparking
their interest in the profession. They have stayed in the field because of their
dedication to students and the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of
others. Along the way, they have continued to receive mentoring and have
become mentors to other staff as well as students. They have benefited from
both receiving and providing the elements constituting synergistic supervision
even though that terminology may never have been used. They are engaged,
and engage their supervisees, in on-going dialogues which help supervisees
become more effective in their professional performance, personal living, and
career development. At the same time, they integrate professional standards in
their work and expect themselves and their staff to perform as competent
practitioners.

Cutler (2003) believes that to retain student affairs professionals, “...it is
crucial for supervisors and colleagues to model the importance of having time to
foster personal growth” (p. 176). Supervisors in this study believe that
encouraging both the personal and professional growth of their staffs is part of
their responsibility. While the goals of the department and the institution are
important, the personal and professional goals of staff are equally valid. This
emphasis on the goals of both the institution and of the professional staff is
consistent with synergistic supervision.

Commitment to the Profession.

For the purpose of this study, commitment to the profession was defined

by employee membership in professional organizations, conference attendance,

113

conference participation such as presentations, and involvement in research and
publication. Survey respondents were asked to list professional organizations in
which they held membership. There were no statistically significant differences in
the responses to survey questions by participants who indicated membership in
national professional organizations and those who did not indicate any
memberships. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in
the responses to survey questions by participants who indicated membership in
regional/state professional organizations and those who did not indicate any
memberships.

Interview participants indicate that membership in professional
organizations plays a role in professional life. According to the level of
participants” involvement in organizations, attendance and participation in
conferences can provide valuable networking opportunities. Conference and
workshop participation can also provide opportunities to enhance skills that
complement the work professionals do.

Some interview participants note the value that research and publishing
can bring to the profession and to the individual. More often, they mention the
value student affairs professionals receive by reading student affairs” literature
and keeping abreast with current issues in the profession. Several interview
participants had been encouraged early in their own professional careers to stay
on top of the literature and current issues, and encouraged their staff to do the

same.

114

Professional organizations also provide practitioners guidelines and
standards for practice. Lisa is one of several interview participants who indicate
they look to the professional organizations, such as NASPA, ACPA and Midwest
ACE for standards, administrative structures and best practices. Donna believes
that professional guidelines and a code of ethics help her feel she is definitely
part of a profession. The guidelines carry over to her own division of student
affairs through nine guiding principles. At Lan'y’s institution, copies of standards
hang on the wall in all of their offices in the division.

Rather than defining commitment to the student affairs profession as
demonstrated by practitioners improving and expanding their skills through
membership in professional associations, attendance at conferences, making
presentations at conferences and through involvement in research and
publication, these activities may actually form a definition of professionalism.
According to Winston and Creamer (1997), “one sign of professionalism is
affiliation with associations devoted to the advancement of the field” (p. 98).
Professionalism and commitment to the profession are not the same for these
interview participants.

According to those who participated in my study, commitment to the
student affairs profession is based in a commitment to students and in making a
difference in the lives of students with whom they interact. As they advanced in
the profession and became supervisors, an additional commitment to the staff
they supervise developed. Commitment to the profession, as demonstrated by a

commitment to students and staff is complimented by mentoring, finding balance

115

between personal and professional goals and lives and by creating opportunities
for others to grow.

Over and over again interview participants returned to a discussion about
the importance of students in their work, and in turn, in their lives. “It’s all about
the students”, says Donna. According to Lisa “everything you do, you do with
students”. To Paul, “...it’s not about self, it’s about the students”. The
commitment to students expressed by interview participants is consistent with
responses to the staffing survey Vlfinston and Creamer (1997) conducted.
Overwhelmingly, staff who responded to the Wrnston and Creamer survey
indicated that working directly with students was the greatest reward they
received from their jobs.

The dedication to students and their growth is demonstrated by the role
the staff in this study plays as mentors. They relish being mentors to students.
Each of the interview participants had benefited from mentoring and wanted to do
the same for others. Some of the mentoring opportunities developed through
their positions as supervisors with the staff who reported directly to them.
However, there were also opportunities to serve in this role to colleagues, former
staff and former students.

Interview participants stress the importance of finding balance between
their personal and professional lives. While they are dedicated student affairs
professionals, they do not want to sacrifice their personal lives for their
professional careers. They also feel some responsibility to ensure that staff who

report to them give attention to their personal lives. Boehman (2006) refers to this

116

balance as work/non-work interaction and states it “is an important aspect of
organizational commitment among student affairs professionals” (p. 1). Boehman
(2006) reports “it appears that organizations that take employees” worklnon-work
interaction into account are perceived as being more supportive, and lead to
increased commitment on the part of the employee” (p. 2). The actions interview
participants report they take demonstrate they are aware of the hours their staff
work and they encourage staff to take advantage of the flexibility offered by the
student affairs field to take time out for themselves, their families, and a social
life. Student affairs professionals are educators. As educators, they “should be
able to role model for students as well as for younger professionals the ability to
effectively balance work and non-work commitments” (Boehman, 2006, p.5).
Interview participants” concern about the individual’s well being and not just the
well being of the institution helps create a supportive environment. According to
Boehman (2006), “if an individual believes that his or her supervisor cares about
him or her, it is translated into a perception of organizational support” (p. 3).
Research Questions

The first research question asked if synergistic supervision is practiced in
the student affairs profession at public universities in Michigan. Survey
respondents indicated they received synergistic supervision regardless of their
Position Title, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Years Worked as a Student Affairs
Professional, Age or Professional Organization membership. Interview
participants reported they not only received synergistic supervision but they also

practiced synergistic supervision with staff who reported to them.

117

The second research question asked if individuals’ perceptions of
synergistic supervision received and its focus on meeting the goals of the
institution and the personal and professional goals of the employee influence
persistence in the student affairs profession. Survey respondents indicated they
received synergistic supervision regardless of the number of years they have
worked in the student affairs profession.

Interview participants reported they entered the student affairs profession
and remain in the profession primarily because of their commitment to working
with students and helping them develop. However, one factor that allows them to
perform the student-focused work that is important to them is that they have
benefited from the synergistic supervision characteristics practiced by their
supervisors. Interview participants perceive that the synergistic supervision they
have received gives them the opportunity to develop both personally and
professionally and contributes to their persistence in the student affairs
profession.

The third research question asked if individuals’ perceptions of synergistic
supervision received influence commitment to the student affairs profession. The
definition of commitment to the profession I used at the beginning of the study
included employee membership in professional organizations, conference
attendance, conference participation such as presentations, and involvement in
research and publication. A different definition of commitment to the profession
emerged through the interviews in the qualitative portion of this study. The new

definition of commitment to the student affairs profession is based in a

118

commitment to students and in making a difference in the lives of students and
staff. The components of synergistic supervision received allow both survey
respondents and interview participants to demonstrate their commitment to the
profession.

Implications of Major Findings

This study contributes knowledge in the areas of synergistic supervision,
persistence in and commitment to the student affairs profession. Survey
participants reported that the actions of their supervisors were consistent with
Winston and Creamer’s (1997) definition of synergistic supervision regardless of
their position title, the length of time they had worked in the profession, their
race/ethnicity or gender.

Even though interview participants may not be aware of the term, they
have participated in many of the elements of synergistic supervision. They have
emphasized the goals of both the institution and of professional staff, and
evaluated staff goals on a regular basis. As supervisors, they worked with
supervisees to establish personal and professional goals through a relationship
built on trust, respect and openness. This allowed open and honest feedback to
flow between the supervisor and the supervisee providing the opportunity to
identify problems early and to work together to resolve issues. It also provides
supervisors the opportunity to get feedback and evaluate their own performance
as supervisors. Synergistic supervision creates an environment in which staff can
be more effective in their professional performance, personal living, and in their

careers.

119

Commitment to the student affairs profession is strengthened when the
organization supports a balance between work and non-work interaction. The
ability to maintain a balance between personal and professional goals allows
student affairs professionals to become “whole” persons. Practitioners are not
required to sacrifice or ignore a personal life in order to be considered successful
professionals who are dedicated to their work. The student affairs profession is
built on the basic tenet that development of the student as a whole person is
important. By carrying over this belief to the development of staff individuals are
more likely to experience personal and professional satisfaction and will be less
likely to leave the profession.

Although the behaviors of survey participants as supervisors indicated
they practiced synergistic supervision, they did not use the terminology and gave
no indication they were familiar with the practice. Most of the interview
participants indicated they had never been trained in supervision. They Ieamed
how to supervise from their experiences as supervisees, both good and bad. It is
possible that their commitment to the development of students and staff and to
the student affairs profession led them to intuitively practice components of
synergistic supervision. Student affairs is considered to be one of the “helping”
professions and according to Winston and Creamer (1997), “supervision is
viewed as essentially a helping process, which is designed to support staff as
they seek to promote the goals of the organizations and to advance their
professional development” (p. 194). Practitioners who enter the field tend to

genuinely care about others and are dedicated to serving the interests of

120

individuals and society (Winston 8 Creamer, 1997; Young, 1996). The
commitment interview participants have for the personal and professional
development of others leads them to put the elements of synergistic supervision
into practice.

While the literature reflects a continuing concern about the quality of
supervision in the student affairs profession, participants in this study indicate
they are receiving quality supervision. One reason this disagreement about the
quality of supervision being provided may be due to a lack of a clear definition of
supervision. The survey questions in this study asked about the use of specific
behaviors related to the components of synergistic supervision rather than asking
more generally how participants felt about their supervisors or the supervision
they received. This allowed survey participants to objectively evaluate whether or
not the components of synergistic supervision were being practiced by their
supervisors by disaggregating behaviors from personality.

New, young professionals often enter the student affairs field expecting
their supervisor to become their friend, confidant and mentor. They bring
expectations that this new friend will be available to them whenever they need
them and will provide them unquestioned support and encouragement. While
supervisors may play some of these roles, they may also be providing
constructive criticism and negative feedback that were unexpected and for which
the young professional was unprepared to receive. The unrealistic expectations
that student affairs professionals, especially young professionals, have of their

supervisors may be contributing to the perception that there is a lack of quality

121

supervision being provided. Focusing on specific behaviors that comprise good
supervision such as those related to the components of synergistic supervision
allows us to shift from what amounts to perceptions of satisfaction with
supervision received to creating the opportunity to objectively evaluate
characteristics of good supervision. The model of synergistic supervision
developed by Wrnston and Creamer (1997) provides us with guidelines to follow
and with a perspective with which to evaluate the effectiveness of supervision
practiced in the student affairs profession.

Limitations

Survey participants were identified through university Web sites and
organizational charts. Examination of all university Web sites and organizational
charts in the United States for potential participants would not be possible, so
only public universities in Michigan were included in the study. This limited the
number of potential participants to approximately five hundred and may have
excluded some individuals who are not listed on Web sites or those in units
without accessible and detailed organizational charts.

Participants were employees of Michigan public universities and were not
evenly divided among institutional types, sizes and functional areas of
employment. Results of the study may not be generalizable to other universities
in the United States.

The structure of student affairs divisions is defined differently at various

institutions. A functional area considered part of a student affairs division at one

122

university may not be part of the student affairs division at another. Survey
respondents may not be representative of all functional areas.

Individuals who have previously worked in the student affairs profession
but have not persisted are not included in this study. Their perceptions of
synergistic supervision received and its influence on their persistence in and
commitment to the profession may have been different than survey and interview
participants.

Additional factors that may influence an individual’s persistence in the
student affairs profession have not been taken into account in this study. Some
individuals are in a dual career relationship that may not allow them to be flexible
geographically. Partner or other family commitments may influence their decision
to remain at their current institution, and therefore, in the profession.

An on-line survey may have limited participation of some subjects who are
not familiar with the methodology or distrust the security of the information they
provide.

The purposive sampling procedure for interviews decreased the
generalizability of the findings. In-person interviews also have limitations.
lnforrnants’ responses in interviews may be biased by the researcher’s presence.
Additionally, not all informants are equally articulate or perceptive. The findings in
this qualitative research method may be subject to other interpretations.
Recommendations for Further Study

Analysis of responses to survey questions demonstrated some statistically

significant differences in how regularly participants met with their supervisors

123

depending on the number of years they had spent in the profession. While
statistically significant, these differences may not have much significance in
practice but warrant further investigation. Additional statistical analysis may
identify or explain the importance of regular meetings between synergistic
supervisors and their staff.

The development of commitment to the profession should be further
explored to examine the influence of supervision. It would be interesting to
conduct a study to examine the intentions of student affairs professionals to
continue in the profession and their involvement in professional development
activities such as organization membership, conference attendance, workshop
presentations and publication. Some professionals may decide after a Short
period of time in their positions that they will change careers so limit their
involvement in professional development activities. Others may find that even
though they would like to become involved in professional development activities
departmental or institutional budgets limit their participation.

Further study should be conducted on the perceptions of synergistic
supervision received and given with supervisors and their direct reports. It would
be interesting to Ieam if the perceptions supervisors hold regarding their style of
supervision matched the perceptions of those they supervised.

It would also be valuable to conduct an updated retention study of student
affairs professionals. While there appears to be continued concern about
retention in the field, few retention studies have been conducted since the

1980’s. A new study may be especially enlightening given the probability that

124

many entering the student affairs profession in the near future will be members of
the millennial generation. Millennials may bring different expectations and
demands to the profession which will need to be addressed to improve retention
in the field.

Further research should be conducted examining the reasons why student
affairs professionals leave the field. While it may not be possible to study those
professionals who have previously left the field, exit surveys could be conducted
as professionals leave to determine if their perceptions of synergistic supervision

received influenced their decision.

125

Appendix A
Supervision Survey
Demographic lnforrnation

Position title: (Check one best response.)

Vice President

Associate/Assistant Vlce President

Dean

Associate/Assistant Dean

Department Head/Director
Associate/Assistant Department Head/Director
Residence Area Director

Coordinator
Other: Specify:

 

Highest degree earned: (Check one.)

__ High school and/or technical school diploma

_ Associate

Baccalaureate

Master’s

Doctorate

Other (please specify )

Major field of highest degree earned: (Check one.)

_ Student Affairs

_ Counseling or Counseling Psychology

_ Higher Education

_ Business

_ Other Fields (such as English, biology, Russian literature, or philosophy)

Are you currently pursuing further degrees? (Check one.)
_ Yes _ No

Do you plan to pursue a further degree? (Check one.)
_ Yes _ No

Sex (Check one.)
_ Female _ Male

Racial/Ethnic Background (Check single best response.)
_ African American

_ Asian American or Pacific Islander

_ CaucasianNVhite American (non-Hispanic)

__ Hispanic American

126

Appendix A (continued).

_ Multicultural
__ North American Indigenous/American Indian/Native American
_ Other (please specify )

Age (Check one.)
_ 25 or younger
_ 26-30

_ 31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-55

56-60

61-65

66 or older

.<

ears (including the current year) worked in Student Affairs as a professional
Check one.)
1-3

.5
0

7-9

10-12
13-15
_16-18
19-21

22 or more

Current membership in national professional organizations

Current membership in regional or state professional organizations

Indicate the functional areas in which you have assigned responsibility by ranking
them. Assign 1 for the most time consuming, 2 for less time consuming, and 3 for
the least time consuming responsibility. (Do not rank all the functional areas.
Many staff members will work in a single functional area; if that is the case, enter
a 1 before that functional area.)

_ Academic Assistance _ Judicial (discipline)

_ Academic Advising _ Leadership Programs

_ Admissions _ Minority Student Programs
__ Alcohol/Drug Education _ Orientation

_ Campus Activities _ Registrar

_ Career Services _ Research and/or Evaluation

127

Appendix A (continued).

Child Care Recreational Sports
Counseling and Testing Service LeamingNolunteer Programs

_ Facilities Management _ Staff Development and Training
_ Financial Aid _ Student Affairs Division Administration
_ Greek Life (across areas)
_ Housing and Residence Life _ Student Union
_ International Students _ Wellness
_ Women’s Programs
_ Other:

 

Directions: For each item indicate the one response that most closely reflects
your experience with your current supervisor. Respond using the following scale:
1 = never or almost never

2 = seldom

3 = sometimes

4 = often

5 = always or almost always

_ My supervisor and I develop yearly professional development goals that
address my strengths and weaknesses.

_ My supervisor and I meet regularly on a predetermined basis.

_ My supervisor provides me the information I need to do my job and supports
my efforts to improve my knowbdge, and personal and professional skills.

_ My supervisor and I both contribute when making decisions that affect my
area of responsibilities.

_ My supervisor helps me understand how my individual goals contribute to
the goals of the division and institution.

__ My supervisor and I have a level of trust, which allows me to give honest
feedback, both positive and negative.

128

Appendix B

On-Iine lnfonned Consent Form
Michigan State University
Wrginia Randall, Investigator
Dr. Marilyn Amey, Faculty Advisor

1 am a graduate student at Michigan State University, working on my doctoral
degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education. I am asking you to participate in
this research study. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of
supervision on retention in and commitment to the student affairs profession.

The anticipated benefits of this study include: to contribute to the existing
literature on supervision in student affairs; to expand the understanding of
retention in student affairs; and to explore the definition of commitment to the
profession.

There are no reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts for you.

If you agree to participate in this study, here is what will happen:
1. I will ask you to completely read this page and select the “continue” button
below to communicate your lnfonned consent to participate in this study.
2. If you select the “continue” button, you will be redirected to a
questionnaire, which will take you approximately fifteen (15) minutes to
complete.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may decline to participate
without penalty. If you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study at
any time without penalty.

Data collected for this study becomes the property of the researcher. The
information in the study records will be kept strictly confidential and will be stored
securely in secure server space that is only accessible by me.

If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may
contact the researcher, Ginger Randall, at randallg@gvsu.edu or by phone at
(616) 331-3585, or my academic advisor, Marilyn Amey, at amey@msu.edu or
by phone at (517)432-1056. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect
of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko,
Ph.D., Director of Human Research Protections, (517) 355—2180,fax (517) 432-
4503, email irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

By selecting “continue” below, you indicate that you have read and acknowledge
the above information. That you willingly participate in this study, and that you

129

Appendix B (continued).

understand you may withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any
time.

Continue

Please contact randallg@gvsu.edu if you have any questions about this survey.

130

Appendix C
Initial Email Message Requesting Participation in Survey

From: Ginger Randall

To: Ginger Randall

Bc: (individual email addresses)
Subject: Supervision in Student Affairs
Date: April 3, 2006

Dear Student Affairs Colleague:

You can contribute to a new study on supervision in student affairs. As a Doctoral
Candidate in the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education program at Michigan
State University, I am currently conducting a dissertation research study to
examine how supervision influences retention in the student affairs profession
and commitment to the profession.

I hope that you will decide to participate in this study. Participation will involve
completing an online survey located at
(http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=363351882489. The survey, including
demographic items and six questions on supervision, should take less than ten
minutes to complete.

To complete the survey, simply click on the following link:
http://www.surveymonkey.comls.asp?u=363351882489

Thank you for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns about
this study or your participation, please call me at (616) 331-3585 or email me at
randallg@gvsu.edu.

Ginger Randall
Michigan State University

131

Appendix D

Second Email Message Requesting Participation In Survey

From: Ginger Randall

To: Ginger Randall

Bc: (individual email addresses)
Subject: Supervision Survey
Date: April 10, 2006

Student Affairs Colleague:

Last Monday I sent you an email inviting you to participate in a survey on
supervision in student affairs. If you have already completed the survey, thank
you!

As a Doctoral Candidate in the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education program at
Michigan State University, I am currently conducting a dissertation research
study to examine how supervision influences retention in the student affairs
profession and commitment to the profession.

I hope that you will decide to participate in this study. Participation will involve
completing an online survey which includes demographic items and six questions
on supervision. It should take less than ten minutes to complete.

To complete the survey, simply click on the following link:
httpzllwww.surveymonkey.comls.asp?u=363351 882489

Thank you for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns about
this study or your participation, please call me at (616) 331-3585 or email me at
randallg@gvsu.edu.

Ginger Randall
Michigan State University

132

Appendix E

Third Email Message Requesting Participation In Survey

From: Ginger Randall

To: Ginger Randall

Bc: (individual email addresses)

Subject: Supervision Survey — Final Reminder
Date: April 17, 2006

Student Affairs Colleague:

Thanks to all of you who have already completed this survey. This is the final
reminder I will be sending about the survey and encourage you to participate if
you haven’t already.

As a Doctoral Candidate in the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education program at
Michigan State University, I am currently conducting a dissertation research
study to examine how supervision influences retention in the student affairs
profession and commitment to the profession.

I hope that you will decide to participate in this study. Participation will involve
completing an online survey which includes demographic items and six questions
on supervision. It should take less than ten minutes to complete.

To complete the survey, simply click on the following link:
httpzllwwwsu rveymonkey.comls.asp?u=363351 882489

Thank you for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns about
this study or your participation, please call me at (616) 331-3585 or email me at
randallg@gvsu.edu.

Ginger Randall
Michigan State University

133

Appendix F

Interview Questions
Would you take a few minutes to tell me about your background and how you got
to where you are today?
Please describe a person who has demonstrated a commitment to the student
affairs profession.
How do you help developing that commitment in new professionals?
You’ve been in the student affairs profession for a while. What kinds of things
happened for you that kept you in the field?
There is some concern about the high numbers of new professionals leaving the
field. What kinds of things do you do to help keep promising staff in the
profession?
How has supervision played a role in your decision to stay in the profession?

How has supervision played a role in your commitment to the profession?

134

Appendix G

Interview Informed Consent Form
Michigan State University
Virginia Randall, Investigator
Dr. Marilyn Amey, Faculty Advisor

1 am a graduate student at Michigan State University, working on my doctoral
degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education. I am asking you to participate in
this research study. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of
supervision on retention in and commitment to the student affairs profession.

The anticipated benefits of this study include: to contribute to the existing
literature on supervision in student affairs; to expand the understanding of
retention in student affairs; and to explore the definition of commitment to the
profession.

There are no reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts for you.

If you agree to participate in this study, here is what will happen:
1. I will ask you to completely read this page and sign the form at the bottom
to communicate your informed consent to participate in this study.
2. If you sign the form, you will participate in an interview, which will last
approximately one hour.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may decline to participate
without penalty. If you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study at
any time without penalty. I would like to audio record the interview. You may
have the tape discontinued at any time and for any duration.

Data collected for this study becomes the property of the researcher. The
information in the study records will be kept strictly confidential and will be stored
securely in space that is only accessible by me.

If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may
contact the researcher, Ginger Randall, at randallg@gvsu.edu or by phone at
(616) 331-3585, or my academic advisor, Marilyn Amey, at amey@msu.edu or
by phone at (517) 432-1056. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect
of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko,
Ph.D., Director of Human Research Protections, (517) 355-2180,fax (517) 432-
4503, email irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 48824-1 047.

By signing the form below, you indicate that you have read and acknowledge the
above information. That you willingly participate in this study, and that you

135

Appendix G (continued).

understand you may withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any
time. You will receive a copy of this form.

 

 

Signature Date

 

Printed Name

136

Appendix H

Membership in National Professional Organizations
Reported by Survey Participants”

AAHEG (1)

ACHA (1)

Alpha Kappa Alpha (1)

Alpha Kappa Psi (1)

Alpha Phi Omega (1)

American Association of Collegiate Registrars 8 Admissions Officers (1)
American Association of University Professors (1)
American Association of University Women (1)
American Association for Employment in Education (4)
American College Personnel Association (70)
American Council on Education (1)

American Counseling Association (3)

American Educational Research Association (1)
American Indian Science and Engineering Society (1)
American Institute of Architects (1)

American Institutes for Research (1)

American Psychological Association (1)

American Society of Engineering Educators (1)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1)
Association of American Colleges 8 Universities (1)
Association of College 8 University Housing Officers — lntemational (30)
Association of College Unions lntemational (3)
Association of Collegiate Conference and Events Directors - lntemational (1)
Association of Fraternity Advisors (12)

Association of Higher Education 8 Disability (3)
Association of Physical Plant Administrators (2)
Association of Recovery Schools ( 1)

Association of Student Judicial Affairs (12)
Association for the Study of Higher Education (3)
Association for Volunteer Administrators (1)

Big Ten Housing (1)

Campus Compact (2)

Co-ed Professional Business Fraternity (1)

College Reading and Learning Association (1)
Cooperative Education 8 Internship Association (1)
Court Appointed Special Advocates (1)

Delta Sigma Theta (1)

GEM (1)

Graduate Career Consortium (1)

lntemational Ombudsman Association (3)
lntemational Learning Disabilities Association (1)

137

Appendix H (continued).

John D. O'Bryant National Think Tank for Black Professionals in Higher
Education on Predominantly White Campuses (1)

King-Chavez-Parks (1)

League of United Latin American Citizens (1)

Mid-American Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel (1)

MentorNet (1)

Michigan Library Association (1)

Midwest Association of Colleges and Employers (2)

NAFA (1)

NAFSA: Association of lntemational Educators (2)

NASPA: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (64)

National Academic Advisors Association (8)

National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (1)

National Association for Campus Activities (12)

National Association for College Admission Counseling (2)

National Association for Developmental Education (1)

National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions (1)

National Association of College and University Attorneys (1)

National Association of College and University Business Officers (1)

National Association of College Auxiliary Services (1)

National Association of College Counseling (1)

National Association of College 8 University Food Services (1)

National Association of Colleges 8 Employers (19)

National Association of Multicultural Engineering Program Advocates (2)

National Association of PreLaw Advisors (1)

National Career Development Association (4)

National Council of English Educators (1)

National Council of Women’s Organizations (1)

National Education Association (1)

National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (5)

National Society of Black Engineers (2)

Native American Program Action Group (1)

North American Orientation Directors Association (7)

Omicron Delta Kappa (2)

Order of Omega (1)

Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity (1)

Phi Delta Kappa (1)

Public Relations (1)

Rotary lntemational (1)

Sigma Phi Epsilon (1)

Sisters of the Academy (1)

Social Justice Institute (1)

Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (1)

138

Appendix H (continued).

Society of Women Engineers (1)

Society for College and University Planning (1)

Society for Human Resource Management (2)

Special Libraries Association (1)

University and College Designers Association (1)

Wade McCree Scholarships (1)

Women in Engineering Programs 8 Advocates Network (3)
Women in Higher Education (1)

Wordcraft Circle of Native American Writers (1)

Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. (2)

* Participants could list as many memberships as they chose

139

Appendix I

Membership in Regional and State Professional Organizations
Reported by Survey Participants"

Administrative Professionals Union of NMU (1)

Advocates for Latino Student Advancement in Michigan Education (1)
American Indian Science and Engineering Society-Regional (1)
American Institute of Architects Huron Valley Chapter (1)
Association of College Unions lntemational Region 7 (1)

Central Association of Advisors for the Health Professions (1)
Community Service Directors (1)

Cooperative Education 8 Internship Association (1)

Directors of Volunteers in Agencies (1)

District of Columbia Bar (1)

First Year Experience (1)

Great Lakes Assoc of College 8 University Housing Officers (39)
GVSU Alumni Association (1)

Keweenaw Economic Development Alliance (1)
King-Parks-Chavez (1)

Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan (1)

Lions Club (1)

MACACA (1)

Nil-Access, Michigan’s Alternative Assessment Program (7)
MI-ICE (1)

Michigan Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (1)
Michigan Housing and Dining Services Officers Association (1)
Midwest Association of Colleges and Employers (2)

Michigan Academic Advisors Association (3)

Michigan Association of Collegiate Career and Employment Services (7)
Michigan Association for Higher Education 8 Disabilities (4)
Michigan Association of lntemational Educators (1)

Michigan Bar (2)

Michigan Campus Compact (5)

Michigan Career Advising Association (1)

Michigan College Counseling Association (1)

Michigan College English Educators (1)

Michigan College Personnel Association (27)

Michigan College 8 University Professionals in Personnel Administration (1)
Michigan Council for Internships 8 Co-op Education (2)
Michigan Counseling Association (1)

Michigan Education Association (2)

Michigan Housing 8 Dining Services Officers Association (4)
Michigan Internship and Co-op Association (1)

Michigan Intramural Recreational Sports Association (1)
Michigan Libraries Association (1)

140

Appendix I (continued).

Michigan Organization of Residence Hall Association (1)

Michigan Student Financial Aid Association (1)

Michigan’s Promise (1)

Mid-American Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel (1)

Mid Michigan Area Placement Council (1)

Mid Michigan Human Resource Association (2)

Midwest ACE (6)

Midwest Association of Colleges and Employers (6)

Midwest Association of PreLaw Advisors (1)

Midwest Coalition of Ombudsmen (1)

Midwest Cooperative Education 8 Internships (1)

MOSPA (1)

MSGC (1)

Multicultural Association of Professionals - Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce
(1)

NAFSA: Association of lntemational Educators Region V (1)

National Association for Campus Activities Mid America Region (3)

National Society of Black Engineers (1)

NASPA Region lV-East (1)

North American Orientation Directors Association Region 7 (2)

Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (1)

UAW 2718 (1)

Wlsconsin College Personnel Association (1)

* Participants could list as many memberships as they chose.

141

Appendix J
Functional Area of Responsibility

Please rank the functional areas in which you have responsibility.

Assign 1 for the most time consuming

Assign 2 for less time consuming

Assign 3 for least time consuming

(Do not rank all the functional areas. Many staff members will work in a single
functional area; if that is the case assign a 1 for that functional area.)

 

Most Time Less Time Least Time
Functional Area Consuming Consuming Consuming

f % f % f %

 

Academic Advising 8 3.7 7 4.0 14 8.5
Academic Assisting 1 0.5 6 3.4 6 3.6
Admissions 1 0.5 4 2.3 8 4.8
Alcohol/Drug Education 2 0.9 5 2.8 5 3.0
Campus Activities 9 4.1 18 10.2 14 8.5
Career Services 32 14.7 4 2.3 1 0.6
Child Care 1 0.5 - - 2 1.2
Counseling and Testing 2 0.9 6 3.4 2 1.2
Facilities Management 5 2.3 7 4.0 8 4.8
Financial Aid 1 0.5 1 0.6 1 0.6
Greek Life 2 0.9 1 0.6 7 4.2
Housing/Residence Life 89 40.8 5 2.8 4 2.4
lntemational Students 2 0.9 1 0.6 3 1.8
Judicial (discipline) 6 2.8 24 13.6 16 9.7
Leadership Programs 6 2.8 9 5.1 6 3.6
Minority Student Programs 11 5.0 4 2.3 2 1.2
Orientation 3 1.4 12 6.8 8 4.8
Registrar 1 0.5 - - - -
Research and/or Evaluation 1 0.5 2 1.1 4 2.4

142

Appendix J (continued).

 

 

Most Time Less Time Least Time

Functional Area Consuming Consuming Consuming
f % f % f %

Recreational Sports 1 0.5 - - 2 1.2
gfggemgeamm’w'm‘eer 4 1.8 5 2.8 2 1.2
figgggvebpmem and 4 1.8 20 11.3 23 13.9
igurgfisngg': D'V's'm‘ 10 4.6 10 5.6 9 5.5
Student Union 3 1.4 4 2.3 2 1.2
Study Abroad - - 0.6 3 1.8
Wellness - - 3 1.7 3 1.8
Women’s Programs 2 0.9 1.1 3 1.8
Other 11 5.0 16 9.0 7 4.2
Total Respondents 218 100.2 177 100.3 165 99.5

 

143

References

American College Personnel Association (1993). Statement of Ethical Principles
and Standards. Retrieved June 25, 2005, from American College
Personnel Association Web site httpzwww.myacpa.orglaulau_ethical.cfm

Amey, M. J. (2002). Unwritten rules: Organizational and political realities of the
job. In M. J. Amey and L. M. Reesor (Eds), Beginning your joumey: A
guide for new professionals in student affairs (pp. 13-30). Washington,
DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.

Arminio, J., 8 Creamer, D. G. (2001). What supervisors say about quality
supervision. College Student Affairs Joumal, 21 (1 ), 35-44.

Baler, J. L. (1985). Recruiting and training competent staff. In M. J. Barr, L. A.
Keating 8 Associates (Eds.), Developing effective student service
programs: Systematic approaches for practitioners (pp. 212-233). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, M. J., Desler, M. K., 8 Associates (Eds). (2000). The handbook of student
affairs administration (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Belch, H. A., 8 Strange, C. C. (1995). Vlews from the bottleneck: Middle
managers in student affairs. NASPA Journal 32(3), 208-222.

Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal 18(2), 2-
9.

Benke, M., 8 Disque, C. S. (1990). Moving in, out, up, or nowhere? The mobility
of mid-managers. In R. B. Young (Ed.), The invisible leaders: Student
affairs mid-managers (pp. 14-39). Washington, D C: National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.

Blackhurst, A. E. (2000). Career satisfaction and perceptions of sex
discrimination among women student affairs professionals. NASPA
Journal 37(2), 399-413.

Blackhurst, A. E., Brandt, J. E., 8 Kalinowski, J. (1998). Effects of career
development on the organizational commitment and life satisfaction of
women student affairs administrators. NASPA Journal 36(1), 19-34.

Blimling, G. S. (2001). Uniting scholarship and communities of practice in
student affairs. Journal of College Student Development 42(4), 381 -396.

144

Boehman, J. (2006). The impact of worklnon-work interaction on organizational
commitment. Retrieved September 5, 2006, from National Association of
Personnel Administrators Web site http:lwww.naspa.orglmembership

Bryan, W. A., 8 Mullendore, R. H. (1990). Professional development strategies.
In R. B. Young (Ed), The invisible leaders: Student affairs mid-managers
(pp. 109-130). Washington, D C: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, Inc.

Bryan, W. A., 8 Schwartz, R. A. (1998). Some final thoughts about staff
development. In W. A. Bryan and R. A. Schwartz (Eds), Strategies for
staff development: Personal and professional education in the 21't
century. New Directions for Student Services, 84, 95-100.

Burns, M. A. (1982). Who leaves the student affairs field? NASPA Journal 20(2),
9-12.

Carpenter, D. S. (2001). Staffing student affairs functions. In R. B. Winston, Jr.,
D. G. Creamer, T. K. Miller 8 Associates (Eds), The professional student
affairs administrator (pp. 21 1-243). Lillington, NC: Edwards Brothers.

Carpenter, D. S. (1990). Professional development and career issues for mid-
managers. In R. B. Young (Ed), The invisible leaders: Student affairs mid-
managers (pp. 88108). Washington, DC: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, Inc.

Carpenter, D. S., Guido-DiBrito, F., 8 Kelly, J. P. (1987). Transferability of
student affairs skills and competencies: Light at the end of the bottleneck.
NASPA Joumal 24(3), 7-14.

Carpenter, D. S. 8 Miller, T. K. (1981) An analysis of professional development in
student affairs work. NASPA Journal 19(1), 2-11.

Carpenter, D. S., Torres, V., 8 VVInston, R. B., Jr. (2001). Staffing the student
affairs division: Theory, practices, and issues. College Student Affairs
Journal, 21(1), 2-6.

Chemow, E. K., Cooper, D. L., 8 Wlnston, R. B., Jr. (2003). Professional
association involvement of student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal
40(2). 43-58.

Conley, V. M. (2001). Separation: An integral aspect of the staffing process.
College Student Affairs Journal 21(1), 57-63.

Cooper, D. L., 8 Miller, T. K. (1998). Influence and impact: Professional
development in student affairs. In W. A. Bryan 8 R. A. Schwartz (Eds),

145

Strategies for staff development: Personal and professional education in
the 21"t Century. New Directions for Student Services, 84, 55—69.

Cooper, D. L., Miller, T. K., Saunders, S. A., Chernow, E., 8 Kulic, K. (1999).
Professional development advice from past presidents of ACPA and
NASPA. Journal of College Student Development 40(4), 396-403.

Cooper, D. L., Saunders, S. A., Howell, M. T. 8 Bates, J. M. (2001). Published
research about supervision in student affairs: A review of the literature
1969-1999. College Student Affairs Journal, 20(2), 82-92.

Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) for Higher Education (2003).
Standards and guidelines for masters-level graduate programs for student
affairs professionals. College Park, MD: Author.

Creamer, D. G., 8 \Mnston, R. B., Jr. (1999). The performance appraisal
paradox: An essential but neglected student affairs staffing function.
NASPA Joumal 36(4), 248-263.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cutler, H. A. (2003). Identity development in student affairs professionals.
College Student Affairs Joumal 22(2), 167-179.

Dalton, J. C. (1991). Enhancing staff knowledge and skills. In U. Delworth, G. R.
Hanson 8 Associates (Eds), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (pp. 533-551). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dalton, J. C. (1996). Managing human resources. In S. R. Komives, D. B.
Woodard, Jr., 8 Associates (Eds), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (3"1 ed.) (pp. 494-511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeCoster, D. A., 8 Brown, S. S. (1991). Staff development: Personal and
professional education. In T. K. Miller 8 R. B. \Nlnston (Eds),
Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student
development in higher education (2"d ed.) (pp. 563-613). Muncie, IN:
Accelerated Development, Inc.

Ellis, H., 8 Moon, J. (1991). The middle manager: Truly in the middle. New
Directions for Student Services 55, 43-54.

Ellis, 8. E. (2002). Words of wisdom. In M. J. Amey 8 L. M. Reesor (Eds),
Beginning your joumey: A guide for new professionals in student affairs
(pp. 141-149). Washington, DC: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, Inc.

146

Evans, N. J. (1988). Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the
literature. Journal of College Student Development, 29(1), 19-24.

Fey, C. J., 8 Carpenter, D. S. (1996). Mid-level student affairs administrators:
Management skills and professional development needs. NASPA Journal,
33(3), 218-231 .

Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., 8 Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A
practical guide (5th ed). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gordon, S. E., Borders Strode, C., 8 Mann, B. A. (1993). The mid-manager in
student affairs: What are CSAOS looking for? NASPA Journal, 30(4), 290-
297.

GraceOdeleye, B. (1998). A model for staff development in student affairs. In W.
A. Bryan 8 R. A. Schwartz (Eds), Strategies for staff development:
Personal and professional education in the 21“t Century. New Directions
for Student Services, 84, 83-93.

Griffis, S. E., Goldsby, T. J., 8 Cooper, M. (2003). Web-based and mail surveys:
A comparison of response, data, and cost. Journal of Business Logistics,
24(2), 237-258.

Hamrick, F. A., 8 Hemphill, B. O. (2002). Pathways to success in student affairs.
In M. J. Amey 8 L. M. Reesor (Eds), Beginning your joumey: A guide for
new professionals in student affairs (pp. 1 19-139). Washington, DC:
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.

Hancock, J. E. (1988). Needs and reinforcers in student affairs: Implications for
attrition. Journal of College Student Development, 29(1), 25-30.

Harned, P., 8 Murphy, M. C. (1998). Creating a culture of development for the
new professional. In W. A. Bryan 8 R. A. Schwartz (Eds), Strategies for
staff development: Personal and professional education in the 21"
Century. New Directions for Student Services, 84, 43-53.

Higher Education Directory, (2005). Falls Church, VA: Higher Education
Publications, Inc.

Hirt, J. B., Collins, 0, 8 Plummer, E. (2005). Where you work matters:
Differences by institutional type in the nature of professional life for
student affairs professionals. Retrieved April 21, 2005, from National
Association of Personnel Administrators Web site
http:/Iwww.naspa.orglmembership

147

Hirt, J. B., 8 Winston, R. B., Jr. (2003). Professional development: Its integration
with supervision processes. In S. M. Janosik, D. G. Creamer, J. B. Hirt, R.
B. Winston, Jr., S. A. Saunders, 8 D. L. Cooper (Eds), Supervising new
professionals in student affairs: A guide for practitioners (pp. 85-121.).
New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Holmes, D., Verrier, D., 8 Chisholm, P. (1983). Persistence in student affairs
work: Attitudes and job shifts among master’s program graduates. Joumal
of College Student Personnel 24(5), 438-443.

Holmes, T. A. (1998). Perforrnancebased approaches to human resource
development. In W. A. Bryan 8 R. A. Schwartz (Eds), Strategies for staff
development: Personal and professional education in the 21 Century.
New Directions for Student Services, 84, 1-11.

Janosik, S. J., 8 Creamer, D. G. (2003). Introduction: A comprehensive model. In
S. M. Janosik, D. G. Creamer, J. B. Hirt, R. B. Wrnston, Jr., S. A.
Saunders, 8 D. L. Cooper (Eds), Supervising new professionals in
student affairs: A guide for practitioners (pp. 1-16.). New York: Brunner-
Routledge.

Johnsrud, L. K., Heck, R. H., 8 Rosser, V. J. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel
administrators and their intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education
71(1), 34-59.

Johnsrud, L. K., 8 Rosser, V. J. (1997, November). Administrative staff turnover:
Predicting the intentions of stayers and leavers. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Albuquerque, NM.

Komives, S. R. (1992). The middles: Observations of professional competence
and autonomy. NASPA Journal 29(1), 83-90.

Kruger, K. (2000). New alternatives for professional development. In M. J. Barr,
M. K. Desler, 8 Associates (Eds), The handbook of student affairs
administration (pp. 535-553). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ’

Lawing, M. A., Moore, L. V., 8 Groseth, R. (1982). Enhancement and
advancement: Professional development for student affairs staff. NASPA
Journal 20(2), 22-26.

Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal
35(3), 207-216.

148

Lovell, C. D., 8 Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits
necessary for success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis
of thirty years of research. NASPA Journal 37(4), 553-572.

Lunsford, L. W. (1984). Chief student affairs officer. The ladder to the top.
NASPA Journal 22(1), 48-56.

McCabe, S. E., Boyd, C. J., Couper, M. P., Crawford, 8., 8 D’Arcy, H. (2002).
Mode efi'ects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: Web and U. S.
mail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Substance Abuse Research
Center.

Miller, T. K., 8 Winston, R. B., Jr. (Eds). (1991). Administration and leadership in
student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education (2"d
ed). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development, Inc.

Mills, D. B. (2000). The role of the middle manager. In M. J. Barr, M. K. Desler 8
Associates (Eds), The handbook of student affairs administration (2nd
ed.) (pp. 135-153). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, L. V., 8 Neuberger, C. (1998). How professional associations are
addressing issues in student affairs. In N. J. Evans 8 C. P. Tobin (Eds),
The state of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs: Another
look (pp. 61-79). Lapham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (1998). Standards of
Professional Practice. Retrieved June 25, 2005, from National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators Web site
httpzlmvw.naspa.orglaboutlstandards.cfm

Nuss, E. M. (2000). The role of professional associations. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
Desler, 8 Associates (Eds), The handbook of student affairs
administration (pp. 492-507). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palombi, I. J. (2002). Models of supervision within student affairs. Michigan
Journal of College Student Development 8(1), 35-40.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3ml ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pyrczak, F. (1995). Making sense of statistics: A conceptual overview. Los
Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing.

Ray, N. M., 8 Tabor, S. W. (2003). Several issues affect eresearch validity.

Marketing News 37 (19). Retrieved October 24, 2005, from httpzll
newfirstsearch.oclc.orgfrmagesNVSPL/wsppdf1ll-ITMU01770lZBGBI/

149

NSL.HTM

Reesor, L. M. (2002). Making professional connections. In M. J. Amey and L. M.
Reesor (Eds), Beginning your joumey: A guide for new professionals in
student affairs (pp. 81-95). Washington, DC: National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.

Rosser, V. J., 8 Javinar, J. M. (2003). Midlevel student affairs leaders’ intentions
to leave: Examining the quality of their professional and institutional work
life. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 813-830.

Rowley, D. J., 8 Sherman, H. (2004). Supervision in colleges and universities.
Lapham, MD: University Press of America.

Sagaria, M. A., 8 Johnsrud, L. K. (1988). Mobility within the student affairs
profession: Career advancement through position change. Journal of
College Student Development, (29)1, 30-40.

Saunders, S. A., 8 Cooper, D. L. (1999). The doctorate in student affairs:
Essential skills and competencies for midmanagement. Joumal of College
Student Development 40(2), 185-191.

Saunders, S. A., Cooper, D. L., Vlfinston, R. B., Jr., 8 Chemow, E. (2000).
Supervising staff in student affairs: Exploration of the synergistic
approach. Joumal of College Student Development, 41(2), 181-192.

Schaefer, D. R., 8 Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard email
methodology. Public Opinion Quarterly 62(3), 378-397.

Schneider, R. S. (2002). Supervisory style: The photographer within. In M. J.
Amey 8 L. M. Reesor (Eds), Beginning your journey: A guide for new
professionals in student afiairs (2"d ed.) (pp. 51—70). Washington, DC:
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.

Schuh, J. H., 8 Carlisle, W. (1991). Supervision and evaluation: Selected topics
for emerging professionals. In T. K. Miller 8 R. B. Vlflnston, Jr. (Eds),
Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student
development in higher education (2"d ed.) (pp. 495-531). Muncie, IN:
Accelerated Development, Inc.

Schwartz, R. A., 8 Bryan, W. A. (1998). What is professional development? In W.
A. Bryan and R. A. Schwartz (Eds), Strategies for staff development:
Personal and professional education in the 21‘”t century. New Directions
for Student Sen/ices, 84, 3-13.

150

Scott, J. E. (2000). Creating effective staff development programs. In M. J. Barr,
M. K. Desler, 8 Associates (Eds), The handbook of student affairs
administration (pp. 477-491 ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sheehan, K. B., 8 Hoy, M. G. (1999). Using email to survey internet users in the
United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer-
mediated Communication, 4(3). Retrieved October 24, 2005 from:
httpzlfjcmc.indiana.edulvol4fissue3lsheehan.html

Stock-Ward, S. R., 8 Javorek, M. J. (2003). Applying theory to practice:
Supervision in student affairs. NASPA Journal, (40)3, p. 77-92.

Taylor, S. L. 8 von Destinon, M. (2000) Selecting, training, supervising, and
evaluating staff. In M. J. Barr, M. K. Desler, 8 Associates (Eds), The
handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 154-177). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Ting, S. R., 8 Watt, S. K. (1999). Career development in women in student
affairs. College Student Affairs Journal 18(2), 92-101.

Tingling, P., Parent, M., 8 Wade, M. (2003). Extending the capabilities of
intemet-based research: Lessons from the field. Internet Research 13(3),
223-235.

Tull, T. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived level of synergistic
supervision received, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new
professionals in student affairs administration. (Doctoral dissertation,
Florida State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts lntemational, 65,
12A.

Tse, A. C. B., (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed and
response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: E-rnail vs.
mail. Joumal of the Market Research Society 40(14), 353-361.

Waite, D. (1993, April). Novice Supervisors’ Understandings of Supervision.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Ward, L. (1995). Role stress and propensity to leave among new student affairs
professionals. NASPA Joumal 33(1), 35-44.

White, J., Webb, L., 8 Young, R. (1990). Press and stress: A comparative study
of institutional factors affecting the work of mid-managers. In R. B. Young
(Ed), The invisible leaders: Student affairs mid-managers (pp. 56-71).
Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, Inc.

151

White, J. A., Carey, L. M., 8 Dailey, K. A. (Jan-March 2001). Web-based
instrumentation in educational survey research. In WebNet Joumal, 3,
46-50. Retrieved October 24, 2005, from InfoTrac OneFile via Thomson
Gale: httpzllfind.gategroup.comfrtxflnfomark.do?8type=retrieve8tablD
=T002 8prod ld=lTOF8docld=A771 065898sou rce=gale8userGroupName=
lom_gvalleysu8version=1.0

Wlnston, R. B., Jr., 8 Creamer, D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in
student affairs (1 st ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wrnston, R. B., Jr. 8 Creamer, D. G. (1998). Staff supervision and professional
development: An integrated approach. In W. A. Bryan 8 R. A. Schwartz
(Eds), Strategies for staff development: Personal and professional
education in the 21 ”‘ Century. New Directions for Student Services, 84, 29-
42.

VVInston, R. B., Jr., Torres, V., Carpenter, D. S., McIntire, D. D. 8 Peterson, B.
(2001). Staffing in student affairs; A survey of practices. College Student
Affairs Joumal, 21(1), 7-25.

Wood, L., Vlfinston, R. B., Jr., 8 Polkosnik, M. C. (1985). Career orientations and
professional development of young student affairs professions. Journal of
College Student Personnel 26(6), 532-539.

Woodard, D. B., Jr. (1998). Societal influences on higher education and student
affairs. In N. J. Evans 8 C. E. Tobin (Eds), The state of the art of
preparation and practice in student affairs: Another look (pp. 3-20).
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Woodard, D. B., Jr., and Komives, S. R. (1990). Ensuring staff competence. In M.
J. Barr, M. L. Upcraft, 8 Associates (Eds), New futures for student affairs:
Building a vision for professional leadership and practice (pp. 217-238).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Young, R. B. (1990). Making the most of mid-management. In R. B. Young (Ed),
The invisible leaders: Student affairs mid-managers (pp. 131-145).
Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, Inc.

Young, R. B. (1996). Guiding values and philosophy. In S. R. Komives, D. B.

Woodard, Jr., 8 Associates (Eds), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (3ml ed.) (pp. 83-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

152

Yun, G. W., 8 Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey
executed by post, email, 8 web form. Joumal of Computer-mediated
Communication 6(1). Retrieved October 24, 2005, from httple
jcmc.indiana.edulvol6fissue1lyun.html

 

153

   

l11111111111111lljljl