.3‘3

Hung... an. $1.. :. .
.. L 33. immunii... .. v.1 .3f
1 . «finite ‘ Q 6.1.. i.
..:.... 3.34%.“ 3
iii-Kill.
A1,;

3.3::
. ,6.

a. .5 .IM
nus:

0195*
331?
.9)...

«25:16:
12.. v... .

1.1..li 1
l ..:. .l
:A x
I ..

33:. I:
I? o

ratsgfux. .:.... .s ,
x MLnnimxnamuwwwmfi éfimfi¥mw

.c a“;

$1

I. ;

.Au ‘1‘”,-

 

1:!
t

THESIS

 

gfm LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES MID-
CAREER FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS

presented by

MICHAEL E. HOUDYSHELL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Educational Administration

 

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
’7 I 2.10“!

Date

 

MSU is an afi’innative-action, equal-opportunity employer

-..—..—-—-—._.—<_._

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATEDUE

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:lCIRC/DateDue.indd—p.1

IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEF INES MID-CAREER
FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS

By

Michael E. Houdyshell

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2007

ABSTRACT

IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES MID-CAREER FOR
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS

By

Michael E. Houdyshell

The mid-career time-frame in student affairs is often defined by title, position, and
responsibility. It is also the most under-researched and misunderstood time-frame in
student affairs (Benke & Disque, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987; Evans,
1988). Missing in the mid-career definition and research is an examination and
understanding of the broader mid-career experience. This study uses data from surveys
and interviews of mid-career student affairs professionals to redefine and refocus the
mid-career experience. It offers an expanded view of mid-career that includes descriptors
such as titles and positions, but also includes an examination of the challenges and
supports present for many professionals during this time-frame. Included in this
examination is how complicated and yet satisfying this time-frame can be for mid-career

professionals in student affairs, and its impact on their professional and personal lives.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study .............................................................................................................. 2
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 4
Background of the Study ................................................................................................. 4
The Graduate Student/New Professional Experience ...................................................... 5
The Mid-Career Experience ............................................................................................ 8
Defining Mid-Career ..................................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................... 16
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 6
Research on Mid-Career Professionals in Private Industry ........................................... 17
Research on the Professional and Career Development of Faculty ............................... 19
Research on University Administrators ......................................................................... 26
Research on Student Affairs Professionals .................................................................... 30
Attrition in Student Affairs ............................................................................................ 45
Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 49
Summary of Literature Review ..................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................... 59
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 59
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 60
Participants .................................................................................................................... 61
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 63
Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................... 63
Qualitative Sampling Limitations .................................................................................. 73
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 75

CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................... 76
The Mid-Career Student Affairs Experience ................................................................. 76
Defining Mid-Career ..................................................................................................... 80
Mid-Career: Between Two Worlds .............................................................................. 85
How Student Affairs Defines Mid-Career ..................................................................... 87
Rooted in Two Worlds .................................................................................................. 91
The Convergence of Professional and Personal Lives at Mid-Career ......................... 114
Summary of Chapter Four ........................................................................................... 130

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................... 131
Professional Satisfaction at Mid-Career in Student Affairs ........................................ 131
Professional and Personal Support at Mid-Career ....................................................... 131
Why Student Affairs Professionals Stay or Leave, and How to Keep Them .............. 155

iii

Summary of Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 178

CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................... 180
Research Questions, Methodology, and Sample ......................................................... 181
Maj or Study Findings .................................................................................................. 182
Implications ................................................................................................................. 1 85
Future Research ........................................................................................................... 192
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 203

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 206

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 215

iv

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

Even though the first official mission statement of student affairs was not
published until 193 7, called the Student Personnel Point of View, the work of the field
has existed in the American higher education system for much longer (Doyle, 2004).
Once regarded by faculty as the caretakers of students while not in class, student affairs
has matured into a valuable partner in supporting the educational success of college
students (Astin, 1984). As the area of student affairs has evolved over the years into a
solid, professional field in institutions of higher education, so has the need to understand
the experiences of its working professionals. This includes how student affairs
professionals develop professionally over their career life span. By using research to
understand the career development and experiences of its professionals, student affairs
will continue to remain a viable partner in the educational mission of higher education
(Arnold, 1982; Carpenter, 1990; Fey & Carpenter, 1996; Harned & Murphy, 1998;
Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985).

For the purpose of my study, student affairs professionals are individuals who
work with students either directly or indirectly in areas such as residential life, student
activities, counseling, career placement, student union management, or leadership
development. Separated into three distinct professional segments in student affairs (new,
mid, and senior), researchers have studied the professional development of individuals in
these segments as they move through their career. However, in comparison to the
research on new and senior professionals in student affairs, less research has focused on a

large, experienced and complex group of individuals in student affairs: mid-career

professionals. In my study, I begin to examine the professional experiences of mid-career
student affairs professionals and explore how the experiences of these individuals greatly
affect their professional development in the field.
Purpose of Study

During the last 25 years, one way researchers have attempted to better understand
the professional development experiences of student affairs professionals was to examine
issues like professional development, attrition, and overall career satisfaction in student
affairs. Much of the research on professional development in student affairs has focused
on new and senior-level professionals (Arnold, 1982; Barr, 1990; Blimling, 2002; Harder,
1983; Harned & Murphy, 1998; Lunsford, 1984; Richard & Sherman, 1991; Rickard,
1982; Ward, 1995; Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985). However, research on mid-
career professionals has focused less on professional development and more on issues
such as skill transferability beyond student affairs, skills senior-level professionals are
seeking when hiring mid-managers, or includes this group within larger studies involving
mid-level administrators in higher education (Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987;
Gordon, Strode-Border, & Mann, 1993; Komives, 1992; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Rosser,
2004; Young, 1990). The existing literature fails to make any connection between the
mid—career experience, professional development, and the intention to stay in field
(Carpenter & Miller, 1990; Fey & Carpenter, 1996).

As mid-career professionals represent a large and experienced segment of the
student affairs workforce, attention should be paid to their professional experiences,
development, and intention to stay in the field because mid-career individuals become the

core group of experienced professionals advancing into senior-level positions in student

affairs (Gordon, Strode-Border, & Mann, 1993). Any factors accelerating their premature
departure from the field create a significant loss of skills and knowledge in the field, and
a lack of talented professionals advancing into senior-level positions. It is also unclear
how the mid-career experience is defined compared to new professionals (fewer years in
the field) or senior-level professionals (vice-president or dean). Therefore, the purpose of
the current study was to chronicle the experiences of individuals who self-define as mid-
career professionals in student affairs, and examine how the challenges and supports they
face at mid-career influence their professional development, satisfaction and intention to
stay in the field.

With the limited availability of research on the experiences of mid-career student
affairs professionals, the need for continued study of this topic is important for increasing
the awareness of how these individuals develop professionally and remain connected to
the field. By defining this segment more clearly and studying mid-career professionals’
experiences more thoroughly, the field and institutions are able to create a more
professionally enriching mid-career experience, which, in turn, promotes engagement and
vitality within the segment, institutions, and the field. Without more research in the mid-
career experience, student affairs faces a possible drain of its most talented middle
managers and professionals, whose experiences are virtually unknown to their new or
senior colleagues in the field (Benke & Disque, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, &
Kelly, 1987; Evans, 1988). Understanding the mid-career experience helps the field and
institutions create professional development opportunities that specifically address the
unique challenges and needs of this segment, and helps ensure that these individuals, who

make up the core of the profession, remain vital, energized, and professionally viable.

Research on the mid-career experience, including an examination of the
professional development needs, challenges, and satisfaction of this period timeframe
raises the level of knowledge for this large segment of professionals working in higher
education. This can provide best practices for the field and institutions and minimize
periods of professional dissatisfaction and disengagement resulting in professional
stagnation and exodus from the field. (Fey & Carpenter, 1996; Komives, 1992). It could
also prevent erosion of the partnering role student affairs increasingly occupies with
academics in the educational process in higher education. Such an erosion of educational
significance not only affects mid and senior-level practitioners, but it also migrates into
the ranks of new professionals entering the field.

Research Questions

The following questions served as a guide for my research in this study:

1. What are the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career professionals”
in student affairs?

2. How do these individuals define “mid-career”?

3. What challenges and supports are present for mid-career professionals in institutions
and student affairs professional organizations?

4. How do the challenges and supports affecting mid-career professionals influence their
decision to stay or leave student affairs?

Background of the Study

Currently, there is no specific undergraduate major or degree directly related to

student affairs; many individuals enter the profession as recent graduates of masters

programs (Cliente, Henning, Skinner Jackson, Kennedy, & Sloan, 2006). There are

currently 198 graduate programs specifically designed to prepare individuals for work in
student affairs at colleges and universities across the United States (NASPA on-line,
2005). The lack of undergraduate preparation in student affairs hinders understanding for
practicing professionals of why individuals choose to enter the profession. Often graduate
students in student affairs had a strong co-curricular experience as an undergraduate
student in areas such as residence life or student activities (Harned & Murphy, 1998;
Richmond & Sherman, 1991).

The undergraduate experience can often generate an interest in pursing a career in
student affairs and beginning a graduate program. In the graduate program, future
practitioners are introduced to the career phases of the student affairs professional — early,
mid-, and senior-level. These career phases have been created and supported by scholars,
practitioners, and the field, and are most often based on title or position, years in the field,
and responsibility. Even professional associations, such as ACPA and NASPA support
these three distinct career phases by sponsoring institutes and workshops specifically
designed for different phases, such as the New Professionals Institute, Mid-Level
Managers Institutes and Senior Student Affairs Officers Institute, (ACPA, 2007;
NASPA, 2007). The experiences felt during each career period are often unique and
specific to that classification. The next section examines two of the three career phases:
graduate student/new professionals and mid-career, and how this research has attempted
to examine professional experiences within each group.

The Graduate Student/New Professional Experience
Once individuals finish a student affairs graduate program and have accepted their

first professional position, it can remain unclear why they have chosen to enter the

profession except perhaps as a result of having had a positive undergraduate experience
(Richmond & Sherman, 1991). This lack of understanding could explain why attrition
rates for new professionals range from 32% to 61% during their first six years of entering
the position (Evans, 1988; Hancock, 198 8). Without understanding their professional
experience, the field often struggles to understand why individuals begin working in
student affairs and reasons why they stay or leave (Holmes, Verrier, & Chisolm, 1983;
Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985). Additionally, Hancock (1988) argued most students
in student affairs graduate programs are not receiving any career preparation or
orientation to the actual field before even becoming new professionals. To better
understand the new professional experience and how issues such as retention and attrition
impact this experience, some literature calls for more research conducted at the graduate
student level (Holmes, Verrier, & Chisolm, 1983).

As individuals become new professionals, there is more research about their
professional experiences and how this influences issues such as professional
development, career satisfaction, and attrition. As defined by the literature, new
professionals are considered individuals with less than three years of related experience
in the field, including new graduates of masters programs in student affairs (Barr, 1990;
Bender, 1980; Richmond & Sherman, 1991). Bender found issues, such as dedication
service and independence highly valued by new professionals as part of an overall
professional experience. However, he also found new professionals aged 23-36 appeared
more dissatisfied with their current positions than did individuals older than 37 years.

Additionally, 41% of new professionals indicated they were undecided about remaining

in the student affairs field and 31% reported they were definitely not staying in the field
(Bender,1980).

Job satisfaction of new professionals has also been researched during the last 25
years. Richmond and Sherman’s (1991) study found only 39% of new professionals
(within three years of graduating) were satisfied, given the perceived lack of career
advancement in student affairs. When researching attrition among student affairs
professionals, Evans (1988) found a significant number chose to leave the field because
of their belief in the lack of career mobility. According to Barr (1990) a significant
consideration for new professionals is the “pyramid look to the career ladder” (p. 60).

When specifically examining why new professionals might stay or leave the field,
Barr (1990) described both positive and negative issues related to the attrition of new
professionals in student affairs. For example, she reported sometimes people find a
congruence or good fit between their preferred career reward structures and the field of
student affairs. However, she noted that new professionals also may face value conflicts
between what they entered the field to do and what they actually do. She did not,
however, view this as particularly negative for the profession but rather considered it a
natural development of career patterns.

Lorden (1998) questioned if career satisfaction issues like attrition in student
affairs was “inherently negative and a cause for concern” (p. 211). Citing the lack of
longitudinal studies that examined the professional experiences and the conditions that
influence career decisions in student affairs as cause for concern he called for more
research on this topic, which he contends “could be invaluable to our understanding of

individuals’ goals and experiences” (p. 214). According to Lorden ( 1998), studies of this

type could also address “the question of whether people leave the profession because of
dissatisfaction or simply to pursue attractive career alternatives” (p. 214). Interestingly,
Lorden (1998) noted that research on attrition in most other professions outside of student
affairs does not even exist. As research examined the job satisfaction and propensity to
leave the field as part of the overall professional experience of new professionals, less is
known about the experience of mid-career professionals.
The Mid-Career Experience

Because research on the experiences of mid-career professionals in student affairs
is limited, this is a particularly important area on which to focus. A recent publication
documenting the stories of women in student affairs and how they dealt with mid-career
issues was released in 2004. One reason Renn and Hughes (2004) cited for focusing
solely on mid-career was an abundance of research in the areas of new professionals and
senior administrators in student affairs. In contrast, they cited the little attention paid to
mid-career professionals in the field, as well as the lack of resources for mid-career
professionals, as significant reasons to focus entirely on the topic of mid-career and the
experiences of different individuals. In editing the book Roads Taken (2004), these
researchers concentrated on the lives of mid-career student affairs professionals,
specifically women, highlighting the challenges and possibilities of mid-career work and
. life. Renn and Hughes (2004, p. xviii) shared a definition of mid-career based on the
conception of Teresa Carter (2002) that includes “a shifting career identity that
emphasizes both achievement needs and a strong desire to remain true to personal

definitions of success.” This book represents one of the first contributions towards

developing a richer, more in-depth understanding of the overall mid-career student affairs
experience.

While not solely concentrating on the experiences of mid-career student affairs
professionals, Rosser (2004) examined mid-level administrators in higher education and
possible issues affecting their intention to remain in or leave the profession. Rosser
randomly selected 4,000 mid-level administrators from a population of 11,300 public and
private institutional administrators within five Carnegie classifications. Rosser concluded
that while traditionally regarded as a problem for institutions, turnover can be both a cost
and a benefit to an academic organization. Costs included a less loyal and knowledgeable
labor force, while benefits ranged from a re-examination of current reporting structures,
replacing entry-level with experienced individuals, to reducing salary costs. The
contributing factors to job turnover varied from the quality of work life to issues such as
demographic characteristics, morale, and job satisfaction. More importantly for this
current study, Rosser determined there was not a single factor alone in the mid-level
experience that contributed to the intention to stay or leave.

As the previous paragraphs begin to demonstrate, significant support for this
study originates from the dated and often sporadic research examining the professional
development experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals. The literature in
Chapter Two reveals an almost 25-year spread of research on this topic with published
findings occurring approximately every five to six years. Between these years there has
been no major research published specifically addressing the professional experiences of
mid-career professionals and how the challenges and supports they face at mid-career

affects the field. Of the studies that do exist, most are quantitative in nature with very

little published of qualitative design with interviews of individuals at mid-career. This is
problematic because the existing qualitative studies provide only small glimpses into the
issues facing mid-career student affairs professionals. Unlike quantitative studies,
qualitative studies allow the researcher to provide a rich, thick description of an
experience. Additionally, within the mid-career experience, the inconsistent and often
confusing experiences defining mid-career professionals creates additional challenges for
understanding this important segment.
Defining Mid-Career

The lack of a coherent, accepted definition of who is considered a mid-career
professional further complicates this research but also strengthens the need for this study.
Some studies have used strictly age-related parameters to define mid-career in student
affairs including age ranges or number of years in service to the profession (Arnold,
1982; Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982). Other research has used positional descriptors to
identify sample participants, such as a position title, while other studies have used actual
position responsibilities and reporting structure to identify participants (Fey & Carpenter,
1996; Gordon, Strode-Border, & Mann, 1993). Research on new professionals clearly
identifies them as within three years of beginning their careers; research on senior-level
professionals is usually defined by positions and titles (e. g., vice-president, dean).

Mid-career professionals are not vice-presidents or deans (senior-level) and have
been in the field longer then three years (new professionals), so what categories or
parameters define them? The absence of a consistent definition for mid-career among the
sparsely published studies creates a strong need for a study focusing on individuals who

have entered the mid-career period of their profession and what those career parameters

look like. Specifically, this study examined and detailed the experiences of individuals on
varied career tracks who self-define as mid-career professionals and are currently
working or have recently worked in student affairs. Additionally, it examined issues
affecting the professional development of mid-career professionals and how the
challenges and supports they face at mid-career influenced their professional satisfaction.

For the purpose of the current study, the working definition of a mid-career
student affairs professional was an individual between the ages of 27-55 who has
completed a master’s degree, is currently working in an area of student affairs (e. g.,
residence life, student activities, career education), and with more than three years of
professional experience in the field. Recognizing the breadth across functional areas in
student affairs and non-parity across institutions, the study did not limit its findings by
using a more purposeful definition of mid-career, aiming instead to provide more general
information to serve as a launching point for further research.

As one of the research questions indicates, a primary focus of this study was to
chronicle the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career professionals” in
student affairs. As this is often a period filled with changes and challenges in their
professional and personal lives (Renn & Hughes, 2004), it was important to provide an
opportunity for the participants in this study to detail their experiences at mid-career. The
rich and complex descriptions I detail in Chapters Four and Five weave a significant
backdrop for the mid-career experience that is missing from the research about this
period. It also provides individuals, institutions, and student affairs with a more informed
and inclusive definition of mid-career, and issues surrounding professional development,

satisfaction and attrition. Instead of only using traditional student affairs identifiers such

11

as position or title, I wanted to relate to the reader the common experience that all of the
participants share: the journey that is mid-career.

An additional focus of the study as supported by the research (Barr, 1990; Fey &
Carpenter, 1996) was to provide assistance to institutions and the profession grappling
with understanding issues related to professional satisfaction and increasing attrition rates
among mid-career professionals (Barr, 1990; Bender, 1980; Evans, 1988; Richmond &
Sherman, 1991), and training future senior administrators in student affairs. In
chronicling the different experiences of individuals and studying what factors, if any,
influence the retention and attrition of mid-career student affairs professionals,
institutions and associations can use this information to assist in addressing the
challenges faced by mid-career professionals. Using identifiers related to position,
responsibilities, and demographic information, my study examined themes drawn from
the literature that potentially influence professional development and satisfaction, and
chronicle the experiences of mid-career professionals. This was accomplished by first
using a survey instrument to inform the research questions, which were then tested and
expanded during the second portion of the study, participant interviews. Both datasets
formed the basis for interpreting data, reporting results, and making recommendations.

As higher education changes, student affairs professionals should understand how
these changes impact their roles on campus. This includes understanding and supporting
the changing needs of professionals working in the field. Since research examining mid-
career student affairs professionals is incomplete and this period is often misunderstood
in terms of how individuals experience this period, research similar to what is found in

this study is vital to expanding this knowledge base. The survey data provided a view into

12

the lives of mid-career student affairs professionals, touching on several general areas of
concern identified in Chapter Two. The interviews allowed me to provide a more detailed
description of the rich experiences of a few individuals and a more thorough
understanding of who these people are and how their personal and professional lives are
influenced by their mid-career status.

In this two-phase, sequential mixed-methods study (Creswell, 2003) I obtained
demographic and quantitative results from a survey instrument sent to mid-career student
affairs professionals, then conducted individual qualitative interviews to garnering more
in-depth data. During the first phase, an on-line survey involving mid-level student affairs
managers who have participated in an institute for mid-career professionals measured
reactions to several areas identified from the literature. In the second phase of the study, I
solicited a purposeful sample of mid-career professionals to participate in qualitative
interviews, which were used to explore significant themes and responses from the survey
and chronicle the experiences of their journey through mid-career.

Significance of the Study

The current study provides insight into the experiences of mid-career student affairs
professionals. Specifically, the purpose of the current study was to chronicle the
experiences of individuals who self-define as mid-career professionals in student affairs,
and examine how the challenges and supports they face at mid-career influence their
professional development, satisfaction and intention to stay in the field. Since current
research in the field focuses more on the professional development experiences of new
and senior student affairs professionals (Barr, 1990; Bender, 1980; Harder, 1983; Harned,

& Murphy, 1998; Lunsford, 1984; Richard & Sherman, 1991; Rickard, 1982), increased

13

research on mid-career student affairs professionals is necessary to increase the
understanding of who they are and how their experiences affect their professional
development, satisfaction and intention to stay in the field. Acknowledging the existing
gap of research on mid-career, in my study I sought to address the incomplete view of the
mid-career professional experience and aid institutions and the field in trying to provide
greater support and understanding during this important career segment. In my study, I
employed a mixed-method research approach in an effort to provide a more deep and rich
understanding of issues facing student affairs professionals moving through mid-career.
The findings from my study ultimately assist the field of student affairs in preparing and
supporting mid-career individuals in the hopes of better understanding this important
career period.
Organization of the Study

To answer the research questions and provide useful and productive information, I
proceeded in the following manner. I introduce Chapter One with an examination of the
current gap in the literature on professional development and experiences of mid-career
student affairs professionals, and I provide more detail on this gap in Chapter Two. In
Chapter Two I briefly examine research from the private sector on professional and
career development and theories from adult learning appropriate to this study. In the bulk
of Chapter Two, I examine existing research on professional and career development
within higher education by first drawing parallels from faculty and administrative
professionals to that of student affairs professionals before concentrating on new, mid-
career, and senior student affairs professionals. In the final section of this chapter, 1 detail

the issues affecting attrition within the student affairs field at all career stages.

14

In Chapter Three, I describe the study’s methodology giving support for the
choice of a mixed-methods research design. In Chapters Four and Five, I detail the results
of the data analysis examining the experiences of mid-career student professionals, and
the impact of professional development and satisfaction on issues such as retention and
attrition. I include weaving the rich experiences of interview participants throughout both
chapters. Finally, in Chapter Six, I summarize the findings, providing insight into the
experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals and make recommendations for

institutions and professional associations within higher education.

15

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction

As stated in Chapter One, there is very little published research on the mid-career
status of student affairs professionals, which is the subject of this particular study.
Therefore, much of the literature cited here is anecdotally based and concentrates
primarily on other areas either within student affairs or closely related. This creates an
incomplete picture of the experiences of affecting mid-career student affairs professionals
and their professional development and satisfaction.

However, there is some relevant published research from other professional career
areas that brings understanding and sheds light on the mid-career status of student affairs
professionals. This chapter will examine that research which comes, primarily, from two
venues: 1) research on mid-career professionals in private industry; how career stage
research, including adult learning and transition, provides context for this particular
study; and 2) research on faculty which concentrates on the mid-career stage of faculty
development. This provides some parallels between research on mid-career faculty and
that of mid-career professionals in student affairs.

This chapter will also concentrate on a discussion of the three career stages in the
student affairs field: new professionals just entering the field, individuals at mid-career,
and senior student affairs officers. Particular emphasis will be put on the past and current
state of research on student affairs professionals at mid-career, particularly on its maturity

as a field of investigation.

16

This review will conclude with a section detailing issues relevant to retention and
attrition of student affairs professionals, the purpose being to provide a contextual link
between the experiences, professional development and satisfaction of mid-career student
affairs professionals and their desire to remain in the field.

Research on Mid-Career Professionals in Private Industry

Research literature found in the professional, private sector, concentrates on such
areas as organizational management, vocational behavior, and employee development
(Bolyard, 1981; Freiberg, Zbikowski, & Ganser, 1997; Holmes & Cartwright, 1994;
Klingner & Nalbandian, 1985; London, 1990; Williams & Fox, 1995). Early research was
based primarily on surveys that studied approaches for motivating employees and the
techniques organizations were using to manage employees (Holmes & Cartwright, 1994;
London, 1990). Later work began postulating strategies for managing different aspects of
employee behavior throughout the career span, such as analyzing experiences at different
career stages and mentoring for newer employees (Freiberg, Zbikowski, & Ganser, 1997;
Williams & F ox, 1995). From these strategies emerged discussions about mid-career
professionals and the different issues affecting their status as employees. The work
focused on individual characteristics, such as psychological and biological maturity, peak
performance, years of professional and personal development, affiliations in professional
organizations and associations, and increased importance of family and lifestyle
(Freiberg, Zbikowski, & Ganser, 1997; Williams & Fox, 1995).

The research on mid-career professional development originating from the private
sector is beyond the scope of this study, however, whose thesis is embedded in that of

higher education, specifically the differences and similarities in faculty, administrators,

l7

and student affairs professionals as they work from within the mid-career time-frame.
Individuals face different choices when reaching the mid-career period, and sometimes
those choices involve a transition in their current career. Specifically, I was interested in
understanding the experiences of student affairs individuals who self-define at mid-
career, as well as examining how challenges and supports impact the mid-career, student
affairs professionals professional development and satisfaction in the field. The following
sections explore professional and career development, including transitional issues
regarding faculty, administrators, and student affairs professionals.

One area of study in higher education affecting all three groups suggests that how
individuals deal and learn from transition in their lives can influence how certain
sociocultural and psychological factors influence possible career changes. Research in
adult education examines how learning affects the professional lives of individuals as
they progress through adulthood. These theories provide context for understanding the
possible changes and transitions that often occur at different career stages and how
individuals experience them. Of particular interest to this research is the transition that
occurs during mid-career after having been a new professional in the field.

As individuals face new challenges and choices entering mid-career, it is
important to understand how they learn, either in a traditional educational setting or in a
professional or career situation. Merriam and Caffarella (1991) explore how transitions in
lives are linked to learning in adulthood. The authors suggest that sociocultural factors
affect development in adulthood including career issues “at least as much as
psychological forces” (p. 111). According to these researchers, change in adulthood is

“determined as much by the sociocultural context as by individual maturation” (p. 119).

—ww 5- -.

Finally, the authors claim “socialization experiences and social roles are key concepts in
understanding change and its relationship to learning” (p. 119).

A more recent discussion on how learning affects professional lives is derived
from the concept of transformative learning. Studying the professional lives of nine
nonprofit environmental activists, Kovan and Dirkx (2003) cited how emotions,
imagination, and spirituality are actively involved in and central to transformative
learning. The idea of transformative learning draws more on the self-awareness and
consciousness an individual has gained throughout life and how that knowledge can be
applied to a career or a vocation (Kovan & Dirkx, 2003). Grounded in psychology, this
view suggests that transformative learning reflects the thoughtful and lifelong struggle of
an individual to “be who he or she is called to be” (Kovan & Dirkx, p. 102). Linking this
idea to mid-career timefrarnes, transformative learning suggests that as individuals face
this period during their career, awareness of one’s self could enhance or detract from
decisions about their experience during mid-career.

Research on the Professional and Career Development of Faculty

Research on the professional and career development of faculty has been
developed more fully over the past 25 years than that found in the field of student affairs.
The literature has documented such faculty development issues as job satisfaction,
vitality, and institutional personnel policies. Because many of the same issues affect
student affairs professionals, and both groups account for a large employee base in higher
education, it is relevant to this study to examine the literature on the professional and
career development of faculty, which provides important parallels to the experiences of

mid-career student affairs professionals and highlights similar factors influencing their

19

retention and attrition. Research on both professions uses descriptors such as age and
years in the field to describe mid-career. Additionally, since one goal of my study is to
provide best practices for the field and institutions working with mid-career
professionals, research on the vitality and professional development of mid-career faculty
provides important parallels to my findings and recommendations.

Research conducted on mid-career faculty focused on such intrinsic issues as job
satisfaction and professional vitality, rather than reflecting on self-awareness and
professional development. Early research by Baldwin and Blackburn (1981, 1990);
Belker (1985), and Caffarella, Armour, F uhnnann, and Wergin (1989) concentrated on
faculty vitality, professional development programs at the institutional level, career
planning, and personnel policies. Baldwin and Blackburn’s (1981, 1983) research was the
first published that studied faculty vitality.

However, there are also some noticeable differences between faculty and student
affairs professionals. Entry level student affairs professionals tend to begin their careers
immediately after graduate school without much formal training beyond what is learned
during school (Richmond & Sherman, 1990; Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985),
whereas faculty tend to receive their terminal degrees before entering academia with
some experience in teaching and researching as part of their graduate school preparation.
Notably, the farther student affairs professionals advance in their careers the more
difficult it is to find positions, described by Carpenter et a1. (1987) as the “bottleneck” for
senior student affairs officers. Often, traditional faculty career paths advance in regular
intervals toward tenure. However, as the research demonstrates, both professions struggle

with similar developmental issues during their careers. Currently, faculty provide the

20

most appropriate group of professionals to study within higher education with regard to
proximity to student affairs professionals.

Birnbaum (1991) cited the professional culture in higher education (comprised of
faculty and administrators) as serving the “cause of knowledge and understanding, in
intellectual honesty, and in the critical importance of academic freedom” (p. 74).
According to Birnbaum, these ideas help “bind together the academic professions” (p. 74)
across different disciplines and institutions. In comparing the career development of
faculty with that of administrators, Birnbaum suggested that typical organizational
theories are not always comparable to professionals in higher education. He contended
that the “organizational characteristics” of academic institutions are different enough
from other types of institutions that comparisons of traditional “theories cannot be
applied to educational institutions without carefully considering whether they will work
well in that unique academic setting” (p. 28). These issues invite equitable comparisons
between the professional and career development of faculty and student affairs
professionals.

In the early 19805, Baldwin and Blackburn (1981, 1983) began publishing work
on faculty vitality and various conditions affecting the professional lives of faculty. This
work contributed to Baldwin’s future work on mid-career faculty and factors affecting
job performance at different institutions (Baldwin, 1990). Baldwin and Blackburn (1983)
studied national and state data published and distributed annually in higher education,
and Baldwin used national data, surveys, and some personal interviews at different
institutions (Baldwin, 1990). Baldwin (1979) also used an adult and career development

model in studying the implications for faculty development, as well as one of the same

21

adult development theories cited in the research by Cytrynbaum, Lee and Wadner (1982)
to study faculty development, namely, Levinson’s theory of stability and transition
throughout the life course. Using Levinson’s late settling down (3 6-40) and mid-life
transition (40-50) stages, Baldwin aligned these with the associate and full professor
stages (1979). As described by Baldwin, the associate and full professor stages are
marked by characteristics of life and career reassessment and dealing with the disparities
between achievements and goals (1979). To study these characteristics, he interviewed a
sample of professors and found that the mid-life stage for faculty (associate or newly
appointed full professor) was marked by assessing one’s life situation and possibly
revising their goals in hopes of achieving more satisfaction (1979). Like Cytrynbaum et
a1 (1982), Baldwin called on universities to adopt policies and practices that were
“flexible enough to accommodate the different vocational situations of professors at all
career stages” (1979, p. 18).

The early work by Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) also focused primarily on
quantitative techniques (survey data) with some qualitative data as well to examine
economic factors and demographic variables. They interviewed 106 male college faculty
members and categorized them into five career stages indicated by years of experience.
They divided their findings into four categories: (1) stable faculty characteristics; (2)
evolving faculty characteristics; (3) fluctuating faculty characteristics; and (4) critical
events in the academic career (1981). As described by Baldwin and Blackburn (1981),
the faculty members they interviewed described the time in their career when new or
added responsibilities were assumed as “difficult” (p. 604). Additionally, the same

faculty groups stated they most often considered career changes during the “nebulous

22

mid-career period” (p. 606). Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) reported the two groups of
faculty who considered career change most often were assistant professors with three
years of experience to full professors with more then five years before retirement (1981).
Faculty in these same groups cited more often feeling their careers were at a “standstill”
(Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981, p. 606). Finally, the authors called for further research on
faculty vitality, career objectives, career satisfaction, and stress, but did not say how this
was best accomplished.

By the mid to late 19803 more research focused on institutional practices and
policies that affect faculty vitality, with a concentration on mid-career faculty (Baldwin,
1990; Caffarella et al., 1989). These efforts were based more on ongoing discussions
about faculty than actual research studies. One exception was Belker’s 1985 study of
mid-career faculty and professional development programs, in which he identified 25
institutions with existing faculty professional development programs and to which he sent
each institution a survey instrument to gain further information about their programs.

Baldwin (1990) followed up this study on faculty vitality at research universities
with a study of faculty at four selective private liberal arts institutions in the southeast. In
this study, Baldwin continued to explore the link between vitality and career development
in faculty and attempted to explore the distinguishing factors separating “vital” professors
from those who plateau or in some way “reduce their professional momentum.” Although
Baldwin (1990) did not specifically define what constitutes a “vital” professor for this
research, he did use only faculty considered “star performers” on their campuses by other

administrators and faculty.

23

Using descriptors such as scholarship, teaching, and engagement to identify “star
performers in areas that his or her institution most prizes” (Baldwin, 1990, p. 163), 50
“vital” faculty were interviewed, along with 40 other faculty. Baldwin used these
findings to advocate for changes in policy and practice by colleges and universities to
increase their numbers of vital faculty. Although Baldwin’s research pointed to faculty
development throughout their careers, his recommendations are highly concentrated
during the mid-career stage. These recommendations included flexible academic
personnel policies, fostering diversified academic careers, facilitating collaboration and
risk-taking among faculty, and encouraging periodic career planning. Baldwin also
called for future research to study the specific effects of mid-career on faculty vitality.

Karpiak conducted a study in 1996 on mid-career faculty and mid-life at a
Canadian research university with a sample of 20 faculty members (15 men and five
women) who held the rank of associate professor. Karpiak cited her use of a qualitative
approach (interviews) for this study as it would permit an “insider” individual view. Her
most notable findings were the need for “relationship, communion, and community; the
sense among faculty that they do not matter to the university; and the importance of the
investment they put into the tasks of care and generation” (Karpiak, p. 65).

Concentrating on all faculty, Cytrynbaum et al. (1982) expanded research on
faculty development by using a lifespan model incorporating an adult development
approach. Cytrynbaum et al. (1982) defined midlife faculty as men and women in their
late 305 to mid or late 50s who were confronting midlife tasks. The researchers cited the
“intellectually fallow” period faced by midlife faculty in their professional lives creating

slowed research, uninspired teaching, and inadequate mentoring functions. Ultimately,

24

Cytrynbaum et a1. (1982) concluded that this period created minimal excitement among
midlife faculty for the scholarly work of their professional past. To counteract these
issues the authors called for universities to openly recognize the midlife struggles of
faculty and to create support systems to counter these effects. Examples of these systems
include: open and confidential support systems for individual counseling, flexible
sabbatical leaves, and a reduction in responsibilities to explore career shifts.

The finding indicated that as faculty develop professionally several factors affect
how they remain engaged, active, and connected to their fields and institutions.
Individual research cited keeping faculty vital by providing support during periods of
uncertainty and change, and encouraging career exploration (Baldwin, 1979, 1990).
Collectively, the research called for institutional policies and procedures to support the
professional and personal development of faculty, especially during mid-career (Baldwin
& Blackburn, 1981, 1983; Karpiak, 1996). Flexible work schedules and sabbatical leaves,
and encouragement to work outside their fields of study were also examples of support
cited in the literature (Baldwin, 1979; Caffarella et al., 1989; Cytrynbaum et al., 1982).

Despite the concentration of research on faculty development, there remain some
gaps in understanding how professional and personal issues affect the development of
mid-career faculty. The rapid changes in the professoriate over the past decade warrant
new research on the experiences of part-time and adjunct faculty. The aging professoriate
and more recent budget cuts create a need to understand the experiences of mid-career
faculty as they become the backbone of teaching at most universities.

In addition to faculty, the other group which provides the core of professionals in

higher education is that of mid-level administrators. Since the 19805, administrators have

25

become one of the largest areas of personnel growth in higher education (Rosser, 2004).
Among administrative groups, midlevel professionals comprise a significant bulk of
those individuals and work in areas like business affairs, student services, and academic
support services (Rosser, 2004). Researchers began studying administrators and their
professional and career experiences in the early 19803, focusing on their job satisfaction
and morale. Since this group of administrators includes many mid-career student affairs
professionals, the following section discusses the research on administrators in higher
education with an emphasis on mid-level professionals.
Research on University Administrators

Some of the first work to study administrators in higher education, although
originally not limited entirely to mid-level or student affairs professionals, was done by
Austin (1984, 1985). In the early 19803, she identified the functional importance of the
mid-level administrator in colleges and universities (1984, 1985). Austin (1984) cited
five areas that affect the work experience of middle administrators including: (1) extrinsic
aspects (salary), (2) intrinsic aspects (professional acceptance), (3) power (creating
institutional policy), (4) relationship of organization (autonomy, perceived value), and (5)
personal outcomes (evaluation criteria). To enhance the work experience of
administrators, Austin (1984) called for higher education to assert its sense of purpose,
use collaborative approaches, improve opportunities for professional growth, and
increase knowledge of administrators’ worklife. Austin (1985) focused her work on mid-
level administrators in which she discussed their job satisfaction.

Surveying 260 mid-level administrators at a large public research university,

Austin (1985) examined several sets of variables for possible correlations to job

satisfaction. The variables were separated into four categories including: (1) personal
characteristics (e. g., sex, age); (2) perceived job characteristics (e. g., autonomy, skill
variety); (3) perceived environmental characteristics (e.g., involvement in decision
making); and (4) extrinsic characteristics (e.g., salary level). Overall, Austin (1985)
reported the participants indicated a high job satisfaction. Older participants tended to be
more satisfied in their jobs. Austin (1985) argued that older participants were “more
realistic and less idealistic in their expectations of their work than their younger
colleagues” (p. 17). Through the survey and follow-up interviews, Austin (1985) reported
that participants emphasized the importance of autonomy when they evaluated their
satisfaction with their work. This finding led Austin (1985) to conclude that, “greater
autonomy relates to increased levels of general satisfaction” (p. 23) for mid-level
administrators. She also argued that senior administrators should strive to express
“recognition and appreciation” (p. 23) for the work of mid-level administrators and that
salary was important to mid-level administrators. Because Austin’s (1985) study was
conducted at one institution, she acknowledged the limitations of her results. Fifteen
years later, Volkwein and Parmley (2000) completed a much larger study covering
almost half of the public and private Carnegie research and doctoral institutions in the
United States.

Volkwein and Parmley’s (2000) comparative study from the late 19903 examined
the satisfaction of almost 1,200 administrators at 120 public and private Carnegie
research and doctoral universities. The researchers assumed a connection between
“institutional autonomy, positive administrative work environments, and administrative

satisfaction” (p. 96). One major finding from their study indicated no statistically

27

significant difference between administrators at public and private universities in global
satisfaction, satisfaction with intrinsic rewards, satisfaction with working conditions, and
satisfaction with people with whom they came into contact. Additionally, the researchers
found the connection between institutional autonomy and. the autonomy of the individual
administrator in the work setting as “quite weak” (p. 113).

Started in 2000 by Rosser, Johnsrud, and Heck, and expanded in 2004 by Rosser,
the researchers conducted a national study of mid-level leaders in higher education and
their intent to leave their jobs. The researchers made a distinction between satisfaction in
the work setting and morale (J ohnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000; Rosser, 2004). Focusing
on morale instead of satisfaction, J ohnsrud and Rosser (1997) found morale (high or low)
was more related to administrators’ intent to leave their positions. J ohnsrud et al. (2000)
piloted a survey with 1,293 mid-level administrators within a 10 campus university
system. Using earlier work from Johnsrud (1999), the study identified three sources of
frustration in the worklife experience of mid-level administrators: (1) the nature of their
role, (2) the lack of recognition for their contribution, and (3) their limited opportunity for
career growth or advancement (Johnsrud et al., 2000). These researchers suggested
“turnover decisions may reflect the perceptions held by employees regarding their current
work situation as well as their opportunity for future advancement” (p. 5). The
researchers found at the individual level, administrators’ perceptions of worklife had a
“direct and powerful effect on their morale and a small indirect effect on their intent to
leave or stay in their positions” (p. 12). Finally, the results of the study suggested if

institutions want to reduce turnover and retain employees, it is “important to examine

28

administrators’ perceptions of worklife conditions and the consequent impact on their
morale” (p. 14).

In the 2004 continuation of the study from 2000, Rosser measured some of the
same characteristics of mid-level administrators’ intention to leave, such as worklife,
satisfaction, and morale. Rosser (2004) randomly selected 4,000 mid-level administrators
from a population of 11,300 public and private institutional administrators within five
Carnegie classifications. She concluded that while sometimes a problem for institutions,
turnover created both costs and benefits for an academic organization (Rosser, 2004).
Costs included a less loyal and knowledgeable labor force as well as such benefits as a
reexamination of current reporting structures and replacing experienced with entry-level
individuals to reduce salary costs. A few other key findings from the study included: (1)
being an ethnic minority mid-level leader had a significant and negative impact on
overall morale but not on satisfaction or intent to leave; (2) mid-level leaders who were
paid higher salaries had a lower level of morale; (3) working conditions had no impact on
mid-level leaders’ morale, satisfaction, or their intention to stay or leave their position or
career; (4) the higher the mid-level leaders’ satisfaction, the less likelihood of them
leaving; and (5) if satisfaction is high and morale is low, mid-level leaders would be more
likely to leave. Finally, Rosser determined that it was the combination of “demographic
characteristics, worklife issues, morale, and satisfaction that determines their intentions to
stay or leave” (Rosser, 2004, p. 334).

While not specifically focusing on student affairs professionals, the previous
research on mid-level administrators provides a close proximity to the worklife and status

of student affairs professionals. In the mid-19803, Austin (1985) was one of the first

29

researchers to study worklife issues of mid-level administrators in higher education
focusing on issues of job satisfaction. Ten years later, Volkwein & Parmley (2000) also
studied job satisfaction issues of mid-level administrators but expanded their sample to
include 120 institutions, finding no difference in the responses of participants at either
public or private schools. Finally, in 2000 and 2004, Johnsrud, Heck, and Rosser began
studying the intent of mid-level administrators to leave their positions by focusing on
morale instead of j ob satisfaction. The researchers suggested if institutions want to
address turnover of mid-level administrators, they should begin looking at worklife issues
and how it affects professional morale (Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000). Four years
later, Rosser (2004) conducted a larger sample of mid-level administrators and concluded
that a combination of different factors influenced the actual decisions of individuals to
stay or leave. These studies, particularly the most recent two, began to explore issues
related directly to mid-level or mid-career professionals who are also working in a
functional area of student affairs.
Research on Student Affairs Professionals

As student affairs grew into a more professional field and expanded its scope on
college and university campuses, the need to understand how individuals in the field
develop professionally also increased. In the early 19803, burnout, attrition, and career
development became hot topics in the field. Like their faculty counterparts, research
involving student affairs was conducted by practitioners in the field. However, these early
researchers focused on qualitative techniques over small areas within the field. Also
during this time, the research began to segregate into three distinct stages of career

development: new, mid-career, and senior professionals. The research began to build on

30

the experiences of entry-level and senior professionals, but lacked studying the mid-
career time-frame. The following sections are a review of professional development
research from these three areas.
New Student Aflairs Professionals

A study of student affairs attrition suggested that a high attrition rate, ranging
from 39% to 68% (Burns, 1982; Holmes, Verrier, & Chisolm, 1983; Wood, Winston, &
Polkosnik, 1985) was related to the incongruence between young professionals and their
work environments (Hancock, 1988). Hancock sampled graduate students with primary
responsibilities in a residential housing office and supervisors of entry level housing
positions who “assessed occupational reinforcers available in positions under their
supervision” (p. 26). Hancock found the needs rated as most important in an ideal job by
graduate students were ability utilization, achievement, creativity, and responsibility.
Needs rated as unimportant included authority and independence. Hancock suggested
addressing student needs by fostering “student self-awareness and providing a
comprehensive, realistic orientation to the student affair’s world of work” (p. 29). He
advocated that graduate preparation programs should provide introductory coursework
focused on self-exploration and the fit of a student affairs graduate degree into a student’s
individual career path. Finally, Hancock cited the work environment as an area for further
- research affecting graduate student and young professional attrition (1988).

Wood, Winston, and Polkosnik (1985) cited a growing concern over the attrition
of young student affairs professionals as reason to study professional development in that
field. The authors used the concepts of career anchors and orientations to frame their

study of graduating master’s students in 1978 from four nationally known student

31

personnel preparation programs. Using DeLong’s Career Orientations Inventory (C01)
and Carpenter’s Student Affairs Professional Development Inventory (SAPDI), Wood
and colleagues split the participants into two groups: (1) individuals still employed in
student affairs, and (2) those no longer in the field. The authors found an individual’s
career orientations were related significantly to the level of professional development in
student affairs, and they tended to remain in the field longer as their years of experience
in higher education increased. Individuals who remained in student affairs also indicated
less importance in geographical security. Those who left student affairs expressed an
increased need for autonomy. These researchers examined only the relationships between
career anchors and professional development and their implications for young
professionals in student affairs. They called for further study to include other variables
such as the “low ratio of mid-level administrative positions to entry-level positions”

(p. 53 8).

Building on the research of Wood, Winston, and Polkosnik (1985), Richmond and
Sherman (1991) focused on career choices, satisfaction, and preparation programs of
graduate students and new professionals in student affairs. Their study focused on
understanding the types of individuals who have a better chance of succeeding in student
affairs (Richmond & Sherman, 1991). They found although most individuals were
satisfied with their graduate programs, students were still not adequately prepared for
changing career options in student affairs (1991). Additionally, Richmond and Sherman
(1991) believed the high attrition rate from student affairs could be linked to the new
professional’s “collision with chaotic surroundings and unfulfilling supervisory

relationships” (p. 16). They found that individuals in the study who had received

32

increased career knowledge, experience, and awareness of career options while in their
graduate programs expressed higher rates of satisfaction in their first positions (1991).

Using knowledge and measurement techniques found in role stress literature to
student affairs professionals, Ward (1995) studied the problem of attrition among new
professionals. Sampling 158 new professionals employed full-time at 4-year colleges and
universities, Ward (1995) studied relationships between role stress and the areas of
employment, graduate program, autonomy, organizational formalization, job satisfaction,
and propensity to leave. He found no evidence to support the relationships between
graduate training, functional area, work place formalization, propensity to leave, and role
conflict. Additionally, Ward (1995) found no relationship between graduate training and
functional area with role stress. However, role ambiguity was found to be a stronger
predictor of job satisfaction and propensity to leave, stronger than role conflict, career
mobility, work place formalization, task overload, or dissonance between student
development philosophies (Ward, 1995). Three years later, new research (Harned &
Murphy, 1998) on new professionals leaving the profession seemed to bolster Ward’s
argument of role ambiguity and propensity to leave.

Harned and Murphy (1998) identified four elements involved in the development
of new professionals: the supervisor, the new professional, the institutional leadership,
and the student affairs leadership. The concerns associated with supervisors, institutional
leaders, and leadership in student affairs could determine whether young experienced
student affairs professionals leave the profession (Harned & Murphy, 1998). To combat
this, they advocated strengthening the relationships of student affairs and institutions to

new professionals and supervisors. Building “esteem and competence” (p. 5) among new

33

professionals helps ensure the future of the profession. Building on the idea of developing
relationships, Roper (2002) cited the importance of overcoming ineffective social skills
of young and mid-level professionals. He challenged his fellow student affairs
professionals to develop an approach that places relationships with others at the “center
of both our personal and professional lives” (p. 11).

New professionals become the mid-career and senior professionals in the field.
Relevant research on the career and professional development of new professionals
exists, assisting practitioners and institutions in supporting and maintaining their student
affairs professionals. Even before new professionals accept their first position after
graduate school, professional and career orientations are important issues for student
affairs graduate programs to prepare individuals for the field. Issues associated with their
first professional position such as autonomy and supportive supervisors become key
determinants in new professionals remaining in the field after their first years. As new
professionals mature and move into mid-level positions within student affairs, keeping
them supported, vital, and engaged ensures a continued dedicated workforce as the career
ladder narrows at the mid-level and senior student affairs levels.

Mid-Career Student Affairs Professionals

In supporting new professionals as they transition into mid-level and senior level
student affairs professions, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand when those
individuals move into mid-career. Compounded by the lack of research on the
experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals is the lack of a clear target
population to study. Two studies in the mid-19903 attempted to give form to the

definition of mid-career student affairs professionals. Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann

34

(1993) studied competencies that top-level student affairs administrators seek when
hiring for mid-level positions. For their research they identified a mid-manager as an
individual who reports directly to the chief student affairs officer (CSAO), or to a person
who reports directly to the CSAO, and is responsible for the “direction, control, or
supervision” (p. 290) of one or more student affairs functions or professional staff. The
study authors did not identify why they used that particular set of parameters for the
sample. Similarly, Fey and Carpenter (1996) used a participant sample which consisted of
a) an individual who occupied a position that reported directly to the chief student affairs
administrator (CSAA) or who occupied a position one level removed from the CSAA,
and b) was responsible for the direction or control of one or more student affairs
functions, or supervision of one or more professional staff members. Again, there was no
mention of why they used that particular set of parameters to select individuals for their
study.

At a 1990 student affairs conference, eight papers on mid-level managers in
student affairs were presented. The papers cited assimilation of the mid-level student
affairs professional’s needs within other aspects of career research as a reason for the
discussion (Young, 1990). In particular, Carpenter (1990) argued that human
development principles can be applied to professional development in student affairs and
proposed a model of four career stages: formative, application, additive, and generative.
Carpenter (1990) used his model to structure a series of professional development
activities for mid-managers in student affairs based on the “author’s research, personal
experience, and observations of student affairs professionals” (p. 93). He cited his own

doctoral dissertation from 1980 about the professional development of student affairs

35

workers as the foundation for much of what he had written in this paper. Carpenter
followed up his work a few years later when he and Fey (1996) studied mid-level student
affairs mangers in Texas. Four years earlier, Komives (1992) used Carpenter’s (1990)
career stages to frame her discussion of mid-career student affairs professionals.

Using Carpenter’s (1990) four career stages, Komives (1992) suggested that
“middlescence” for student affairs professionals brings new “dilemmas and
opportunities” (p. 84) in their careers. Komives (1992) suggested strategies to assist
individuals during this time, such as: being mentored and mentoring new professionals,
creating new programs and strategies, writing for professional publications, and
encouraging other professionals to serve as mentors. Contrary to research from Wood,
Winston, and Polkosnik (1985) on student affairs professionals, Komives (1992)
suggested autonomy is sometimes “antithetical” (p. 87) to professional practice. She
argued being “too autonomous can be viewed as a negative behavior” (p. 87). Komives
(1992) called for middle and top student affairs professionals to “redirect their energies to
developing talent in younger staff” (p. 89). Doing this she claimed will “result in the
continued professionalization of both individuals and the larger field of student affairs”
(p. 89).

Fey and Carpenter (1996) surveyed 177 mid-level student affairs professionals in
Texas. Researching the professional skills of the participants, the authors studied the
importance of various skills and the need for further development of professional skills
(Fey & Carpenter, 1996). They also discovered current favored methods for developing
those same skills and interpreted the effects of setting and demographics on professional

development. The average mid-level administrator from their sample was a 41-year-old

36

female who held a master’s degree and had been in the profession for over seven years.
Of the skills listed in the survey, respondents chose personnel management, leadership,
and communication as most important. Fey and Carpenter (1996) concluded that for mid-
level student affairs administrators to remain viable and marketable for promotion into
higher mid-level or executive-level positions, they must increase their effectiveness by
pursuing the skills listed in their research and continuing to pursue professional
development.

Benke and Disque (1990) studied the mobility of mid-managers in student affairs
and determined the research available in general on student affairs career mobility to be
“sketchy” (p. 14) and even “scarcer still” (p. 14) for mid-managers. The authors urged
researchers to resist the temptation to turn to research in business and industry to help fill
in the gaps. Instead they offered examples of the organizational structure, employment
patterns, and mobility patterns among mid-managers in higher education as reasons for
finding differences in research from the business sector. Among other factors, the authors
viewed attrition as another form of career mobility for mid-managers in student affairs.
They also cited the lack of research focused on mid-mangers in previous studies in
student affairs attrition as an overall concern for the profession. Benke and Disque
concluded that more research was needed on the issue of career mobility to address
questions of mid-manager mobility and advancement. They also argued for more research
to understand what qualifications are needed for new professionals to advance to mid—
managers within institutions because. Without this knowledge, new professionals are
more at risk of limiting their career mobility and possibly increasing attrition rates in the

field.

37

Finally, in 2004, one of the first attempts at capturing the rich stories of mid-
career student affairs professionals was published. In Roads Taken, Renn and Hughes
(2004) compiled stories of women in student affairs who are currently in or have moved
beyond mid-career. Started as a panel discussion in 2002 at a National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), a group of mid—career student affairs
women began discussing issues involving their personal and professional lives. From that
panel discussion grew a collection of stories about different issues affecting mid-career
women in student affairs. Those issues include pursuing the doctorate, motherhood and
student affairs, dual career couples, the journey through mid-career, and alternative career
paths for student affairs professionals. The five sections are written with a discussion of
how each particular life issue impacts individuals at mid-career in student affairs.

Mid-career professionals and pursuing a doctorate. In introducing this section of
Roads Taken, Howard-Hamilton (2004) suggests the struggle for women over pondering
the question of “To Ph.D. or not to Ph.D.?” (p. 9) at mid-career is made much more
difficult because of other personal, financial, and professional issues to consider. This
question impacts women of all races but becomes even more important for women of
color because of their small representation in the ranks of Ph.D.s in higher education.
Howard-Hamilton concluded with several recommendations for institutions attempting to
address the number of women pursing Ph.D.s. All of her recommendations could directly
or indirectly impact the retention of women within student affairs including mid-career
individuals.

Dual-career couples. As Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, and Rice (2004) point out, in

the year 2000, 37% of all married couples were dual-earners. They cited private

38

employment sectors in business as being more responsive to this issue than higher
education. Traditional approaches in higher education to assist dual-career couples have
been to either offer relocation services or hire the partner into a position at the same
institution as their spouse. The authors studied relocation programs in higher education
citing the relative newness of these kinds of programs without much formal evaluation to
measure their success. Finally, the authors called for academic institutions to
“acknowledge the growing number of couples vying for positions and for more
institutions, especially those in isolated regions, remaining competitive for the best hires
is likely to require some type of institutional response” (p. 62). This situation is
compounded if both individuals are also positioned at mid-career facing a much narrower
career ladder (Carpenter et al., 1987). Dual-career couples navigating the career ladder in
higher education face additional challenges when starting a family. Often the burden
continues to fall onto the mother even after re-entering the workforce.

Motherhood and student affairs. Marshall (2004) cited how little research exists
that examines the complexity of how women manage a career in higher education and a
family, especially in student affairs. While research exists examining women faculty with
children, there is little known about women who are administrators and are also mothers
(Marshall, 2004). This lack of research and the mixed messages women in higher
education receive about having children creates a climate of difficult decisions for
women in student affairs considering starting a family. Marshall (2004) concluded her
section with several recommendations for higher education to address this issue. Of those
recommendations, she cited examining “how professionals are socialized to think about

their priorities both at work and at home” (p. 98). Specifically in student affairs, she cited

39

her own experience of knowing “many talented women who have left student affairs
because they felt it incompatible with their personal and familial needs.” (p. 98).

“I ’ve arrived. ” Using the work of Judith Bardwick, Hughes (2004) believed a
very large group of talented professionals will be “at their best” (p. 135) between 35 and
45 years old but the number of upper and senior-level positions within corporations,
nonprofits, and educational institutions may not adequately exist for these professionals.
Because so many individuals believe “arriving” (p. 135) means reaching these upper and
senior-level positions, Hughes advocated broadening the definition of “arriving” (p. 135)
in terms of career development. Additionally, within student affairs, mid-career is the
time when many individuals examine their situations to determine the benefits and
liabilities of trying to reach the next level or remaining in middle management. Hughes
suggested that it benefits all individuals working in student affairs, especially at mid-
career or mid-level, to determine what job characteristics are likely to provide the most
stimulation for professionals of the next generation.

Alternate routes. Renn (2004) cited the more traditional career track for the
majority of mid-career student affairs professionals: a master’s degree, entry-level
position, progressively more advanced positions leading to directorship of a functional
area, and a move into deanship or vice-presidency. However, a growing number of mid-
career student affairs professionals are breaking away from this track and exploring
alternative careers or continuing their careers in alternative ways (Renn, 2004). Renn
suggested that research points to lower levels of j ob satisfaction at mid-career for student
affairs professionals, especially women. To combat issues of job satisfaction, Renn

suggested finding alternative paths within the academy including using the skills acquired

40

as student affairs professionals to use other areas such as institutional advancement,
government relations, facilities management, and training and development. Outside of
higher education, opportunities exist in the K-12 system, nonprofit agencies, and
scholarly associations. Renn concluded that individuals at mid-career in student affairs
who leave the field should follow the lead of their senior student affairs officers and
colleagues in considering an “exit strategy” (p. 179).

While all the past sections from the Road Taken text concentrate on the
experiences of mid-career women in student affairs, they provide some parallel
information on the experiences of all mid-career student affairs professionals. Certainly,
the issues of whether to pursue a doctorate or gaining a sense that one has arrived are
relevant to any mid-career student affairs professional regardless of gender, race, or
institution type. Issues surrounding alternative career paths for student affairs
professionals are important especially for individuals at mid-career as problems of job
satisfaction and attrition are compounded during this timeframe. Unlike their new and
senior student affairs colleagues whose experiences are documented with more frequency
within the research, the stories of the women in this text provided one of the first in-depth
discussions of the current challenges and successes experienced by mid-career student
affairs professionals.

Senior Student Affairs Oflicers

Traditionally, as student affairs professionals have moved into later parts of their
career they reach a position in their careers where some begin to consider becoming a
senior student affairs officer (SSAO). Also referred to as the chief student personnel

administrator (CSPA) or chief student affairs administrator (CSAA), this position usually

41

represents the most senior student affairs professional on campus. The SSAO usually
reports to the president of the institution and serves as a key advisor. As the position has
become more important at many institutions, the credentials to become a SSAO have also
increased. Many SSAO positions now require multiple years of experience within higher
education, not always within student affairs and a doctorate degree. As the SSAO
position has gained in prominence, researchers began to examine the development of this
position.

In 1983 Harder examined the career patterns of chief student personnel
administrators (CSPA) by surveying 104 members of the Southern Association of
College Student Affairs (SACSA). At that time the mean age for respondents was
between 36-40 years of age with between 6-35 years of experience, and 81% of the
sample having completed graduate work beyond the master’s level (Harder, 1983).
Harder concluded from his study that without major changes in higher education the
number of CSPA positions over the next 20-25 years will become increasingly smaller.
He based this conclusion on several factors derived from his research including:

(a) indications that tenure in the positions of chief administrator is increasing;

(b) chief administrators tend to be under 50 years of age;

(c) nearly half of the administrators reported that at present they plan to stay in

their positions until retirement;

(d) changes in the mandatory retirement age for educational personnel may allow

individuals to stay in their positions longer;

(e) higher education is in a period of economic instability and student enrollment

decline, resulting in reductions in force or consolidation of positions; and

42

(f) the period of growth in the number of new colleges or campuses that occurred
in the 1950 and 19603 is over. Indications are that the number of colleges or
campuses will remain steady or even decline. Therefore, new positions
established in the past will not be available in the future.

Lunsford (1984) identified the relationship between academic training and
experience as a student personnel professional and its effect on the advancement to chief
student affairs officer (CSAO). He surveyed 147 active National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators (NASPA) members who identified themselves as CSAOs at
four-year institutions. Lunsford studied eight areas: academic preparation, areas of
responsibility, academic preparation, professional job experience, factors influencing
advancement, the value of academic preparation, required competencies, and job profile.
According to Lunsford (1984), a clear path to the CSAO position emerged that included
experience in student affairs administration above the functional director’s level. He also
concluded that the general rule “to move up you must move out” (p. 54) generally holds
true in advancement to the position of CSAO (Lunsford, 1984).

Blirnling (2002) posed questions to eight Senior Student Affairs Officers (SSAO)
that were addressed in reflections and personal logs over the period of a year. Blimling, a
vice chancellor for student development, offered these observations and isolated some
examples of how these individuals balanced their professional and personal lives. Several
themes emerged from the interviews, specifically, the struggle SSAOs face over whether
to stay in their current position or move to a different position in higher education such as
a college president or begin a faculty appointment. He reported many of the SSAOs he

interviewed advised having an “exit strategy” (p.36) when considering moving on and

43

out of student affairs. Finally, Blimling noted many of the SSAOs he interviewed
lamented the loss of balance in their lives between their professional and personal lives.
Although written from the viewpoint of SSAOs the last two themes seem relevant to
individuals in mid-career including finding balance between professional and personal
lives and having an “exit strategy” when considering moving out of student affairs.
Unfortunately, Blimling only interviewed SSAOs and did not comment on the
applicability of the themes generated from his interviews to other career stages.

Using the annual and aggregate turnover data for two- and four-year public and
private institutions, Rickard (1982) studied the turnover of chief student affairs officers
(CSAO) from 1974-1981. Rickard found a 17% turnover rate in CSAOs during this
period, of which 57% of this rate was from private institutions (four-and two-year) and
43% from public institutions (four-and two-year) (1982). Two important questions
surfaced from Rickard’s research: To what extent was the turnover initiated by the
individual or the organization, and what happened to CSAOs who left their position?

Arnold (1982) looked at the career development of experienced student affairs
professionals. The work was primarily based on her experience as the Director of the
Career and Placement Services at Indiana University and did not draw from any
qualitative or quantitative research. She reported that many mid-career student affairs
professionals could be characterized as “vocationally adjusted.” However, when mid-
career conflict occurred it was centered on two values: commitment and loyalty within
the profession. She also cited external factors facing mid-career professionals such as
relocation difficulties and two-career family concerns. According to Arnold (1982), the

career development of student affairs professionals needs further study with a focus on

44

mid-career issues because feelings of employment dissatisfaction tend to build for
individuals in their late 303 and early 403.

As burnout, a declining career ladder, continuing education, and increasing
mobility become hallmarks of the senior student affairs officer (S SAO) position in higher
education, the situation is compounded by institutional retrenchment and declining
enrollments, all of which combine to create issues of turnover and attrition in the SSAO
position. As SSAOs mature and retire from the profession, it is important to understand
how these issues continue to influence their professional development. Understanding
these issues will assist institutions and associations in creating supportive career paths for
the mid-career student affairs professionals who will become the future SSAOs.

Attrition in Student A flairs

One of the frrst studies to examine why individuals leave the field was done by
Burns (1982). She used a survey instrument and “career path matrix” to assess reasons
for career position changes, as well as to obtain an overview of lifestyle characteristics
affecting career decisions. She used two different universities with active graduate
programs in student personnel administration, which yielded a sample size of 182
practitioners (90 males and 92 females). Burns sent surveys to individuals who graduated
within nine years from either institution. Some individuals could be considered mid-
career. Wiggers, F omey, & Wallace-Shutzman (1982) studied factors associated with
burnout for student affairs professionals. Their article was designed as a tool for
practitioners to identify and combat the factors contributing to burnout in student affairs.

Evans (1988) studied the research related to attrition of student affairs

professionals finding a “lack of opportunity for advancement” as the most frequently

45

mentioned reason for leaving the field. Supporting this reason, Bender (1980) Bossert
(1982) cited the perceived lack of career advancement opportunities in student affairs for
mid-level and individuals under 36 years of age as an important issue affecting attrition.
Evans (1988) advocated redesigned environmental strategies and strategies created for
personal and professional development as a way to overcome the lack of career
advancement. In his conclusions, Evans called for any further research on attrition in
student affairs to include examining when in a person’s career attrition is more likely to
occur.

Tarver, Canada, and Lim (1999) wrote about job satisfaction and locus of control
among college student affairs administrators and academic administrators. They observed
that job satisfaction is an important and much investigated topic, but “most of the
relevant higher education research in this area focuses on faculty members” (p. 97). Their
study used randomly selected student affairs administrators who in turn selected an
academic administrator with an equal responsibility level on their campus. Three
instruments were used in the study: an information sheet (demographic data), Job in
General scale (measured job satisfaction), and the Intemal-Extemal Scale (measured
locus of control). The study examined administrators at the director level or higher.
Although this study used more quantitative data and measures then previous research, it
still did not address the issues facing mid-career student affairs practitioners such as job
satisfaction, advancement, or disillusionment.

Are there other reasons why individuals might leave the student affairs field
besides job satisfaction or lack of career advancement? According to Lorden (1998),

individuals also leave the profession because they are pursuing other attractive career

46

paths outside of student affairs. However, Lorden (1998) cautioned that there is no
definitive research on the experiences of individuals who leave student affairs to
determine if their experiences caused them to leave or if they were ready for a new
career. One possible reason Lorden (1998) cited for this lack of knowledge was that most
of the previous research has been focused on quantitative methodologies without
providing meaningful insight into the experiences of individuals who leave the field.
Lorden offered several suggestions for the profession to consider in retaining and
attracting quality individuals including enhancing job satisfaction, increasing professional
preparation through graduate programs, and expanding the definition of professional
development and advancement. However, sometimes these factors have little or no effect
on why individuals choose to leave the student affairs field. Often considerations to leave
the field are based on individual decisions that are not related to professional
development within student affairs.

The idea has been proposed that sometimes individuals who leave the student
affairs field do so because they never intended to remain even after completing a student
affairs graduate program. A few authors have suggested that the skills these individuals
gain while working in student affairs are highly transferable to other professions outside
of higher education (Barr, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987). Carpenter,
Guido-DiBrito and Kelly (1987) reviewed studies of competencies and skills fostered by
student affairs preparation and practice and compared them to indicators of success in
business and management. They concluded that the student affairs profession requires
varied and “excellent management and communication skills, and these valuable talents

are readily transferable to other fields of endeavor” (Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly,

47

1987) (p. 12). Barr (1990) suggested that student affairs professionals are not “wasting”
their time with a career in student affairs because they “gain good experience for the
future whether their future is in the field or not” (p. 63). Finally, Barr (1990) suggested
that the “winnowing out process” (p. 63) often discussed in research of student affairs
attrition may have benefits both for individuals who remain and those who decide to
leave.

In comparing themes from the existing research in student affairs on new, mid-
career, and senior student affairs professionals, several key ideas about professional and
career development surfaced. Throughout the literature from the past three sections, the
importance of the skills needed for student affairs professionals to continue advancing in
their careers was continually highlighted. Additionally, the literature suggested Senior
Student Affairs Officers (SSAO) should assist retention in the field by helping new
professionals remain. Research called for SSAOs to create opportunities for new
professionals to become professionally engaged and active. Mid-level professionals and
SSAOs were also called upon to mentor new professionals as a way to challenge new
professionals and keep them in the field. The literature also cited the continual building
of dissatisfaction within the field as one of the bigger concerns not often addressed by the
profession. Finally, much of the research on all career levels in student affairs called on
practitioners and scholars to advance the understanding of retention and attrition within
student affairs. This is found in every decade of research used during this literature
review, yet there still exists a gap of understanding among all student affairs career
levels, in particular, mid-career professionals.

Conceptual Framework

48

There are three theoretical frameworks that provide a sufficient base for studying
the experiences, professional development and satisfaction of mid-career student affairs
professionals. Person-environment theory and professional development and a career
issues lens theory have been drawn from the literature on student affairs professionals.
The third theory was used to study the development of faculty. All three of the
frameworks have been used to study professional and career development within higher
education as professionals progress through various stages of their careers. Levinson’s
(1978) and Lofquist and Dawis’s (1969) theories were developed outside of higher
education but have been adapted by Baldwin (1979) and Hancock (1988) to create a
theoretical framework for studying individuals working within higher education. The
frameworks also serve as lenses to view data collected from this study and reported in
Chapters 4 and 5.

Adult Development Theory and Its Implications for Faculty

Baldwin has written extensively on the career and professional development of
faculty. Throughout his research he has spent time studying how faculty remain vital in
their careers, how institutions can foster and support the development of faculty, and the
effects of adult and career development on faculty (Baldwin, 1979, 1990; Baldwin &
Blackburn, 1981). In one research study, Baldwin (1979) used Levinson’s theory of adult
development. In Levinson’s model, adulthood is composed of alternating periods of
stability and transition (1.978). This is a stage theory in which an individual progresses
through six different stages, each with its own characteristics.

Particular to mid-life and mid-career, Levinson (1978) identified three major tasks

that, in his words, “must be worked on” (p. 191) during the period of transition from

49

early adulthood to middle adulthood. Generally applied, each of the three tasks have
some application to mid-career issues. The first task calls for a man1 to “review his life in
this era” and “reappraise what he has done with it” (p. 191) up to the point of mid-life.
The second task constitutes the time to “modify the negative elements of the present
structure and to test new choices” (p. 191). Finally, in the third task one is to “deal with
the polarities that are sources of deep division in his life” (p. 191). Levinson’s four
polarities form this third task and include: 1) young/old, 2) destruction/creation, 3)
masculine/feminine, and 4) attachment/separateness. There are elements of each task,
particularly the first two, that still resonate with the issues associated with mid-career.
Certainly, taking stock of one’s career at the point of mid-career and considering different
choices are still relevant professional development issues. The four polarities of
Levinson’s (1978) third task are applicable to development at perhaps any stage of a
career, including mid-life.

Baldwin (1979) used Levinson’s (1978) six stages and compared the professional
stages of faculty career development from newly hired assistant professor to shortly
retired full professor. Levinson’s theory also includes specific age separations that
accompany the corresponding characteristics. Baldwin did not restrict himself to very
narrow age-related parameters for this study. He used a range of years to give each career
stage with faculty rank a more concrete timeframe (1979).

Studying Baldwin’s (1979) findings revealed similarities common to all of the
five faculty career stages, such as reviewing one’s professional life and a desire to learn

new skills or traits. These findings might also relate to new research on mid-career

 

1 Because of the period when Levinson wrote about his theory, he only includes discussions about the male
gender.

50

student affairs professionals using Levinson’s (1978) adult development theory. In
contrast, Baldwin (1979) did find differences in some faculty characteristics that he
believed supported the developmental construct that adults do change over time.
Essentially, faculty interests in certain roles wax and wane over time as they progress
through their career. As this result could be considered a natural part of career evolution
it is highly probable this same result would be evident in researching student affairs
professionals at various stages of their professional lives.

The obvious limitation in using Levinson’s adult development theoretical
framework is its reliance on forward-only progress. Most forward-moving stage theories
suffer from a limitation which does not allow for movement back to a prior stage or
skipping past certain stages. Adult development is a complex issue and no individual
develops at the same pace or level as another. This theory was also developed for males
and most likely white heterosexual males. It does not take into consideration the large
increase in female faculty entering the professoriate or the increase in faculty of color,
who may experience this model in a significantly different manner.

Person-Environment Theory

Often there are a variety of reasons someone chooses to follow a specific career
path or vocation. Similarly, there are as many different reasons why individuals decide to
leave their field or profession. In his work on the attrition of young student affairs
professionals, Hancock attributed a high rate to the incongruence existing between young
professionals and their work environments (1988). Holland suggested that the theory of
choice behavior is an expression of personality (1973). Using Holland’s theory of choice

behavior, Hancock attributes congruent interactions between individuals and work

51

environments as beneficial to achieving stable work choices. However, the excessive
incongruence of the person-environment can also lead to high rates of attrition (1988).

Lofquist and Davis’s (1969) theory of work adjustment also addresses the match
of occupational needs and career reinforcers. Individuals seek to achieve correspondence
with their environment, and work is one major environment to which individuals must
adapt. According to Lofquist and Davis, individuals will ultimately leave their
environment (work) if they cannot find or establish correspondence (connection or fit).
Holland (1988) argued an extension of the person-environment correspondence
(connection or fit) is also the length of employment in a particular position. Additionally,
Holland (1988) extended the theory of person-environment fit to the entire profession of
student affairs instead of individual positions. He (1988) proposed new professionals who
were not finding a fit within the field of student affairs (environment) are leaving the
profession at higher rates. He extended the person-environment fit into understanding
what occurs to individuals in student affairs graduate programs.

In student affairs, the graduate program is traditionally the more common
pathway for launching a career in higher education working in the student affairs field
(Hancock, 1988; Richmond & Sherman, 1991; Ward, 1995). The years spent in graduate
education have been identified as an important stage in the development of professional
identity (Carpenter & Miller, 1981). Typically, the coursework during a graduate
program generally focuses on theories and tools in higher education, cognitive
development, and research analysis. The Association of College Personnel
Administrators (ACPA), a professional association for student affairs professionals,

publishes and subscribes to a Statement of Ethical Principles and Standards (ACPA,

52

2006.). Among the different professional principles and standards it subscribes to are
several that guide the program faculty who teach in student affairs graduate programs.
However, noticeably absent from this section is a discussion concerning career
preparation and career exploration during the graduate program.

Hancock (1988) criticized the apparent lack of actual career preparation, career
exploration, or self-awareness in graduate programs to prepare students for the world of
student affairs work. If new professionals are to be successful, how does the graduate
degree program in student affairs fit their individual career path? How does their new
professional environment fit for each individual either in the field of student affairs or in
a specific area?

The limitation in Hancock’s (1988) study has less to do with the theory he used
and more with his research sample and its application to mid-career professionals. He
focused solely on graduating students who were preparing to begin entry-level positions
in the residence life area. This is the largest area within student affairs for new graduates
to enter, which probably created an easier study sample. There is no indication this theory
could not be applied to mid-career individuals within any area of student affairs
regardless of whether or not they are still working in their original area of specialization.
It would appear what matters are that individuals are still employed within the student
affairs field, regardless of area. The theories on which Hancock based his (1988) study
originate from occupational and organizational research. There is no indication these
theories could not be applied to any career stage or any particular professional field.
Since Hancock has already used one area of student affairs with this theory, using it to

cover multiple areas within the field seems quite reasonable.

53

Professional Development and a Career Issues Lens
A final framework is also a stage model that has been developed specifically for
student affairs professionals. Carpenter and. Miller used a model for professional
development based on the premise that the field of student affairs constitutes a
professional community (1990). This professional community involves three sets of
commonalities: shared goals and objectives, the existence of formal and informal
sanctions, and attention to socialization and regeneration (Carpenter & Miller, 1990).
According to Carpenter and Miller, this allowed human development principles to be
applied to professional development. This led to the proposition that “professional
development is continuous and cumulative in nature, moves from simpler to more
complex behavior, and can be described via level or stages held in common” (1990).
Carpenter and Miller proposed four stages that supported this proposition (1981 &
1990)
a) Formative Stage: including graduate and/or paraprofessional preparation
b) Application Stage: encompassing beginning and intermediate practice and further
preparation
c) Additive Stage: involving intermediate to upper-level practice and policy-making
responsibility and increase professional sharing
(I) Generative Stage: spanning upper-level practice through retirement and attained
by only a select few who influence the entire profession
Based on the model, Carpenter and Miller (1990 & 1981) indicate that mid-
managers (mid-career) are somewhere in the mid to late Application Stage or the early

Additive Stage. The authors believe mid-managers in either the late Application State or

54

early Additive Stage are dealing with the issue of “commitment to the profession and will
usually have made (or be making) a decision as to whether further education or
increasingly responsible experience is the best way to progress” (p. 9). This idea seems
key to issues of professional development and satisfaction facing mid-career individuals
in student affairs.

The framework of this model could be extended to a study of other issues
affecting mid-managers at the late Application Stage or early Additive Stage. Deciding
on either further education or increasingly responsible experience might not be the only
things to consider during this time. It might also be a time of reflecting on one’s career
including issues of job satisfaction, institutional support, professional development,
staying in student affairs and personal comrrritrnents as they relate to the student affairs
field.

Carpenter and Miller (1981 & 1990) developed this stage model to address the
professional development and career issues of mid-managers. Its application to study
other issues or factors affecting mid-career professionals is the most consistent of all
three theoretical frameworks proposed. Again, the limitations of stage models have
previously been discussed and the same potential limitations exist in using their theory.
However, each stage is focused on skills and competencies gained as individuals progress
through their career instead of human behavior. Although the authors make reference in
their model to the link in human development theory, their focus on skills and
competencies rather than feelings and occurrences separates it from Baldwin’s theory of
adult development and its implications for faculty.

Summary of Literature Review

55

Before examining factors affecting mid-career student affairs professionals, it was
important to examine issues facing mid-career professionals from a broader sense. This
research, found primarily in the private sector, focused on how individuals were affected
psychologically and biologically. Using this background to begin focusing on higher
education, this research from the private sector differed quite significantly from theories
on adult education which cited the importance of sociocultural factors on professional
development and argued for its study in addition to psychological factors. In general
application, all have some impact on the professional and career development of
individuals within higher education. However, to begin understanding mid-career issues
in higher education, the chapter first examined how these issues affected faculty.

In the literature, some of the first research to study the professional and career
development of faculty used qualitative studies to examine overall faculty satisfaction
and vitality. By the mid to late 19803, researchers also focused on how institutional
policies were affecting the professional development of faculty. A few researchers also
focused on mid-career faculty, calling for more research on faculty development. During
this time period, the definition of mid-career faculty evolved, attaching either age range
or faculty rank as determinants. As student affairs developed into a professional field, the
research on professional and career development started with parallels to the research on
faculty development.

Early research on student affairs professional and career development focused on
new and senior professionals. Some of the first research in student affairs was based on
issues of attrition and person-environment fit, and examined individuals finishing

graduate programs in student affairs or working in their first positions after graduation.

56

Researchers identified skills and influences affecting the retention of new professionals
and stressed the importance of understanding these issues to create a strong professional
core of mid-level managers within student affairs. In contrast, other literature
concentrated on the career development of senior student affairs officers (SSAO).
Researchers focused on issues affecting SSAOs such as turnover, burnout, the narrowing
career ladder, and attrition. Again, much of the research in the area mentioned the
importance of preparing and training quality mid-level student affairs managers to
succeed the current core of SSAOs.

The research on mid-level or mid-career student affairs professionals has been
limited in the past 25 years. The few exceptions studied the career mobility and skills
sought by SSAOs for mid-level student affairs managers. Research in the late 19803 was
some of the first to propose a career development stage model for mid-career student
affairs professionals based on human development principles. All of the literature cited
how these issues could affect the retention of qualified individuals within the mid-level
student affairs ranks.

The issue of attrition within student affairs has surfaced in all the literature
covering new, mid-level, and senior student affairs professionals. The literature cited
issues of advancement, narrowing career ladders, burnout, career time-frames, and job
satisfaction as some of the main factors affecting attrition within student affairs at all
career levels. Some of the literature paid particular attention to the issues affecting the
retention of individuals at mid-career, most notably lack of career mobility and
advancement as the most important issues influencing attrition. All of the attrition issues

cited in the literature were related to human or adult development theories including

57

identity, fit, and career development. In particular, the three models chosen for this study
were developed for either faculty or student affairs professionals and will serve as the
framework for understanding the themes developed from the research.

In Chapter 3, I discuss the methodology employed for my study including
descriptions of both instruments in this mixed-method study. I also include descriptions
of participants and a restatement of my research questions from Chapter 1. I continue by
examining my data collection methods for each phase of my study including how I
organized and interpreted my data. I complete this chapter with a discussion involving
“goodness” in qualitative research and some possible limitations in my qualitative

sampling.

58

CHAPTER THREE
Introduction

Existing research on student affairs professionals has usually concentrated on only
those issues pertaining to new and senior professionals. There has been little or no focus
on mid-career student affairs professionals, although the literature has addressed
problems occurring among all student affairs professionals, but which especially affect
mid-career professionals, such as turnover, burn-out, and lack of advancement. These
issues have led to discussions in the research on attrition rates occurring primarily during
the mid-career stage. Because mid-career professionals form the core of future senior
student affairs officers’ positions, it is imperative that the profession recognize issues
surrounding mid-career attrition and move to correct them. The purpose of the current
study was to chronicle the experiences of individuals who self-define as mid-career
professionals in student affairs, and examine how the challenges and supports they face at
mid-career influence their professional development, satisfaction and intention to stay in
the field.

In the last 10 years, the student affairs field has begun to address the professional
and career development needs of mid-career professionals. One way has been to include
educational and interest sessions at national conferences aimed at these mid-career
administrators. But more importantly, both the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the American College Personnel Association
(ACPA) have established institutes specifically designed for mid-level managers in
student affairs. Attendance at the institute sponsored by ACPA has intentionally been

limited (usually about 50 participants) to maintain a small learning atmosphere (ACPA

59

website, 2005). Workshops, or sessions, usually run over a four-day period, with senior
student affairs officers from different institutions serving as faculty.

In addition, another institute, specifically designed for mid-level professionals,
was created jointly by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA) and the Southern Association of College Student Affairs (SACSA). This
institute (http://www.naspa.org/communities/rc/page.cfm?rcpageID=133&rcid=3) was
created 15 years ago, is held over six days, requires a nomination from attendees’ senior
student affairs officer, and limits attendance. I selected participants from both institutes
for my study because I wanted to intentionally attract mid-level student affairs managers
who have self-selected themselves as individuals at some point in the mid-career period.

Methodology

This study was designed to chronicle the experiences of mid-career student affairs
professionals as a mixed-methods study using a survey instrument and interviews. In a
mixed-method study, the researcher combines quantitative and qualitative approaches,
methods, and techniques in a single study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The survey
instrument was an online survey conducted to test themes generated from the existing
literature on mid-career student affairs (as discussed in Chapter Two). All individuals
from the on-line survey had participated in the Mid-Management Institute sponsored by
ACPA (http://www.myacpa.org/pd/mmi/). The responses from the survey not only helped
inform the questions used during participant interviews, but also guided the second part
of the study (a qualitative study) and served as the launching point for more complex and

thorough discussions with interview participants.

60

The detailed exploration of the responses from the qualitative instrument,
participant interviews, provided a more in-depth and rich description of the experiences
from each of the mid-career professionals. Along with the theoretical frameworks
discussed at the end of Chapter Two, there was also an aspect of transformative
procedure (Creswell, 2003) within the research. The theoretical frameworks helped guide
the identification and discussion of themes in the analysis of the qualitative research
where transformative procedures were used. I employed a mixed-method design for my
study, recognizing that for my purposes using both quantitative and qualitative
instruments is necessary to harness the benefits of matching two separate research
methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, & Perez-Prado,
2003). Ultimately, using quantitative and qualitative techniques and data in my study
provided “the best understanding of a research problem” (Creswell, 2003 p. 12), which
was how to richly detail and describe the experiences of mid-career professionals in
student affairs.

Participants

All participants in the study had to meet criteria defined by “mid-career student
affairs professionals,” which was that they had to: be between the ages of 30-55, have a
master’s degree, and work in a functional area of student affairs (e.g., residence life,
student activities, career activities, counseling, etc.). Further, the study only included
those individuals who had participated in an existing institute sponsored by the ACPA or
NASPA/SAC SA.

Online Survey Participants. Twenty-three individuals responded to the online

survey over a two-month period (March — April, 2006). Nineteen of the 23 respondents

61

completed all 10 questions on the survey instrument, with 13 of the 19 reporting
themselves as female, eight reporting as male, and five describing themselves as persons
of color. The following functional student affairs areas were reported: student life,
residence life, counseling, dean’s office, student conduct, fitness, student leadership, and
student union.

The reported ages of the participants ranged from the youngest at 26 and the
oldest in their 503. Eighteen reported working at public, 4-year institutions, and five
reported they worked at private, 4-year institutions. The majority (15) of the participants,
who reported working at public institutions, also described these institutions as having
large student populations. For a similar breakdown of survey participant demographics
please see the spreadsheet in the appendix.

Interview Participants. Fifteen individuals, who were identified as mid-career
student affairs professionals as defined above, and who had participated in one of two
mid-managers institutes, were interviewed. I interviewed 15 participants who were all
current practitioners in the field (or were when they participated in the interviews) who
worked in a functional area within student affairs (e.g., residence life, student activities,
career services, etc.). Only three of the interview participants had also taken part in the
on-line survey but since that was an anonymous instrument their identity was not known
prior to the interviews.

By using individuals who had all participated in one of two institutes developed
specifically for mid-career professionals, it was easier to compare and contrast individual

experiences of the participants with a common connection in their mid-career time-frame

62

and their work in student affairs. Individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences
in and out of student affairs and higher education were purposefully solicited.
Research Questions

Throughout the data collection for this study, four research questions guided its
progress.
1. What are the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career professionals”
in student affairs?
2. How do these individuals define “mid-career”?
3. What challenges and supports are present for mid-career professionals in institutions
and student affairs professional organizations?
4. How do the challenges and supports affecting mid—career professionals influence their
decision to stay or leave student affairs?

Data Collection Methods

The methods used for this study were an online survey of 23 participants, and
interviews with 15 different individuals conducted over a span of approximately three
months. The interviews were semi-structured in an effort to utilize the prior information
gathered from the online survey in developing themes and threads to discuss with
participants during the actual interviews, which provided more meaning and richness to
the study. The setting for each interview was at the participant’s institution and conducted
via telephone.

The interviews were driven by the responses from the survey and developments in
the professional lives of participants. At the conclusion of the surveys and each interview,

emerging themes and trends in the data were coded into data “chunks” (Rossman &

63

Rallis, 1998, p. 17). Examples of topics around which interview questions were framed
included: (1) career mobility or advancement, (2) career preparation during graduate
programs, (3) career development while in the field. Written summaries were sent to all
interview participants at the conclusion of each interview phase.

First Phase of Study - Online Survey

Prior to the interviews, I conducted an online survey to determine whether themes
found in the literature on mid-career in student affairs resonated with professionals
regardless of their functional areas (e. g., residential life, student life, etc.). The survey did
not classify individuals by age, gender, or ethnicity, but instead used these descriptors
later when reporting the data within chapters four and five to emphasize study findings.
At the beginning of the survey, each participant was given the opportunity to report
individual characteristics as well as indicate their specific functional area in student
affairs. Ultimately, the data trends aided in the development of research questions and
participant interview questions for the qualitative phase of the study. The survey
questions were arranged under four central themes developed from the literature: mid-
career in student affairs, career advancement, graduate education, and attrition (see
survey instrument in appendix B).

I employed a single-stage (Creswell, 2003) sampling procedure using existing
data from an institute sponsored by ACPA. The institute is called the Donna M. Bourassa
Mid-Level Management Institute (MMI) and focuses on issues important to mid-level
and mid-career student affairs professionals. By using the participants from this institute
a random sample was created within the context of the intended population design. Each

institute is limited to 50 participants annually, to ensure a more diverse sample across

64

functional areas (e.g., residence life, student activities, career services, etc.) within
student affairs.

My study sampled four years of participants beginning in 2002-2005 (ACPA did
not hold an institute in 2000 and the participant list for 2001 could not be located because
of a database switch). Using stratification for a single-stage sample from an existing
dataset helped ensure a unique and diverse sample. In early March, ACPA sent out an
invitation to participate in the survey on my behalf via email to their lists of past
participants. A reminder email was sent out to solicit participants one month later in April
also through ACPA. This resulted in the survey being sent to 102 eligible records (current
email addresses), with 21 emails returned because of bad or expired addresses. 23
individuals initially entered the on-line survey site; 19 individuals ultimately completed
the entire instrument and submitted a completed survey for data analysis.

Second Phase of Study - Participant Interviews

One of the purposes of the study was to provide richer data for the student affairs
field in relation to the mid-career experience, interviewing each participant individually
allowed this richness to develop (Creswell, 2003). Integration of the results from the
survey and the interviews occurred during the interpretation portion of the study
(Creswell, 2003). Again, the quantitative data gathered in the survey was used in part to
inform the data gathered in the qualitative phase. Specifically, questions used during the
participant interviews were generated from the survey responses. For the purposes of this
study, no specific theoretical perspective was employed in relation to gender, race, or

location before the interviews were conducted. However, during the analysis of the

65

interview responses, thematic differences among participants were noted in relation to
gender, race, and type of institution.

I recruited interview participants from both MMIs sponsored by either ACPA or
NASPA/SACSA. An email was sent out on my behalf from MMI program administrators
soliciting individual participation in my study on mid-career. I recruited 15 individuals to
participate in the interview phase of my study. Each of the interviews lasted between 45
minutes to one and half hours and 14 of the 15 were conducted over the telephone. The
very first interview I conducted was in person at a professional institute held for
individuals who work in judicial affairs. I transcribed each interview and sent a copy of
the interview via email for member check. Once receiving the return transcript, I began
analyzing the data.

Data Analysis and Interpretation of Interview Phase

The data from the interviews was continually organized, categorized, and coded
as a means of monitoring changes in the professional lives of the study participants. In
support of this process, Merriam (1998) contended that in qualitative research any data
collection and analysis must be a simultaneous process in order for major themes and/or
ideas to emerge. Thus, all taped telephone interviews were transcribed verbatim and sent
to participants for accuracy and integrity. As interviews were transcribed, I began to
dissect themes from the responses formed around key topic areas in my study. In a
sequential approach as described by Creswell (2003), I also used the survey instrument to
obtain themes and test specific areas of inquiry that I explored during the interviews.
Because my study was a mixed-methods study using a survey and interviews, I was able

to construct a “nested model” (2003) where the results of the survey were often found

66

within the interview responses. I also developed subcodes which lead into codes (Miles,
& Huberman, 1994) and eventually thematic interpretation across all of the data.
Descriptions of Interview Participants

Four of the 15 interview participants were male; two described themselves as
persons of color; and the ages ranged from 27 years to 50 years. The participants were
given pseudonyms to help maintain the integrity of the data and create a more open and
free environment for them to respond more candidly to interview questions. For detailed
classification of interview participants including pseudonyms, age, gender, ethnicity,
institution type, firnctional area, and family situation the reader should refer to the
appendix A.
Bill M.
At the time of the interview he was working as an assistant dean of students in student
affairs at a large, public, four-year institution. He entered a master’s program for college
student personnel directly following receiving his bachelor’s degree. He has worked at
four different institutions including his current one since graduating with his master’s
degree. He also has a doctoral degree in education, which was completed two years ago.
Sarah F.
At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant director in residence life at a
large, public, four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in student affairs and has
worked at four different institutions including her current one since graduating with her
master’s degree.

Janet R.

67

At the time of the interview she was working as a director in campus activities (left
institution in July 2006) at a medium-sized, private, four-year institution. She has a
maters degree in college student personnel and has worked at one institution since
graduating with her master’s degree, which has included five position changes.

Alice N.

At the time of the interview she was working as a coordinator in Greek affairs at a public,
four-year institution. She has master’s degree in student affairs and has worked at four
institutions including her current once since graduating with her master’s degree.
Francis H.

At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant dean at a large, public, four-
year institution. She has a master’s degree in student affairs and has worked at two
institutions including her current one since graduating with her master’s degree (includes
four position changes).

Slade L.

At the time of the interview he was working as an associate director in student activities
at a large, public, four-year institution. He has a master’s degree in student affairs and has
worked at three institutions including his current one since graduating with his master’s
degree. He currently has course work completed towards a doctoral degree and considers
himself all but dissertation (ABD).

Kathy S.

At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant director in student life at a
small, private, four-year institution (she has since left the institution). She has a master’s

degree in student affairs and she worked at one institution in residence life before

68

beginning her master’s program, worked in residence life at the same institution she was
pursing her master’s degree at, and has worked at one other institution since finishing her
master’s degree.

Mary S.

At the time of the interview she was working as a project manager working with
technical and software support within student affairs division at a medium-sized, public,
four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in mathematics and has worked at her
current institution for the past twelve years.

Carrie P.

At the time of the interview she was working as an associate director in a student union at
a large, public, four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in student affairs and has
worked at three institutions including her current one since completing her master’s
degree.

Frank B.

At the time of the interview he was working in student life in a generalist position at a
medium-sized, public, four-year institution. He has a master’s degree in college student
personnel and has worked at two institutions including his current one since completing
his master’s degree.

Nancy J.

At the time of the interview she was working in with assessment in a student life
department at a large, public, four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in student
affairs and has worked at two institutions including her current one since completing her

master’s degree (includes two position changes at one institution).

69

Joyce B.
At the time of the interview she was working as a coordinator in a disability resource
center at a large, public, four-year institution. She is currently working towards a master’s
degree in management and organizational development. She began her career in the
private sector where she spent most of her professional career before entering student
affairs. She has worked at one institution including her current one (includes three
position changes).
Julie S.
At the time of the interview she was working in a counseling center at a large, public,
four-year institution. She has a Doctorate of Psychology and has worked at three
institutions including her current one.
George S.
At the time of the interview he was working as a coordinator in student affairs at a
medium-sized, public, two-year institution. He has a doctoral degree in higher education
and a master’s degree in secondary education. He has worked at one institution including
his current one since completing his doctoral work.
Margaret T.
At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant clean at a small, private, four-
year institution. She has a master’s degree in counseling and has worked at two
institutions including her current one since completing her master’s degree.
“Goodness ” in Qualitative Research

The term “goodness” is used in place of more frequently used terms found in

qualitative research such as validity or trustworthiness. For my study, the term

70

“goodness” is used in the same way authors use the terms validity and trustworthiness. I
placed emphasis on the qualitative design because I was interested in learning more about
the experiences of professionals at mid-career through interviews. The interviews
allowed participants to reflect and respond on their professional and personal lives by
answering a series of probing questions and statements. This also permitted me to dissect
the layers that surround the mid-career professional, layers that are often overlooked by
student affairs and institutions when trying to label this time-frame. More then any other
method, interviews allowed me to capture more then the titles, positions, and
responsibilities participants were and instead chronicle their mid-career experience.
Ultimately, it allowed me to put forward some thoughtful and meaningful implications
and recommendations for the individuals and institutions working with mid-career
professionals. Understanding there are also some challenges that arise when using
qualitative methods, in the final section I present research that supports this method of
inquiry for this study. This is introduced as “goodness” in qualitative research.
Understanding the issue of trustworthiness surrounding the use of qualitative
methods to explore phenomenon, I drew upon a term developed by Arminio and Hultgren
(2002) when judging qualitative research. The idea of using goodness to judge qualitative
research requires that certain criteria are used when conducting qualitative research
including illustrating meaning-making processes, linking epistemological and theoretical
foundations to select methodology, and clear data collection and analysis methods
(2002). A final criterion employs all of these conditions to create goodness in qualitative

research; the research should offer a new understanding that leads to improved practice

71

(2002). As suggested by Arminio and Hultgren (2002) the language of goodness creates a
way to “view, rather then to define quality in qualitative research” (p. 447).

Particular to this study involving participant interviews as one method of data
collection, goodness according to Whitt (1991) includes “thick descriptions rich in details
about the setting, its context, and its people” (p. 45). According to Whitt, goodness also
includes “finding and selecting participants who explicate the data and text in ways that
are consistent with the selected methodology” (p. 454) (Arminio & Hultgren, 2002).
Finally, Arminio and Hultgren (2002) cite revealing researcher “biases, perspectives, and
experiences of the phenomena to be studied” (p. 454) as a test for goodness.

Important to the qualitative portion of this study was Arminio and Hultgren’s
(2002) final criterion where goodness in qualitative research strives to create new
understanding leading to improved practice. Due to the lack of current research on the
experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals, I am aimed for data that produced
usable and rich information for use by the profession and institutions. The information
could be in the form of improved professional development, new or changed personnel
practices, and overall support for this important career stage in student affairs. The
importance of qualitative work as suggested by Brown (1998) relates to “providing new
insights useful to members of the profession as professionals” (p. 258). Arminio and
Hultgren (2002) offer a final thought on qualitative research adhering to the elements of
goodness. The authors believe goodness “requires researchers offer recommendations for
how practice can be transformed due to the insights gained from the study” (p. 458)

(2002). For me this will be the focus from data collected during this study.

72

For the purpose of my study, I used the data to detail the experiences of
individuals at mid-career so I could illustrate how the mid-career time-frame is often
confusing and challenging. By using interviews as a primary method of collecting data, I
was trying to elicit responses from participants that would allow for candid and rich
descriptions of the mid-career experience. The data collection and analysis were in a
clear and consistent manner which involved participants in every part of the process,
many of who were interested in my study results. Ultimately, the study data provides
some new insight for individuals, institutions, and student affairs in understanding how
complex the mid-career time-frame is, and how their practices should change to reflect
this complexity.

Qualitative Sampling Limitations

Particular to using interviews, qualitative research notes a potential weakness in
gathering data filtered through the views of the participants (Creswell, 2003). Some of
the interviews were conducted in a natural setting such as a personal residence but many
were conducted at the participant’s institutions over the telephone (Creswell, 2003). I
would argue for many in student affairs the participant institutions are also more like
natural settings for the profession. Regardless, in this particular study I did not see this as
a limitation because the study was designed to examine and document the experiences of
individuals at mid-career who have attended one of two institutes. I also avoided what
Jones (2002) terms “backyard research” by seeking participants either at the host
institution or in colleagues with whom he has regular professional contact.

I first identified individuals who are currently at the mid-career stage within

student affairs, regardless of their functional area of expertise within the profession. The

73

definition used for the population will include current or former student affairs
professionals between the ages of 30-55, who have completed a master’s degree. Second,
I solicited only individuals who had participated in one of two institutes designed for mi-
level managers in student affairs. In selecting this sample, I also relied on criteria that,
according to Jones (2002), that are anchored in the research questions of the study.
Addressing the issue of sample size (12 participants), I was concerned more with the
quality and depth of information obtained through the interviews and research process
and less with the actual number of participants (2002). This also included paying careful
attention to constructing a “diverse” sample of participants (Jones, 2002), avoiding the
common practice in student affairs of just including participants based on race, gender, or
sexual identity.

While not only focusing on participant identifiers such as race, gender, or sexual
identity, I recognize that because participants in my study had participated in professional
development (MMI) within the field they may not be representative of mid-career
professionals. However, using individuals from either institute allowed me to follow one
of my research questions studying the experiences of professionals who had self-define as
mid-career in student affairs. It also allowed me to recruit participants who were already
thinking about their experiences as mid-career professionals because they had attended an
MMI.

Finally, I recognized my own biases and subjectivity because of the proximity to
the subject matter to my current status as a mid-career student affairs professional. Jones
(2002) calls on researchers to understand the importance of “one’s own personality and

the influence of this positionality on who and what can be known” (p.466).

74

Understanding the “complex dynamics attached to entering communities both similar to
and different from one’s own” (p. 466) also was important to the quality and validity of
this research study.
Conclusion

Using a mixed-methods study design, I was able to test thematic areas and build
on the results from a survey instrument for my interviews. The interviews not only
allowed me to test themes generated from the literature and the survey but more
importantly it allowed me to explore these themes with participants in a manner
permitting the development of rich and complex data. The richness of the participant
interviews helped me delve deep into the experiences of individuals who identified
themselves as mid-career, and begin to re-define this experience. The next two chapters
present data from the surveys and interviews interwoven throughout each chapter. The
reader will notice that no attempt was made to separate the responses of survey and
interview participants. I believed that the responses from both groups together added to

my understanding of the mid-career experience and its impact on these individuals.

75

CHAPTER FOUR

The Mid-Career Student Affairs Experience

Contrary to a belief that mid-career is one point in a career, participants in this
study viewed mid-career as an evolution that began at entry-level, moved into mid-career,
and culminated with late-career. It was an evolution often met with professional and
personal confusion and frustration that came to symbolize the mid-career experience for
participants. In this chapter and the next both survey and interview participants share
their thoughts and feelings about their experiences as mid-career professionals in the field
of student affairs. The experiences of these participants provide a portrait of a mid-career
professional who is simultaneously the core of the field and the hope for the future. These
are individuals who exist in the most under-researched and misunderstood professional
timeframe in student affairs.

This chapter begins with the participants’ descriptions of their current experiences
as mid-career professionals at their institutions and in the field, and how these
experiences are influenced by the tension found at this career time-fi'ame. Included are
descriptions of how other life issues, such as family, graduate programs, and work/life
balance influence the mid-career experience. In Chapter 5 I continue where this chapter
concludes by examining the participants’ satisfaction during the mid-career experience
and exploring the different ways professional development affects this time-frame. I
conclude the chapter with a candid examination of how the participants’ satisfying or

unsatisfying mid-career experiences can influence their decision to leave or remain in the

76

field. Together, in both chapters four and five, I take the reader through the complicated
and often uneasy time in the lives of mid-career student affairs professionals.

According to participants from this study, there is no clear definition of mid-
career in student affairs. Definitions given by participants were varied and included
different elements including title, responsibilities, aspirations, and number of years in the
field. Although not every study participant expressed a desire to move into senior-level
positions many did discuss how they hoped to gain valuable skills they could use as they
advanced professionally. However, many participants were confronted by their inability
to leave some of the entry-level responsibilities while assuming those duties associated
with mid-level work.

When creating the sample population for this study, I used familiar terms and
definitions from the literature and field to describe mid-career professionals in student
affairs. However, because the amount of research focusing on mid-career student
professionals is small in comparison to research on entry or senior-level professionals,
most research on the topic is no more than 15 years old. The dearth of research on mid-
career student affairs professionals was a major reason for undertaking this study.
Additionally important to this study, I was attempting to create a richer and more
expansive definition of mid-career based on the responses of both survey and interview
participants. Ultimately, after conducting the surveys and interviews I ended with two,
somewhat differing ideas about what it means to be a mid-career student affairs
professional, one from the literature and the other from the participants.

In conducting this study, I primarily focused on what the participants had to say

about their mid-career experience, while giving only brief descriptors of their age, area of

77

responsibility, gender, and institution to give the reader a snapshot of study participants. I
also solicited participants who had self-selected to participate in one of two mid-
managers institutes sponsored by student affairs professional organizations. One reason
for doing this was to allow individuals to participate in the study who had self-identified
themselves as mid-career professionals in what ever descriptions they chose to use.

With both the survey and interview participants, I specifically asked individuals to
define mid-career in student affairs and how they believed the field defined mid-career
student affairs. Overall, many participant responses paralleled research on mid-career,
citing skill sets, age, title, and responsibilities. This included items like supervision of
professionals, budgets, and other resources. It also included number of years in the field,
number of positions held since completing graduate school, and age. These responses
were very similar to how previous research defined mid-career in student affairs.
However, as I detail in this chapter, this was only one piece of a more complex definition
of mid-career provided by study participants.

All of the study participants viewed themselves as mid-career professionals in
student affairs. They used familiar terminology to describe parts of their experiences. But
as I detail in this study, many participants also had strong feelings of being caught
between two conflicting identities, one carrying the expectation of performing at a higher
level, and the other still clinging to lower-level, or entry-level responsibilities. As one
participant phrased it, [“it’s like] living in a kind of dual world” (George S.) with high-
level expectations and low-level responsibilities. This was often considered a confusing
time for many participants who, on the surface had the mid-career labels and terms used

99 66

by the field and institutions such as “director, supervisor,” or “manager,” but who still

78

held onto such tasks as food purchaser, table mover, or sign poster. The conflict between
these two “worlds” created confusion for participants and caused many to question their
role at their institution and in the field. This also led some participants to feel stuck at
mid-career and think about how long they could remain in the profession. The definition
of mid-career and the feelings of existing in two worlds became a critical aspect of how
participants viewed themselves professionally, and this idea continued to surface
throughout the study. It also contributed to, as I discuss in Chapter Five, participants’
feelings of dissatisfaction from existing in these two often contradictory worlds. Not
unlike the importance placed on professional development at mid-career, feelings of
being rooted in two worlds at mid-career surfaced throughout the entire study.

I will begin this chapter by discussing some familiar definitions of mid-career in
student affairs and detailing how many of the participants echo the familiar mid-career
descriptions found in the field and at institutions. I will also discuss participants’ own
ideas about what it means to be a mid-career professional in student affairs. I then
continue the chapter with participants describing how the definitions of mid-career can
often lead to their feeling as if they are rooted in two worlds: still performing entry-level
tasks while also performing higher level duties. I build on the idea of existing in two
worlds by describing participants’ thoughts of being overlooked or trapped by the field as
they advanced from entry-level to mid-career, staying in mid-career, and looking to
advance into senior-level positions. I then conclude the chapter by examining how
participants’ professional careers in student affairs at mid-career correspond with their

personal lives. This includes experiences involving their families, the balance between

79

their work and personal lives, and how their work in graduate school contributed to their
mid-career experience.
Defining Mid-Career

Only as far back as the early 19903 were researchers beginning to define mid-
career in student affairs. In 1990, Benke and Disque used the term mid-manager and
urged researchers to resist the idea to use terminology and research from sources outside
of student affairs. Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann’s (1993) research on chief student
affairs officers produced a skill-set instead of specific descriptors to describe mid-career
professionals. Skills like supervision and direction were cited by the authors (1993).
Similarly, Fey and Carpenter (1996) looked at whether the individual reported to a chief
student affairs officer or occupied a position one level removed from that individual, and
was directly responsible for supervision of other professional staff members. In his earlier
research, Carpenter (1990) used a term also mentioned by some participants, that of a
mid-manager or mid-level professional. Fey and Carpenter (1996) also studied skill sets
of mid-level student affairs professionals, with their average research participant being a
41-year old female with seven years of experience in the profession and possessing a
masters degree. In 2004, the text Roads Taken was published, which chronicled the lives
of women who were currently in or had moved beyond mid-career in student affairs.
While the text does not specifically attempt to define mid-career, certain portions cite age
and responsibility in denoting mid-career. Throughout most of this research much was
lacking about what it means to be a mid-career student affairs professional.

Perhaps in a nod to the lack of research and inconsistent mid-career definitions in

the field, defining mid-career proved challenging and elusive for many study participants.

80

While none of the participants defined it exactly the same, there were some similarities
among the responses. Both survey and interview participants primarily viewed mid-
career in one of two ways: either as a time of significant and new responsibilities, or as a
position related to their title. Participants who did not view it as either a position or as the
taking on of additional responsibilities tended to define it as a level achieved by working
a certain number of years in the field. Only one participant specifically discussed how the
type of institution affected this definition although many did mention it, and a few others
either discussed mid-career within a larger context, which included types of institutions,
or questioned the term of mid-career outright.

In further discussions about defining mid-career, many participants commented
on the differences in positions and institutions that made defining mid-career difficult.
This fact seemed even more evident when comparing the demographic breakdown of
participants, even among the small sample represented public, private, large, and small
institutions. In addition, the range of functional areas represented by participants included
almost every position type in the student affairs. While it would seem the participants in
this study epitomized the diffuse nature of student affairs in higher education, as the next
section will demonstrate, mid-career is less about how positions and institutions define
individuals, and more about how the experience defines mid-career.

Positions and Titles

Participants who defined mid-career from a positional standpoint used titles such
as Associate Director, Director, and, even Associate Dean. Many participants cited
examples from the field and their institutions to support the mid-career titles they used.

However, no participant felt the position of Dean or Vice-President was within the realm

81

of mid-career. One participant described it as “[not] .....entry-level but yet there are still
positions you aspire too” (Francis H.). Another specified the mid-career positions as
Director or Associate Director, but also felt they were an individual who was thinking of
“moving on, moving up, or over” (Mary S.)

More so than their interview counterparts, survey participants used references to
titles or positions when defining mid-career. “Basically, you have too much experience to
be considered entry-level and you’re too young to be a Dean of Students or VP of Student
Affairs” (survey participant). Another survey participant made a similar comment,
“individuals who are not at the Vice Presidential level but who are Directors or Associate
Directors of Programs.” Among the interview participants who discussed mid-career in
terms of position, only one believed it was tied to a particular institution where a position
was located. Both of these sections represent many of the feelings participants expressed
about the positions and titles associated with mid-career, an existing connection to entry-
level and a time to begin thinking about their future in the field.

Mid-Career Responsibilities and Skills

In discussing mid-career, titles and positions were often mentioned, but
participants more frequently used words to describe levels of responsibility or skill-sets
that mid-career professionals would normally have achieved. Skills like supervision,
budgeting, and managing people or areas were most cited by both interview and survey
participants. Interestingly, these were the same skill-sets mentioned by both interview
and survey participants as being abilities they were lacking as they moved into mid-
career. Participants also considered this a time when they felt that, as professionals they

should have more responsibility for the operation of their department as well as the

82

ability to make decisions that had larger impact on the campus. In the next section of this
chapter, I present more thoughts from participants relating to what would become a
recurring theme in this study — that mid-career was a professional existence involving
lower level responsibilities coupled with that of higher level expectations.

Professional position titles were often mentioned by survey participants, but those
who commented on skills at mid-career appeared to agree with the sentiments expressed
by the following interview participant: “I think people typically view the mid-manager by
[his or her] title, [and] they will assume or not assume that you’re in a mid-manager role
by your title” (Slade L.). A survey participant expressed similar thoughts, believing it was
responsibility and position together that defined mid-career in the field. As they stated,
“A mid-level professional is an appropriate blend of a front-line practitioner and a
supervisor.” Another survey participant added this to it, saying, “[to be]...a mid-career
student affairs professional means to be supervising professional staff, to be a decision
maker and key policy deliverer (and sometimes creator), to be able to make independent
decisions on important issues...”

In addition to supervision, budgeting, and managing peOple, one participant saw
mid-career as a time to begin mentoring entry-level professionals in the field while
finding new mentors from the ranks of the senior leadership. “A definition that I
subscribe to is often the glue between SSAO(s) and entry-level professionals” (Frank B.).
This participant also thought mid-career was a time when individuals were considering
continuing their education.

While many participants believed the amount of responsibility increased at mid-

career one participant felt that even when making decisions with great impact the

83

ultimate responsibility still fell on the senior student affairs administrator. “Of course I
am going to be held responsible by him (SSAO) but when it comes outside of the
division. . .he’s going to be the one that’s going to be ultimately held responsible for the
actions of everyone in the division” (George S.). Sometimes, the level of responsibility
came with the experience or number of years in the field.
Years in the Field

Only a few participants from both the survey and interviews defined mid-career
based on the number of years an individual had spent in the field. Of those few, only one
relied solely on the number of years in the field as the benchmark for mid-career. This
individual had been in the field almost 10 years and contrasted student affairs with the
corporate world where she believed mid-career came earlier in terms of the years of
experience. “I think once you pass 5-6 years you start to become a mid-career
professional. In the corporate world you are still pretty new but in our profession you
easily become seasoned especially within your discipline” (Alice N.). Another interview
participant defined mid-career by the number of years in experience but also by the
responsibility: “. . .I am thinking a person who’s been in the field full-time five
years. . .who is preferably supervising a few graduate or full-time staff members” (Sarah
E). A survey participant also defined mid-career by the number of years: “. . .you have
been in the field for longer than 5 years, but don’t have the status of being called Dr. or
Dean!”

Defining mid-career using the number of years experience was not shared by most

participants even though professionals in the field and institutions recruiting for open

84

positions in student affairs often highlight the number of years experience an individual
possesses.

Participants never viewed the number of years an individual had been working in
the field as the sole descriptor in defining mid-career. Comparisons were made between
student affairs and the private sector suggesting lower benchmarks for student affairs
professionals in reaching certain career timeframes. Even as institutions and the field
often attach years of experience to position requirements, participants still coupled years
in the field with some other indicator, such as position or responsibility. Of these two, the
types of skills or responsibilities an individual possessed were more frequently regarded
as a hallmark in defining mid-career. For many participants, the types of skills one
possessed and their current position or title were often tied together in defining mid-
career. However, responsibilities, titles, or years of experience was never a complete
definition of mid-career and often led to confusion about how mid-career professionals
exist.

Mid-Career: Between Two Worlds

The responses from both study groups about the definition of mid-career often
included discussions about the feelings of being somewhere between entry and senior-
level positions. It was a time for many who felt as if they were caught between having too
much or too little experience in the field. This was viewed negatively by some
participants because they felt labeled by those professionals who were in senior-level
positions. “It means waiting. It means relying on others. It means being subject to others
actions or inactions. It means not being able to properly lead — but to follow, even more

than at the entry level.” (survey participant)

85

As I will present later in this chapter, the issue of feeling “stuck” at mid-career
influenced how participants also viewed their mid-career experience and is detailed more
fully in the next section of this chapter. However, a few participants who discussed the
definition of mid-career also commented on their feelings associated with feeling stuck at
mid-career and included it in their definitions. One interview participant felt she was
sometimes not viewed as a professional who was prepared to move into different
positions. “. . .at the same time no one sees as you moving up, either too young or don’t
have enough experience, kind of caught in the stratosphere...” (Nancy J .). In perhaps a
reference to professional development support at mid-career, one survey participant knew
where she wanted to go but, “it is an awkward and uncomfortable time. I can see the
position I want, but I have trouble figuring out how to get there.”

Another interview participant viewed mid-career from a positive and negative
position: “It is an opportunity to learn a lot of knowledge in mid-career about university
processes and you are not protected like young professionals. When you move into mid-
career you play with the ‘big dogs.’ It means the VP is not smiling for you or happy all
the time...” (Kathy 8.). A survey participant shared this idea by defining mid-career as
“. . .a position that serves as a important link between the entry level and upper level
administration. . . [the mid-career professional has] the responsibility of being a
“gatekeeper” of information as well which can aid or impede the vitality and
functionality of a whole department.” Perhaps the most intense yet immensely lasting
definition of mid-career was offered by a survey participant. “A mid-career student
affairs professional is probably the worst position to be in. If heaven is being in a senior-

level position and hell is being relegated to an entry-level position, then I’m in

86

purgatory.” While most participant definitions were not as explicit, this definition does
illustrate the feelings of being in the middle for many participants. Overall, participants
had a much easier time defining mid-career individually. When asked how the field
defines mid-career in student affairs participants had a much more difficult time
providing clear definitions.
How Student Affairs Defines Mid-Career

When examining literature on the topic of mid-career in student affairs,
definitions of mid-career focused on age, position, or experience. As I presented in the
previous section, the reality of how individuals in the field actually define mid-career is
more complex. Many interview participant responses included comments on age,
position, or experience but they also focused on how it feels to be in mid—career and the
kinds of responsibility individuals often possess. Because many participants in this study
were active in professional associations and in the field they were also asked to discuss
how the field of student affairs defines mid-career. Responses to this question were not as
focused as the individual definitions of mid-career but still touched on issues of position,
age, and responsibility. Additionally, in this section I only present responses from
interview participants because survey participants were not asked to respond this
question. What stood out from participant responses was the lack of clarity in the field
about what it means to be at mid-career in student affairs.
Confusion in the Field

After attending one of two Mid-Managers Institutes (MMI) sponsored by ACPA
or NASPA/SACSA, many participants were still confused about how the field defines

mid-career. Some participants believed attending an MMI would simplify the definition

87

based on the types of professionals in attendance. Unfortunately, this did not provide
enough clarity and left a few participants relying on their individual feelings about the
status of mid-career in student affairs. “. . .I sat there wondering with some people there
(MMI), are they at mid-level or do they just want to be? ” (emphasis added) (Janet R.) “I
thought it was interesting because there were actually some people at MMI who, by title,
were in positions that you might commonly think ‘oh yeah that goes with mid-manager’
but by function they probably were not” (Slade L.). “Having attended MMI this summer
we had people really that were at multiple levels - it was all over the map” (Bill M.). In
an apparent paradox, the two professional associations attempting to gather and assist
mid-career professionals were perhaps unknowingly contributing to the confusion. The
confusion for some participants also extended into the entire field of student affairs.
Confusion about how the student affairs field defines mid-career was felt by some
participants. Some felt the field did not define it well regardless of one’s position or
institution. “1 don’t think the field defines it very well at all” (Kathy 8.). “I don’t know I
get confused about how it is defined” (Bill M.). While not commenting negatively on
how the field defines mid-career other participants felt the definition was very broad and
covered all types of positions. “I think it tends to run the gamut from that to people
who’ve been in the field for many, many, many years even chief housing officers would
be considered in some circles mid-managers as they’re not student affairs vice
Chancellors.” (Sarah F .). Another also defined it broadly by concentrating on just the type
of position one possessed, “I truly believe it is the type of position and experience you
have had” (Alice N.). Some participants returned to familiar responses (as seen in the

previous section) with years of experience, supervision, and handling budgets as part of

88

their responses. “For the field I think that they would probably say you need to have at
least five years experience, probably supervise some others, have some budget
responsibility” (Slade L.). Another participant added, “probably the Director level with
opportunities to go higher, supervising more people...” (Francis H.). Most participants
were able to comment about experience or years in the field but some also felt there was
something else that made it difficult to define within the field.
Diversity of Institutions

Participants who believed the definition was unclear attributed it to the variety of
institutions and positions in the field. Returning to the idea of the diversity of institutions
and positions in the field, some participants believed this issue would hamper ever
creating a clear and concise definition of mid-career which included the entire field.
“. . .because the fact that titles are so institutionally specific you could be a Director and
be more steps away from the President then I am now” (Kathy S). “You could be in year
three and be an Assistant Dean somewhere and possibly be heading to another smaller
institution to be in an even more upper administrative position” (Alice N.). Another
commented along similar thinking, “you might have an Associate Director at a large
institution that might equate a Director level at a smaller institution” (Francis H.). The
breadth and diversity of the field and, more importantly, institutions, created confusion
for some in how the field really defines mid-career. One participant pared it down to a
definition which has probably served in the past and will continue to serve the field when
defining mid-career. “The best definition I know if is kind of a deconstructionist

definition which is not entry level and not senior level” (Kathy 8.).

89

Defining mid-career in student affairs seemed an easier exercise for those
participants who used their own ideas and experiences in defining it. Attaching skill-sets,
position titles, or years experience were often included in responses. For some
participants, it was a time of feeling unsure and overlooked by senior-level professionals
to advancing within the profession. Discussing how the field defines mid-career,
participants were much less clear and sometimes felt it was confusing even though many
believed skills and experiences would be included in the definition. The diversity and
number of institutions also contributed to an unclear definition of mid-career. Even as the
field, institutions, and individuals attempted to add some clarity and continuity to the
definition of mid-career, participants felt the breadth and diversity of their profession was
making this an impossible task. This confusion began to seep into how participants
viewed their overall mid-career experience.

Ultimately, with so many variables involved in defining mid-career there was no
simple and concise way to define mid-career for individuals and the field. While
important to the study, adhering to a more structured definition of mid-career or creating
a working definition of mid-career was not an initial focus of the study. However, in
detailing the experiences of mid-career professionals, study participants from the surveys
and the interviews had important experiences and insights that I believed warranted
heightened emphasis. The next section details an important insight I developed while
discussing the mid-career experience with participants. Participants felt as if their

experience at mid-career was often a time of existing in two different worlds.

90

Rooted in Two Worlds

In the student affairs profession, as individuals move from being entry-level
professionals to mid-level, it often creates in them feelings of existing in two professional
worlds. As student affairs professionals advance they gain more experience, and the
expectations and responsibilities change to reflect new or different job-functions. Moving
from an entry-level position to a mid-career position also often presents new challenges
and opportunities for student affairs professionals. Unfortunately, for many participants
in this study, the ability to completely identify themselves as being in mid-career once
they moved out of an entry-level position was hampered by feeling “rooted” in two
worlds: One world existed where participants felt like an entry-level professional
performing the same tasks they had when they entered the field, while co-existing in a
second world where the expectations and responsibilities that often come with being at
mid-career were much greater. Participants found mid-career to be a challenging place to
exist because they were not entirely clear how they should respond to it and also, if it
would ever change. Because changes in their professional and personal lives were
affected by the challenges participants faced at mid-career, the experience of moving
from entry-level into mid-career and the feelings of existing at mid-career and trying to
advance are discussed in the next several sections. In the final three sections of the
chapter, I examine how the personal lives of participants often intersect, influence, and
even compound their mid-career professional experience.
Moving from Entry-Level into Mid-Career and Beyond

With most of the participants in their third or fourth post-masters position in

student affairs, many felt feelings of confusion and dissatisfaction from reaching mid-

91

career and that it did not always translate into leaving entry-level tasks behind. There was
a feeling that after reaching mid-career expectations would change for both professional
development and career advancement. Some participants believed that even at mid-career
they could not completely escape performing some entry-level tasks. “Sometimes I don’t
think we ever escape programming responsibility, even as we move up there may be
some programs that we are involved in we have direct responsibility for or other times
involvement with our other staff" (Bill M.). Another participant commented it might
depend on the institution you are currently working at. “It really depends on the
institution you are at. I think we will constantly have those entry-level type tasks” (Alice
N.). “I think it’s confusing for mid-level people” (Kathy 8.). The confusion for some
participants turned into how to exist in both worlds and how to deal with those feelings.
While most participants were able to exist in both entry-level and mid-career
worlds, some felt this dualistic role could create opportunities where they could be taken
advantage of. Clear and deliberate expectations from supervisors were described as one
way to combat these feelings. One participant believed one of the supervisor’s roles was
to communicate why certain responsibilities were taken on for mid-career professionals.
“If you don’t have somebody who can verbalize that well you are going to end up feeling
like the cleaning lady who gets asked to do everything but does not get credited for the
sparkling house” (Kathy 8.). Another participant believed the idea of being rooted in two
worlds professionally was difficult for individuals to understand until reaching the level
of mid-career. “I will tell you that it is a very diflicult (emphasis added) concept to grasp
until you’ve ascended to that level” (Slade L.). It was difficult for some participants while

others had a more fluid approach to how they existed in both worlds.

92

Other participants were less confused and more flexible in how they existed in
both worlds. What might be considered a hallmark characteristic of the field, one
participant stated, “You are between the two worlds and not feel pressured and just have
to roll with it and be ok” (Margaret T.). However, she added, “. . . .or get the PhD and
hope to move up quickly” (Margaret T.). Another commented, “We just do it until the job
is done” (Sarah E). Learning to balance the two worlds was often a difficult task for
participants.

Balancing the entry-level and mid-career worlds was challenging for many
participants in their professional and personal lives. Participants often cited uncertainty in
how to act because many were now charged with significant responsibility but they still
wanted to support their staff at events and programs. Most interview participants had
levels of responsibility not previously experienced, such as supervision, budgeting, and
reporting. They often felt stress at having to live in two worlds which sometimes caused
confusion and distrust among their staff members because they wanted to be supportive,
but at the same time, perform at a higher level within the institution. “We learn all the
team building skills, working down with the troops and it is what we talk and what we
preach” (Slade L.). He added,

...... but you don’t want to be too close to the troops and working with

them because if you are then you’re going to be seen as still one of the

troops. ..so from the other side that collegiality and that partnership that I

talked about nobody is going to trust you because you’re still close to the

other side. (Slade L)

93

Another participant felt torn because she was often in the role of supporting
programs from her department or division, but was also expected to make important
decisions affecting more of the campus. “I think that it is a very awkward position to be
in to be called to make other decisions where you are seen in a much different light”
(Francis H.). Some participants had never thought about existing in two worlds
professionally until they began to discuss being a mid-career professional. One interview
participant described how he lived in these two separate worlds, “1 live in this kind of
dual world where I am, I may do some kind of entry-level things, in regards to my
immediate supervisor I’m thought to be one of those big decision makers by the people
who are subordinate to me” (George 8.). Sometimes the conflict between the two worlds
also seeped into the personal lives of participants.

As participants moved into mid-career positions many took on more responsibility
and looked to delegating other tasks within their departments. Asking other individuals
within their departments to come early or stay late for a program, setting up food or
tables, and being present to support events were examples of delegated tasks given by
participants. However, many wanted to delegate more but still had or felt a responsibility
to perform some entry-level tasks to assure the success of a program or event. By
delegating less it caused stress on their personal lives by taking time away from families
and activities outside of their positions. One interview participant commented it was a
difficult place to be because “with my family, with my lifestyle I would like to be able to
delegate more” (Francis H.). Some participants simply did not have any other staff to
delegate these tasks to, “. . .let somebody else load the food on the tables, and make sure

the plates and cups are there, make sure the signs are put out for such and such event but I

94

don’t have anybody to delegate those tasks to” (Francis H.). Ultimately, as many
participants struggled with existing in both worlds, they knew whatever they did to
support their staffs or perform entry-level tasks, their other work still had to be
completed.

At the end of the day, whether or not everybody on my staff thinks ‘well

that was really cool that you came to that program last night’ but if my

report’s’ not turned in my boss is saying ‘what do you mean you didn’t '

have time to do that report, you’re the Associate Director why is that not

done?’ (Slade L.)

As the participants moved from entry-level into mid-career their expectations and
responsibilities changed in their professional lives. However, some expressed conflicting
feelings between these two career time-frames. Many participants were often still
performing tasks associated with entry-level positions yet taking on higher level tasks and
learning new skills. This created confusion for some participants, and resentment for
others which lead to negative feelings towards their institutions and the field. Some
participants also felt trapped between entry-level and mid-career, which often lead to
feeling they could not advance fully into mid-career or into senior-level positions.
Moving from entry-level into mid-career was a difficult time for participants. For many
participants, once reaching mid-career they developed feelings of being trapped or
“stuck” at mid-career. In the following section, I examine participant reactions and
feelings of being stuck at mid-career.

Feeling “Stuck ” at Mid-Career

95

Mid-career is an important time in the professional lives of student affairs
professionals. It is a time when issues concerning career advancement and professional
development become more important to lives of student affairs professionals because of
changes in professional and personal needs. It is also important because more time in
student affairs is often spent at mid-career then at either entry or senior level. The limited
opportunity for career growth or advancement was one of the three frustrations in the
work life of mid-level administrators, according to Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, (2000).
While some participants expressed a desire to advance in the field, others were content to
remain at the mid-career level. This presented a challenge for participants who had
chosen to remain at mid-career, or who were simply evaluating what might be the next
movement in mid-career when thinking about their professional futures. Benke and
Disque (1990) concluded more research was needed on career mobility to address
questions of mid-manager immobility and advancement.

The literature has used a term for mid-career individuals in student affairs who are
confused or unsure about what steps to take next in their career. The term “stuck” is cited
in literature (Benke & Disque, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987; Hancock,
1988) to describe when mid-career professionals are thinking of career advancement but
are feeling the inability to advance beyond mid-career. In the following section, I
examine participants’ responses to the feeling of being “stuck” at mid-career. Particular
attention was paid to survey participants who used the term “stuck” to refer to mid-career
without being prompted by a question from me.

Feelings of being stuck at mid-career centered around two major issues on why

this might occur. One issue was based on how individuals who felt stuck dealt with the

96

situation. Some participants believed this centered around personal issues happening at
the same time. Others thought whatever the reason, personal or professional, it was up to
the individual to change this type of thinking and move on. The second issue for
individuals feeling stuck at mid-career involved the narrowing career ladder for student
affairs professionals as they looked at advancing into senior-level positions. In 1983,
Harder concluded that in 25 years the number of senior student affairs officer (SSAO)
positions in higher education would become increasingly smaller. Some participants
acknowledged this created fewer and fewer positions for individuals at mid-career who
wished to advance in the field.

One of the issues compounding the lack of advancement opportunities was how
the field viewed and supported mid-career professionals who did not wish to advance
beyond a mid-career position. I discuss this issue in a later section in this chapter that
examines how mid-career individuals are often overlooked even after choosing not to
advance. Whether the issue of feeling stuck was viewed as an individual concern or as a
problem within the field, it was a discussion that elicited a number of responses from
participants.

Participants who commented on the issue of feeling stuck at mid-career as an
individual concern cited different reasons for why this would occur. Some felt that
because mid-career was also a time of many personal changes this “stuck” feeling could
have come from the personal commitments that individuals had accmnulated by this point
in their lives, such as mortgages or families. One participant described it as “life

baggage” that made it “easier to stay stuck or resolve or reconcile the frustration” (Carrie

97

P.). Another described it as an “extemal pressure to stay where they are” (Mary S.). The
idea of where someone was in their life situation was also related to limits of location.

A participant without a partner or family linked it to being geographically
restricted because of family commitments. This sentiment was also echoed by
participants with families who were limited by location and their family commitments.
“If I was willing to do a national search like I was when I was entry level then there
would be lots more positions but there are just more factors for me to consider at this
point, that is very real” (Julie 8.). There were also some individuals who needed to
evaluate where they were in their careers, and make some personal choices regarding
what they should do next. “The other thing I recognize is that a lot of professionals stay
in jobs because they are comfortable long beyond what they should be” (Margaret T.).
While not all participants felt as strongly about individual responsibility, many agreed
that mid-career was a time filled with conflicting personal issues that contributed to
feelings of being stuck.

Some participants also discussed how the professional structure and reality of
being at mid-career in student affairs could influence feelings of being stuck. Lunsford
(1984) concluded that in order to attain an SSAO position, individuals needed to move
out of their current institution if they wanted to move up into senior-level administration.
Participants acknowledged that as professionals progressed through student affairs there
were fewer senior-level positions for mid-career professionals. Bender (1980), Bossert
(1982), and Evans (1988) all cited fewer advancement opportunities as a factor affecting
attrition. “It makes me frustrated... because I see how easy it is to get stuck in the field

because of the number of higher level positions” Margaret T.). “When I think about

98

advancement there are much less opportunities, the organizational chart gets very
narrower” (Julie S.). “Most departments are pretty flat in term(s) of organizational
structure and people don’t leave, meaning there are few opportunities for advancement”
(survey participant).

Issues of advancement were also sometimes hampered by changes in mid-career
professionals’ personal lives which limited their mobility in seeking out senior-level
advancement opportunities. “I think a lot of people might feel stuck if there are no
positions at their institution to move to and they enjoy what they are doing. I am sort of in
that predicament now, I enjoy what I’m doing but ...I don’t want to go to another
institution to get it” (Francis H.). One interview participant cited the broadness of the
mid-manager sector and people staying longer in their current positions as they advance
as reasons for feeling stuck (Sarah F .). An interview participant felt stuck currently
because she felt her supervisors did not see her beyond the position she was currently in.

...being at mid-career is a tough place to be because they. . .people in a

position of authority. . .don’t necessarily see you as capable. If they have

somebody else they can go to who has one more year of experience or a

higher degree or a better title even if the responsibilities are the same then

sometimes you get passed over. (Nancy J.)

A few survey participants also expressed similar feelings. “I am challenged because I feel
in the middle. I am at the Directors level, but am consistently expected to perform at a
level that is one professional step higher than I am compensated for” (survey participant).

“I feel like I am “stuck” doing Student Life forever until someone sees my potential”

99

(survey participant). Even as the number of senior-level Opportunities narrowed and
personal circumstances changed some participants still found ways of not feeling stuck.

As participants grappled with feelings of being stuck at mid-career, some offered
ways to combat this issue and remain viable in the field. For some participants this meant
changing their career goals and how they saw themselves at mid-career. “Would it be fine
to remain pretty much where I am at and find other ways to grow professionally without
having to move organizationally? Part of the reconsideration process is rethinking the
importance of professional goals” (Julie 8.). Presenting at conferences, building their
skills, taking on additional responsibilities, and professional collaboration, were examples
participants offered as ways to combat feeling stuck at mid-career. One interview
participant offered a simple suggestion that had worked for her in the past: “It takes a
while for that ideal position to open up you have to be patient” (Sarah E). Whatever ways
participants offered to not feel stuck at mid-career it was clear from the responses more
of the responsibility was on the individual than anywhere else.

As many participants offered ways to combat feeling stuck, there were also a few
participants who felt differently. Participants felt not only that it was the responsibility of
the individual to not feel stuck, but it was also entirely the responsibility of the individual
to become “unstuck” at mid-career. Interestingly, no participants discussed how personal
expectations within the field could impact feeling stuck at mid-career. One interview
participant believed that if someone was feeling stuck, he or she should have a certain
level of “ambition and initiative to ...if it is that important to you, you will find a way to
become unstuck” (Frank B.). Another participant portrayed mid-career as a time with

many new opportunities so individuals would not feel stuck.

100

...there are opportunities where people can spend a whole career really at

mid—level and maybe even assume new and different responsibilities or

become employed in a whole new office, there are opportunities out there

if they are creative and can do that. (Bill M.)

One interview participant was not quite as forgiving: “. ...my reaction to them is
‘waaa,’ you know it really is a situation where I think that if they are feeling stuck I think
the onus is probably more on them. . .if they are feeling stuck they’ve limited their
options” (Slade L.). Finally, another interview participant commented on how feeling
stuck is just part of life at mid-career and perhaps it is not negative as it has been
presented. “There is just a world of ‘stuckness’ at this age. . .it happens to everybody as
you get older you realize that whole world is not open before you, a lot of it is about life”
(Kathy S.).

Feelings of being stuck at mid-career in student affairs are triggered by different
issues. Narrowing professional advancement opportunities, personal commitments, and
comfort level were some examples given by participants. However, many believed that
by doing certain things like keeping current, building partnerships, and rethinking career
goals individuals could combat feeling stuck at mid-career. Because feeling stuck began
at the individual level those professionals who recognized the responsibility of not feeling
stuck and found ways to keep themselves professionally and personally engaged at mid-
career were more likely to not suffer the negative consequences. Some participants who
felt stuck also believed the field of student affairs contributed to this feeling. Interview
participants who had felt stuck or understood why it happened to others at mid-career

discussed how the pressure to advance within the field into senior-level positions also

101

contributed to feeling stuck. The pressure to advance often surfaced at times when
individuals were evaluating their professional and personal lives. Caught between
performing entry and mid-level tasks and feeling like they could not advance beyond
mid-career, they believed the field was also contributing to their being overlooked at mid-
career. Whether it meant advancing in the field or finding your niche at mid-career,
participants often felt unsupported by the field in this decision.
Remaining at Mid-Career

Should participants move up into the senior-level ranks of student affairs or
remain content at mid-career? As participants reached mid-career it became an
opportunity to ask these questions, and examine their professional careers and their
futures. For some it meant moving to the next level typically into senior-level positions
within student affairs. But for others it was a time to decide if staying at a mid-career or
mid-level position was the best situation for them. The decision to not move up in the
field or out of the field completely brought some comments from participants about how
the field recognizes individuals who do not anticipate leaving mid-career or mid-level
positions. Because some participants believed the field focuses on individuals moving up
in the field, they believed this created the potential to overlook professionals who wanted
to stay at mid-career. This section examines participant reactions to the issue of
overlooking mid-career professionals who are not interested in moving up in the field.

Mid-career was also a time to evaluate how participants’ professional career was
staying in balance with their personal lives. In Chapter Five, I specifically examine how

participants with families, or thinking of starting a family, were balancing support for

102

their professional and personal lives at mid-career. Much of the discussion in the section
focuses on the few participants who did not have a partner or a family.

Throughout the discussions with participants many expressed interest in
advancing in the field of student affairs. Some had completed doctoral degrees to firrther
their professional careers. Others had worked many years in the field and were
progressing professionally into positions with increasing responsibly and seniority. These
participants felt the expectation from the field was for individuals to continue advancing
professionally throughout their careers until reaching senior level positions. However,
there was a smaller group of participants who were not eager, and even in some cases,
completely uninterested in advancing professionally within the field. The reasons were
varied: some were planning on stopping to raise a family, while others were continuing
their education, or were uninterested in dealing with campus politics. Still, others were
leaving the field entirely but staying in higher education either to teach or work in a
different area at an institution.

Participants intending to stay at mid-career expressed concern that the field’s
expectations of mid-career professionals was challenging to overcome and at times
counter-productive to professional growth. With the field reinforcing the idea that
talented individuals at mid—career advance into senior-level positions, many participants
felt this message negatively impacted how they continued to grow professionally while in
mid-career. It became an interesting paradox for some participants who saw the field
encouraging individuals to advance yet for them, the reality was that they could not or did
not want to advance. This was listed as a challenge for one survey participant, “Not

feeling the pressure from others to continue up the ladder. Knowing that I am successful

103

and that I don’t have to keep striving to achieve success in the student affairs hierarchy.”
It was also challenging to an interview participant who thought advancement was tied to
how the field viewed career progress. “It is an expectation put on you by the profession
because that is how you make more money or move up” (Frank B.).

Another interview participant felt senior-level professionals in the field were very
interested in getting mid-career professionals to advance into senior positions. “People
who I talk to who are at senior level positions they’re always pushing, and pushing, and
pushing for those at mid-managers levels to get the additional education, get the
experience to get to that level” (George 8.). He continued to express concern that mid-
career professionals are sometimes put in positions that required them to defend their
desire to not move into senior level positions.

People I know who are at mid-managers level who are ok with that it even

seems as though when they talk about it, to almost have to defend that. . .it

seems almost (like) they have to defend that position like that is not the

norm in student affairs to want to stay at mid-manager. (George S.)

Another participant also felt there was pressure in the field to advance but also took a
more realistic approach, “There is a push to move ever upward in the hierarchy, but many
of us don’t want to be SSAOs, nor can we all be” (survey participant).

Another reason cited by some participants for staying at mid-career was the
continued breadth of experience many were getting there. Participants did not want to
lose the ability to be involved in many different aspects while maintaining some
significant responsibilities at their institutions. Continued contact with students was also

mentioned as a reason for not wanting to move into senior-level positions. “I have been

104

challenged to the point of how much farther up the ladder do I want to move up because
with each step up... you move further away from students” (Slade L.). Participants felt
once you reached the dean or vice-president level you would lose the daily student
contact that many cited as one reason for staying in the field. “I don’t want to be a dean
or VP, not something I aspire to. . . .I have my hands in a lot of different things, more
experience with campus politics of the university, which I like but I am not ultimately
responsible for the final decision.” (Margaret T.)

While some participants bemoaned moving into senior-level positions others were
less concerned about the impact of not advancing beyond mid-career. Another participant
saw that mid-career professionals were not only getting overlooked by the field in many
cases but were also finding an expectation to take on more responsibilities. “Yet the mid-
managers are working their butt(s) off but not feeling that we are accomplishing as much
as we could. That does have me a bit concerned” (Sarah P).

Lateral moves within the field were considered viable options by some
participants who wanted to be continually challenged in their mid-career positions. “The
lateral move is a very viable career option because you want to come to work with
excitement and energy and be able to do your best. At mid-level it is more about fit and
fitting into your life then it is just having the job.” (Carrie P.)

Another interview participant also felt the field was generally supportive “as a
whole” (Francis H.) of professionals who did not choose to move into senior-level
positions. “I think the field is very supportive of getting where you want to be and being

happy there, and if moving up, moving to those SSAOs is something you want to do then

105

it’s supportive of that but I don’t think it shuns those of us who (are) comfortable where
we are either.” (Francis H.)

She was concerned that different institutions react differently to individuals who
choose to stay in mid-career positions.

A lot of institutions even don’t look highly upon internal promotions. I see

that as an obstacle they always want to bring somebody in from the

outside with new ideas or whatever. (Francis H.)

I don’t feel that I’m necessarily striving for a senior level position. . .I feel

like I’m intentionally growing professionally that will help me. . .progress

professionally and adapt my position to those new skills. (survey

participant)

If being at mid-career is the place someone feels they need to be then it is

a place to do strong work. (survey participant)

I think that it’s ok to want to, I mean, gee if your gift was to be a middle-

manager then live that gift. (Slade L.)

I simply want to be effective in my job and want to have an impact on the

students and their learning. If that is buried in middle management then so

be it. (survey participant)

Several of the final participants’ comments appear to coincide with research on
transformative learning which reflects on an individual’s struggle to “be who he or she is
called to be” (Kovan & Dirkx, p. 102), in this case at mid-career.

The expectation that student affairs professionals advance from mid-career into

senior-level positions was often felt by many participants. The expectation to advance

106

was viewed negatively by some participants who saw it as counter-productive to their
professional development. Even with feeling pressure to advance some participants still
believed their niche was working in mid-career positions and found ways to enrich their
professional lives. For those participants looking to advance, they looked to the field,
institutions, and their supervisors to help prepare them.

Preparing Mid-Career Student Affairs Professionals for Advancement

Once individuals reach mid-career their professional needs change from when
they first entered the profession. Some of these changes originate from individuals taking
on new responsibilities or tasks with mid-career positions. Other changes are related to
overall career and professional development to prepare them as they move either through
mid-career into senior level positions or continue in different rrrid-career positions. The 7
field of student affairs creates conferences, institutes, and workshops to assist individuals
with their professional development in mid-career. Additionally, institutions can create
opportunities for individual professional development available to individuals as needed.
Among the participants in this study there were different responses to how professional
development happens, where it happens, and what impedes it from happening at mid-
career. In this section, I will discuss how mid-career professionals seek and receive
professional development when they reach mid-career and beyond.

If senior-level positions were seen by many participants as their next professional
move, both survey and interview participants alike were split about where that should
occur. Some believed the professional associations in the field are the main conduits for
preparing individuals for advancement. Other participants believed it becomes more of an

institutional issue with individuals receiving different opportunities depending on their

107

present positions. Regardless of where participants thought it should happen, most agreed
it was occurring in some fashion, but there was some responsibility of the individual to
seek out opportunities for advancement. Since all of the participants for this research had
attended one of two Mid-Managers Institutes sponsored by two of the larger and more
well-known professional associations, the following section details participant responses
relating to this area.

Since associations like NASPA and ACPA are better known in the field of student
affairs and participants in this study attended one of two sponsored institutes, discussion
about advancement resulted mostly from these perspectives. Participants who discussed
professional associations believed, generally speaking, that opportunities for
advancement and professional development were available. They also believed that
conferences, institutes, and workshops for professionals tended to attract a variety of
professionals from the field with important issues to share with other colleagues. There
were also other niche associations that specifically targeted professionals in certain areas
of the field, such as Interfraternity Institute (IFI), National Intramural and Recreational
Sports Association (N IRSA) and regional associations like the Southern Association of
College Student Affairs (SACSA). While most participants who discussed the role of
professional associations in advancement did not create any distinction between NASPA
and ACPA, a few did express some differences.

For a few interview participants a difference cited between NASPA and ACPA
was more philosophical then functional and appeared to be based on participant
experience. One participant believed the advancement and professional development

opportunities available at an association like NASPA are developed along more

108

professional mentoring and informal discussions at conferences and institutes. He felt the
value in these types of conversations was more important than opportunities offered from
the official “textbook” (Slade L.). There was also no distinction made between title or
position among participants in these informal conversations. Comparing ACPA with
NASPA the participant felt ACPA had more success in serving different “. . .pockets
through the different commissions” (Slade L.). In the end, the participant believed both
associations served a purpose in the area of advancement and professional development
at mid-career, but did so with different approaches. Other participants did not express as
much satisfaction with the opportunities for advancement created by the professional
associations and made no distinction among the different associations.

Even as many participants discussed the value of the professional associations and
the opportunities for professional development they provided, some expressed concern
about how it was happening. One interview participant stopped short of calling the effort
“haphazard” (Carrie P.) but was concerned that the effort might not be intentional or
focused enough (Carrie P.). She believed mid-managers were talking with each other and
creating opportunities at conferences and institutes for mid-career professionals but was
not convinced it was “. . .outcomes-driven by way of SSAO (senior student affairs
officers) folks who are asking how are we cultivating the top dog future?” (Carrie P.).
She also commented on the targeted opportunities for entry or senior level professionals.
“It is a bit more intentional at the entry-level because that is what our masters programs
are doing, and the PhD programs are so out there for some people because of the time
commitment” (Carrie P.). “Professional conferences often include LOTS of sessions

presented by entry-level individuals who are gung-ho about moving up in their career, but

109

not many sessions for those in the career a while” (survey participant). “There is
professional development at conferences; however, most are aimed towards new and
seasoned professionals” (survey participant).

Another interview participant was also not sure the field was creating
opportunities for professional development at mid-career but believed the awareness level
within the field was increasing.

We are doing a lot more but at the same time when I go to conferences 1

still don’t see that much for mid-managers, still heavy on new

professionals and senior like at NASPA. (Margaret T.)

We are just starting to examine chances to provide our level (mid-career)

with more deliberate coaching and mentoring for the skills we need.

(survey participant)

I would like to see more money and programs available to us that focus on

our growth and development as professionals (survey participant)

One survey participant offered a response in the spirit of what other participants
were expressing about professional development at mid-career. “It doesn’t, you (are)
here, now sink or swim if you want to keep going in this field, and we’ll watch to see if
you make it.”

Some distinction was also made about advancing within the field or advancing out
of the field.

We don’t do a good job of telling people how to move up or what you do

to move out. The goal of the field is to keep peOple but we also talk a lot

about personal attention really caring about the person but our field is not

110

like any other and I don’t think we do a very good job of helping people if

they say ‘hey this might not be for me’ and finding something else to do.

(Margaret T.)

Other participants echoed this sentiment,

The student affairs field needs to provide training in the area of career

advancement (or deciding whether to advance). A lot of professionals

stagnate at this stage because they don’t have professional development

opportunities to advance their careers. (survey participant)

In order to advance, everyone gives you the same message, ‘get a phd!’

What I do not think they tell you is what many individuals have to do in

order to successfully complete one. (survey participant)

The notion that to excel or ‘move up the ladder,’ one has to move to

another institution (when people can move up in the same or similar

company that is located in the same city). (survey participant).

Another part about being in a mid-career position is that in order for me to

advance, I will have to leave my current institution, uproot my family, and move

to another institution in another city. Those individuals in senior-level positions

will be in their institutions for another 10-15 years. ...I’m in a catch-22 because

of my experience and skills. (survey participant)

While some participants still saw the value added by professional associations for
professional development at mid-career, many participants also looked to their
institutions for this support. In a prologue to Chapter Five, some participants believed the

institution and the past and present supervisor had a role in facilitating advancement at

111

mid-career. Some participants had positive experiences with current and former
supervisors who facilitated their professional development at mid-career. However, many
participants did not see this as intentional, but more as a function of their particular
situation. “I think honestly you have to get lucky, you have to get lucky with a couple of
things. . . gaining the right kind of experience. . .you also have to get lucky with having
appreciative and helpful supervisors” (Alice N.). Another interview participant
commented, “It all depends on how their former supervisor or institutions worked to
mentor the individuals rather than manage. . .the whole concept of teaching people how to
fish rather than just giving them the fish to feed for the day” (Sarah E).

A survey participant believed that because of her supervisor’s reaction to
professional development her institution was also not involved. “. . .as my boss has
mentioned that she cannot prepare me for where I have to go next...” In talking with
other mid-career colleagues at different institutions, one interview participant believed
many of his colleagues were not getting the opportunities from their supervisors for
professional development that he was (George 8.). One survey participant believed her
institution did not provide professional development because individuals were easily
replaceable, “I do not feel my institution cares if I advance in the field. It is mainly
concerned with the here and now. I’ve given them 5 years—I think they believe that we
can be replaced very easily.”

Institutional funding, enrollments, and stability were also cited by participants as
an encouraging or limiting factor in mid-career professional development. Participants
believed together these three factors had the most direct impact on the ability of

participants to attend institutes or conferences and increase their professional

112

development at mid-career. One survey participant connected this issue to attrition which
I discuss in Chapter Five, “That’s the problem. . .my institution does nothing to prepare
me to advance in the field. That’s why so many of my contemporaries are leaving the
field.” A final thought was offered by a survey participant about advancing and
professional development at their institution. “My institution does not help me at all in
advancing me in the field, except to give me more job responsibilities on top of what I
already have.”

Because mid-career is a time with increasing professional and personal
responsibilities, a few participants expressed some concern about having the ability and
time to work on professional development. While this issue was not discussed as much as
others it did heighten the awareness for some participants who felt that there was an
increasing lack of time and resources devoted towards their professional development.
Some participants felt if they did not create a conscious effort to take time for
professional development it could get lost in the everyday issues of their professional and
personal lives. One interview participant commented that perhaps it was the nature of the
profession that there was often not enough time to devote to professional development
kinds of activities.

I think we are so busy doing our jobs and because of the place at life you are (at).

I am so busy during the day I don’t have time to read professional journals and I

am not going to take time away from my family to do that (emphasis added). . .the

nature of the profession in that there is not the time for those things. . .it is very

difficult to focus on your own professional development (Francis H.)

113

In this section participants discussed how their mid-career experience was
confused by feeling connected to two professional worlds, one entry-level and the other
more mid-career. This confusion was compounded by mid-career participants feeling
they were unable to advance beyond mid-career because the field and institutions do not
understand the mid-career experience and consequently are not or will not provide
adequate professional development. As they struggled with existing in two worlds,
participants also experienced a profession associated with high workloads and difficulties
in maintaining a professional and personal balance.

The more individuals considered advancing in their careers, the more the issue of
balancing professional and personal lives surfaced. Not surprisingly, many participants
from both groups discussed the workload and responsibilities many of them had that
often conflicted with their personal lives. For some it was with their families, while
others experienced it professionally outside of their current positions. Regardless of
where the unbalance occurred, participants were concerned with how to maintain an
appropriate work/life balance at mid-career. In the following section, I present participant
reactions to how difficult it can be to maintain a healthy professional and personal
balance, and how the mid-career experience impacts this even more.

The Convergence of Professional and Personal Lives at Mid-Career

According to participants, mid-career was an opportune time in their lives to have
a family or begin thinking of starting one. As both groups of participants discussed
support at mid-career, many commented on their families and how mid-career was a time
where changes in their professional lives were often mirrored by changes in their

personal lives. With 10 of the 15 interview participants indicating they had partners and

114

over half of them having children, I was also interested in how professionals who had
families or were thinking of starting a family were supported at mid-career. Survey
participants were not asked specific questions about the support at mid-career and
families but some did comment on it in their responses. The support many participants
discussed covered areas of support including supervisor, institutional, and the field of
student affairs which 1 detail more in Chapter Five.

With the majority of participants graduating from student affairs masters
programs, I also examined support and experiences of participants while in graduate
school in preparation for their first professional positions and into mid-career. Most
participants felt prepared for their first and second professional positions after completing
required graduate assistantships or internships. However, many still lamented the lack of
certain specific skills not taught or emphasized in most student affairs graduate programs.
In the following section, I examine the support mid-career participants with families
receive, and how prepared and supported participants felt after finishing their graduate
degree.

Families and Mid-Career

Many of the participants interviewed either had or were starting families at mid-
career. There were different opinions on how this affected participants at mid-career but
most agreed that mid-career was an important time for individuals to begin starting or
thinking of starting families. Some were concerned that even though the field expressed
support for individuals at mid-career who had families, the realities of how easily this
was accomplished were not always clear. In Roads Taken (2004) Marshall agreed,

concluding that the lack of research about women who are administrators and mothers,

115

was contributing to a climate of difficult decisions for women in student affairs who were
considering starting at family. Others felt that, much like the professional development
support, the issue was more institutional and supervisor specific. A number of
participants also expressed concern that because, for many, resources were shrinking and
workloads in the profession were increasing, without the support of the field, institutions,
and supervisors, mid-career was a difficult time to balance having a family and meeting
professional obligations.

Many of the participants, who were women, talked about the added difficulties
they faced in having families or thinking of starting a family. They said that they often
had to deal with feelings of guilt for leaving campus earlier than perhaps they used to
when they didn’t have children. “I was planning on having a child around Orientation and
it is perfect timing that I will not be having a baby around any big event. It definitely
impacted my life and decision of when to have a child” (Margaret T.). Some also felt
prejudice from other for being away on maternity leave, while others were bothered that
males in their divisions, who did not have families or were not the primary care taker,
would not consider issues like child care when scheduling meetings at particular times of
the day.

It is very frustrating sometimes because our work day begins at 9:00am

but frequently other people will organize meetings that start at 8:00am or

8:15am and it is generally a man. But when you have child care issues and

you don’t plan for your day to begin until 9:00am and are already staying

late and have maybe worked out with your spouse or partner to pick up

(the) child and all of the sudden you have an 8: 15am (meeting) you can’t

116

say ‘I have child care issues’ because for that person they don’t have the

same issue. . .it really frustrates me (emphasis added), I feel there are still a

lot of assumptions placed by people of what the expectations are.

(Margaret T.)

Another participant also felt a disparity still existed between men and women in
the profession, especially at mid-career. ”Often men who want to devote to their families
are wonderful guys but women who are doing that are just doing their job” (Julie 8.).

As in the earlier section about mid-career status versus entry-level positions, many agreed
that because they felt more comfortable in their position and had proven themselves
professionally they might occasionally skip the 8:15 am meeting or late night program.
However, feelings of guilt still registered for some participants when missing meetings or
programs they would have ordinarily attended.

A challenge for some female participants who had been away on maternity leave
or who had taken time away from their jobs to be with their families, was finding balance
between having a family now while still producing the same results on campus at work.
Some felt challenged to “re-identify” (Carrie P.) with their position almost as if their job
had changed entirely.

It was the hardest transition for me being able to feel good about working

when I am at work and when I leave at 5:00 going ‘oh you are leaving

now’ (emphasis added) or if I walk in at 8:10 am I still working my full

eight hours? (Carrie P.)

Another participant described feeling “shunned” (Francis H.) for having a family

outside of work. “I am pregnant right now. . .it concerns me about moving forward. I’ve

117

heard horror stories from colleagues about having a child or preparing to have a child and
they were unsupported ...it worries me a lot” (Margaret T.)

The challenge of balancing a family with mid-career also affected how some
participants spent their “free” time during the work day. One example included how
lunch hours before having a family might have been spent reading professional journals
or contributing to professional associations, but now were times spent checking on their
children at daycare or getting a prescription filled. “I am still giving you (the institution)
the same amount of work as you’re producing. I just produce it on different terms
(emphasis added)” (Francis H.). Another participant with children commented, “I put in
my 40 hours but often find myself doing an hour or two from home just reading emails or
documents” (Bill M.). He also commented on noticing how other people he worked with
would not invite him to participate in programs after hours because he had a family and
he believed they assumed he could never participate because he was picking up his
children. “Sometimes I struggle with providing support to staff but striking good balance.
If they feel guilty because my wife and kids are at home and I am out at an event I just
want to be there to support them” (Bill M.). The balance between work and family was a
continuing theme throughout the discussion about mid-career and family.

The balance often sought between personal and professional lives was a frequent
discussion by participants. Many felt the field of student affairs was publicly encouraging
and supportive of this balance but in reality the practice was much less defined. A major
challenge for one survey participant was the “demanding hours, juggling personal and
professional demands” Another participant commented her career in student affairs

would suffer if you choose to start a family at mid-career,

118

I truly don’t want to be in student activities even though that is where my

career has taken me. I would like to have a more normal work schedule

but if I head in the direction that my career would take me that would not

change. I know with children I would not be able to balance that very well,

I would do a disservice to my career. (Alice N.)

Some felt the balance of being good at work and at home was not rewarded at
their institutions or in the field. One interview participant felt one difference between
mid-career and entry-level was the ability to discover a balance and be comfortable in
expressing it to supervisors and others in the field. “As a mid-career professional (you)
learn to really fight for and be honest for what you really need not only personally but
professionally as well” (Alice N.).

Others saw mid-career as a time to really think more about personal goals in
addition to professional goals. Feeling more established in their professional lives,
participants felt more energy to focus on their personal lives. One example given was a
more directive job search that included positions with a more eight to five work schedule.
“I never wanted an 8-5 schedule, but now I do and have one because I specifically
searched for it” (Nancy J .). Several other participants described recent job searches where
they concentrated on positions that included more flexibility for their personal lives and
families. ‘My children come first’ was a comment repeated by several participants with
families. Another interview participant also felt there was not as much support given to
women in the field who have families or are thinking about starting a family. “There is

really not as much understanding as there could be for women in the field who choose to

119

have children. I feel like I’m running all the time to do both and there’s times when that
makes me angry” (Kathy S.).

The balance between personal and professional lives was an ongoing process that
many participants felt was unevenly supported in the field and at various institutions.
Ultimately, many participants did feel that working in higher education and student
affairs was a positive experience when trying to balance both personal and professional
responsibilities. Some participants based career decisions on what they believe the field
offered in terms of long-terrn flexibility with having a family.

My husband and I had job offers in different locations on the same day

and what we decided was my career would drive that decision because at

the level I was at and the work tasks would allow me to move my family

life forward. It was a difficult decision for me but it allowed us to start a

family. (Carrie P.)

A survey participant thought “having a spouse working in student affairs and raising a
family” was an additional major challenge professionally.

In a reverse of what most participants discussed about the balance of work and
family, a participant who left a career in the private sector to work at a university
commented on the family-friendly environment in higher education. “I have to admit I
am a little jaded because when people complain about it here I have to say oh wake up
you have no idea, the private sector is much worse for families” (Joyce E). This may
have been attributed to the fact that while most of the participants had considered
working in the private sector, none actually had. As participants discussed the impact of

having a family influenced their mid-career experience, other participants took a broader

120

view of their professional and personal lives and how the balance between the two is
sometimes difficult to achieve.
The Work/Life Balance at Mid-Career

The majority of the interview participants for this study had partners and/or
families. In their 2000 study of 1,293 mid-level administrators with a 10 campus
university system, Johnsrud, et al. (2000) found administrators’ perceptions of worklife
balance influenced worker morale. There were also some participants who either did not
have a family or partner. These participants also discussed professional and personal
balance in the field and how being single can impact that balance. Participants with
families and/or partners discussed how their professional lives changed to better
accommodate the changes in their personal lives. In a nod to what the future might hold
for participants wanting to advance in the field, Blimling (2000) found the SSAOs he
interviewed also lamented the loss of balance between their personal and professional
lives. Participants without partners or families expressed concerns about how their lives
often revolved around their professional lives which included feeling the expectation to
work extra hours and assume additional responsibilities then professionals with families.
Whether this was a perception or reality participants were often challenged by these
feelings.

When describing their work habits, many participants used the term “workaholic”
to describe their professional lives. Participants with families commented how this
description changed professionally once they got married or started a family. Some
sought positions that allowed the flexibility to raise a family, others looked to the

supervisor and department to assist in handling changes in their personal lives. Before

121

starting a family comments like “oh I’ll fill in that hole” (Slade L.) were echoed by
participants in handling sudden programmatic Changes or added responsibilities in their
departments. After starting families, many commented on understanding the personal
sacrifices they would sometimes make working in the field but balancing that changing
expectations for themselves and their staffs. “There is some personal sacrifice. . .it’s
important to maintain that balance” (Slade L.)

You have to say ‘no’ more often which means that you choose whether

you go home as opposed to staying on campus-this can cause internalized

guilt or friction with other coworkers/supervisors who perceive that you

should do what they do (stay on campus). (survey participant)
This balance even proved elusive to participants who did not have partners or families.

Finding the professional and personal balance in life was sometimes difficult for
participants without partners or families. One participant was concerned the amount of
time he spent at work would sometimes not permit him to pursue other professional
interests that would help prepare him for a senior-level position.

That’s really beginning to become an area of concern for me, making sure

I am spending time outside of work to build my scholarly portfolio. My

professional portfolio will speak for itself . . .but getting that other side

which I think is becoming more and more important as people are looking

for SSAOs. (George S.)
Using the increased amount of professional responsibilities was also cited as a way to

occasionally put less focus on personal lives.

122

I guess (I) avoid a personal life in some regards. It’s an interesting balance

that I have to be very conscious of. ...it’s easy for me to get wrapped up in

there and I forget to take care of myself in some regards so I need to be

more intentional about that. (Sarah F.)

While this was not unique to the participants without partners or families, they expressed
more concern about how much easier it is to lose the professional and personal balance.

Participants without partners or families generally agreed the field was supportive
of those who did have families. There was some concern about how taking personal time
away from campus was sometimes viewed differently for those without families. “I guess
expecting that the singletons take on more because of others having a life outside, I guess
you could say it is also a challenge” (Sarah P.) When asked if this feeling was entirely
real or self-imposed one participant agreed it was probably a combination of both. “I
think it is a combination. At the same time I know there is a greater expectation that I
step in rather than the person that has a daughter and wife to do things after hours” (Sarah
F.).

To combat losing balance between professional and personal lives, participants
without partners or families echoed similar statements made by other participants
concerning their current supervisors. Having supervisors who expressed clearly that
participants needed to find balance included things such as not coming in early the day
after a late evening program or taking time-off afier peak work times on campus were
mentioned. Participants agreed supervisors who took an active role in helping them

balance their professional and personal lives was the most significant factor in alleviating

123

this issue. Both groups of interview participants had many issues to consider when
thinking of moving to another institution.

The balance between professional and personal lives often aspired to by student
affairs was frequently elusive to many participants in this study. In a time of decreasing
support for higher education and smaller budgets, mid-career participants found it
increasingly difficult to achieve the professional and personal balance professionals
believe is necessary and the field publicly supports. Often this balance began before
professionals even reached mid-career either in their first position in student affairs or for
many participants during their graduate programs. In the next section, I discuss how the
mid-career experience was influenced by participants’ graduate school experience.

The Master’s Degree and Mid-Career

For most of the participants, the path to mid-career in student affairs traveled
through a master’s program in some variation with a student affairs focus. A few
participants had master’s degrees in disciplines outside of student affairs, two had
doctorate degrees, and one participant began working in student affairs while working on
her master’s degree in student affairs. The literature (Richmond & Sherman, 1991; Ward,
1995; Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985) discusses the importance of the master’s
program to retention and attrition in student affairs. These studies concentrated on new
professionals entering the field but suggested many of these individuals were ill-prepared
about professional field and career options (1991). Since many of the participants had
graduated from traditional masters programs in student affairs, in the following section I
detail participant experiences in their masters program and the professional preparation

they received for their career in student affairs and mid-career.

124

Nine of the 15 interview participants graduated from masters programs in student
affairs. Based on the information provided, 15 of the 19 completed survey participants
graduated from a traditional student affairs master’s program. One interview and two
survey participants completed graduate work in psychology but purposely sought
coursework and experience during their graduate training within student affairs. Another
interview participant, who did not have a master’s degree in student affairs, did complete
his doctoral work in higher education administration with an emphasis in student affairs.
Still another participant with a master’s in counseling chose to specialize in student
affairs coursework during her graduate program. Of the final three interview participants,
one has a master’s degree in communication studies, one has a master’s in mathematics,
and the final participant is currently working towards a master’s degree in management
and organizational development. The remaining two survey participants indicated they
had master’s degrees from programs other than student affairs.

Skills based programs. For the participants who graduated from a master’s
program in student affairs nearly everyone agreed they felt well-prepared initially as they
began their first position. This preparation tended to fall along two types of program
backgrounds: a skills-based approach or a theory-based emphasis. Both groups of
participants talked about how their master’s programs prepared them professionally and
which type of approach their graduate program emphasized.

In preparing students for professional work in student affairs, all of the interview
and most of the survey participants reported a requirement in their program for either an
internship or assistantship within student affairs or both. Among both groups of

participants, the majority reported having positive professional experiences in their

125

assistantships or internships. Most of the participants also reported at the time they
completed their masters programs in student affairs, their programs emphasized students
acquiring practical skills necessary for professional careers in the field. For many of the
survey and interview participants the more important part of their programs was the
practical experience they gained during the internships or assistantships. Comments
ranged from “pseudo work experience that served me well when I went out to look for a
job” (Frank B.), “it definitely prepared me for my first position” (Nancy J.), to “I felt very
prepared to step into a job because I had the knowledge background but I also had the
work experience” (Janet R). “I don’t think I could have been more prepared,” (survey
participant). “I had great preparation in (for) my first position” (survey participant).
These comments reflected the sentiment of participants who had a stronger skills
preparation in their master’s program.

A few other participants who were still required to hold an internship or
assistantship felt their programs were more theory based or, in one case, a balance of the
two. Survey participants were also asked how they could have been better prepared for
their first position in student affairs. While interview participants were not specifically
asked this question, responses from survey participants mirror the comments from the
interviews about needing more skills when entering the profession.

When asked what types of things would have better prepared participants for their
first position in student affairs, practical skills were mentioned by eight of the 19 survey
participants. This lack of professional development in specific skill areas was also
discussed by many interview participants. “More classes that were about actual skills,

rather than classes all about theory” and “there was no link of theory to practice, no

126

discussion about ‘the real student affairs world’ (purposeful preparation in practical
skills)” were examples of survey participant comments. Skills in supervision, budgets,
and dealing with campus politics were again the most popular responses given by survey
participants. Crisis management, assessment, and stronger link from theory to practice
were also mentioned by survey participants. “1 would have liked to learn more about how
to handle the bad things (i.e., student death, etc.) that happen and how to manage a crisis”
(survey participant). Another survey participant commented on assessment, “a ‘non-
scary’ discussion and examination of assessment-what is it, what does it look like, etc.”

The discussion of practical skills by survey participants corresponds to the
comments made by interview participants about what skills or experiences they believed
would translate outside of student affairs and higher education. Managing peeple,
budgets, and supervision were the skills most mentioned by interview participants.
According to participants these same skills were also what they believed helped
distinguish them from entry-level. A few survey participants did comment on needing
additional experience with higher education theories and linking those to actual practice.
From these few participants, only one did not graduate from a traditional student affairs
graduate program.

Theory-based programs. For those participants who felt they graduated from a
more theory-based graduate program in student affairs, all still believed they earned
enough skills to use in their first professional positions. One participant, who graduated
from a counseling based program, believed the theories he studied have continued to

serve him, “for me the communication skills I learned and student development theory

and counseling theories helped me throughout my career.” (Bill M.). Another commented

127

on the theoretical perspective he gained during his program which he believed gave him a
“knowledge base” to draw from but also hindered him professionally.

The institution I chose first off, and I found this with a number of different

institutions out there, they really want you to come to work, they want you

to do the programs but they don’t want you to reinvent things, they don’t

want you to jumpstart anything, they want you to kind of maintain as well.

So what my grad program taught me to do was to go in and assess the

situation, find the theoretical elements and the research that can show you

a, b, and c and you adapt your program accordingly. That doesn’t work

necessarily in the real world... that can sometimes really challenge me.

(Slade L.)

Another participant believed her graduate program was a good mixture of theory
and skills. “They had a great way of combining not only all the theory you are supposed
to know. . .but they did a great job of combining that with the practical nature of things”
(Sarah F.). Among survey participants, some also commented on the presence of a strong
supervisor or mentor during graduate school who helped prepare them professionally.

While most participants felt well-prepared for their professional careers after their
graduate program, one had a different experience in her program and first position. She
believed any graduate program in student affairs should not prepare anyone for their first
position but instead address the issue of work/life balance for new professionals. “It
should focus more on what I believe to be the hazing ritual of the first three years of the
professional career where new professionals give their lives to the job and don’t keep

some of it for themselves” (Carrie P.). She expanded this idea into the mid-career

128

timeframe for field. “We cultivate overachievers so when you get to the mid-level you
are suddenly challenged with how do I try to cultivate my life while still create my
identity on campus” (Carrie P.). The idea of work/life balance at mid-career was
discussed by many other participants in an earlier section examining how the field
supports mid-career professionals. This participant closed her comments by offering
optimism for graduate programs in how they prepared their students through their
internships or assistantships. “My hope is those practical experiences in a master’s
program offer (or) allow entry level professionals to evaluate how they are continuing to
become a professional being. Their assistantship allowing them to watch Directors and
Associate Directors in action” (Carrie P.).

There was one participant whose experience was atypical for all the other
participants in the study. She was already working in student affairs before she began her
master’s program in student affairs. She believed her program was more skills—based
when she attended because most of the faculty in the program had a practitioners
background within the field and were retiring as they taught in the program (Kathy 8.).

Even as their graduate programs and institutions differed, the majority of
participants graduating from traditional student affairs master’s programs felt well-
prepared to enter their first positions in student affairs. Participants who described their
programs as more skills-based felt better prepared than their counterparts who described
their graduate experience with a theoretical foundation. Those who had a different
educational background sought out practical experience within student affairs at their
institutions. While the professional preparedness in graduate school served participants

well in their positions, it did not appear to extend beyond that timeframe into mid-career.

129

Finally, the culture of over-achievers that one participant saw the field producing was
seen as a hindrance to how professionals found a work/life balance beginning in entry-
level but more so after reaching mid-career.
Summary of Chapter Four

In this chapter, I have taken the responses of both survey or interview participants
and begun to chronicle the experiences of mid-career professionals in student affairs. I
started the chapter by discussing characteristics that participants believe the field and
their own experiences contribute towards the definition of mid-career. From this
definition of mid-career, I examined the ambiguous role that many participants face at
mid-career in having entry-level tasks combined with higher-level expectations. I
concluded the chapter with a look at how participants define and exist at mid-career and
how this is further complicated by the balance and influence of their professional and
personal lives. Having begun to dissect the mid-career experience in student affairs, 1 will
continue in Chapter Five chronicling the experiences of participants by examining how
the different types of professional development can often lead to a candid assessment of

their future in the field.

130

CHAPTER FIVE
Professional Satisfaction at Mid-Career in Student Affairs
How participants in this study viewed the period at mid-career depended on different
factors that influenced their professional and personal lives. In Chapter Four, I detailed
how the struggle participants face in defining who they are as mid-career professionals
places them in a unique and conflicting position not typically found with entry or senior-
level professionals. In Chapter Five, I will examine the impact of this struggle by
detailing how participants’ confusion at mid-career has been influenced by their feelings
regarding their professional development. Participants’ professional development
experience at mid-career, coupled with existing identity confusion came to symbolize
feelings of dissatisfaction at mid-career and for many it was a time in their careers to
seriously consider their professional futures. Quite simply, as my research indicates, if
mid-career professionals do not feel professionally satisfied. for whatever reason, they
will consider leaving the field.
Professional and Personal Support at Mid-Career

Every participant, who either took a survey or did an interview in my study, also
participated in an institute geared towards mid-career professionals in student affairs.
Throughout the discussions with study participants about the mid-career experience, no
topic elicited as much emotion and thought as did the topic of professional development.
Many discussed their affiliations and connections with various professional associations
in the student affairs field, as well as the importance of their relationships with their
supervisors and institutions in developing professionally. Yet, for all of their participation

in professional associations and the emphasis placed on outside forces influencing

131

professional development, almost every participant commented on how poorly it was
being accomplished at mid-career. For participants, the existence of professional
development at mid-career was not a reality in their careers. Instead, it was viewed as a
perception that student affairs and institutions believed was benefiting mid-career
professionals.

The field supports professional development by sponsoring conferences and
institutes that include mid-career professionals. Supervisors believe professional
development happens either intentionally or indirectly because they supervise mid-career
professionals. The institutions provide funding and occasional professional development
opportunities on campus for all levels of professionals, which sometimes includes mid-
career individuals. However, after listening to mid-career professionals discuss where and
how professional development occurs, the reality appears much different from the current
perception offered from the field, supervisors, and institutions. In fact, the absence of
professional development had a negative impact on the mid-career period. .

If the field, supervisors, and institutions believe professional development occurs
at mid-career, yet participants cite the lack of professional development by any source as
a major obstacle at mid-career in student affairs, why is there such a discrepancy between
the two beliefs? And if professional development is not occurring to the extent
supervisors, institutions, and the field believes, then where is it happening and how?
Finally, if mid—career professionals do not believe professional development is occurring
to meet their needs, then does this influence the decision to remain in or leave the field?
While the interview and survey results do not completely answer these questions they do

provide some insight into what is occurring right now. Additionally, they provide specific

132

examples from the experiences of participants indicating how the lack of professional
development could affect their future as mid-career student professionals.

Both the surveys and in-depth interviews began to reveal a potentially important
issue for the future of the student affairs field, which was that of professional
development at mid-career. While participants also pointed to other issues that affected
their decision to remain or leave the field, professional development must be considered
equally as important as other factors to the issue of attrition. Many of the participants
cited mid-career as a time to assess career goals, personal commitments, and their future
in the field. If the lack of consistent professional development at mid-career was
considered by participants as a critical issue, then this issue, coupled with familiar issues
affecting attrition, such as salaries and campus politics (Evans, 1988; Hancock, 1988;
Lorden, 1998) had the potential to create a serious problem for the future professional
vitality of the field. The survey and interview data in this chapter construct an important
indication of where the future of the field might lead if the issue of professional
development at mid-career is not re—examined. Mid-career professionals in student affairs
are the backbone of the field, and a significant decrease in their numbers would create a
potential vacuum of talent in higher education.

I begin Chapter Five with a look at four different types of professional support
that participants discussed from the surveys and interviews. Supervisor and institutional
support were the two biggest sources of professional support for mid-career participants.
However, support from the supervisor was identified as the most important influence for
professionals at mid-career. I continue the chapter with comments from participants on

the importance of institutional professional support and how much it varies from

133

institution to institution. I then examine how participants viewed the responsibility of the
field in providing professional development for mid-career individuals. I end this section
on professional support with participant comments on the responsibility of individuals on
their own professional development and how it took shape for many of them. Because the
majority of both survey and interview participants were female, in the next section of the
chapter, I examine the experiences of women at mid-career. I also include comments
from a few participants of color and their experiences at mid-career.

In the second part of the chapter, I detail how participants felt about staying or
leaving student affairs while at mid-career. I include a discussion of how the skills and
experiences of mid-career professionals translate outside of student affairs and higher
education. I end the chapter with an important examination of the issue of retention in the
field of student affairs and how the mid-career period can be the most frequent time for
professionals to think about leaving the field. This includes frequent mention by
participants of themes covered in this and the previous chapter, such as professional
support, work/life balance, and feeling rooted in two worlds. Participants coupled the
discussion of retention with suggestions of how the field and institutions could keep mid-
career professionals engaged and retained in student affairs.

As student affairs professionals transition into a mid-career or mid-management
timeframe the support they require or seek out professionally often changes from their
time as a new professional. In the early 19805, in her research on mid-level
administrators, Austin (1984) called on higher education to “improve opportunities for
professional growth.” According to study participants, professional support can come in

many different forms, involving different people, and be either directly or indirectly

134

related to current professional goals. How individuals get the support and from whom can
be as varied as the types of positions found in the student affairs field. However, one
thing was clear from the interviews; the support is necessary and essential to the
professional grth and satisfaction of mid-career individuals. For the interview
participants the most frequently cited area of support was with supervisors. In contrast,
supervisor support was not mentioned with the same frequency among survey
participants who tended to discuss the support coming more from the field and
institutions. In the following sections, I examine the different types of professional
support discussed by participants. Four particular areas of support are highlighted and
discussed: supervisor, institutional, the field of student affairs, and individual.
Additionally, emphasis was given to participants who identified as persons of color and
women in the field.
Supervisor Support and Mid-Career

No area of professional support among interview participants had more mention
and emphasis placed on its importance then that of the supervisor. The relationship was
also not bound by career period as participants cited its importance as new professionals
and when progressing to senior level student affairs positions. It was at times paired with
some of the other three areas of professional support mentioned but continued in a more
prominent role in the professional development of mid-career individuals. Simply put,
positive, strong, and encouraging support from a supervisor(s) was identified as a critical
step in the professional development at mid-career. Words like crucial, essential, and
vital were used to stress the importance of professional development support from a

supervisor.

135

Often the first influence of a supervisor came before mid-career when participants
were still in their first or second positions. Harned and Murphy (1998) advocated
strengthening the relationship of student affairs and institutions with new professionals
and supervisors to combat new professionals leaving the field. By developing individuals
even before they reach mid-career, supervisors assist in professional development early-
on and create a foundation that continues into other career periods. “I believe it is
incumbent of supervisors to be cultivating the entry and mid-level” “You keep good
people by allowing them to grow themselves.” (Carrie P.). “At the time (entry-level) I
had a very good supervisor who spent a lot of time mentoring me and helping me learn
more about my position as well as student affairs as a profession” (survey participant).
This entry level grth from supervisors often translated into the mid-career place in
which many of the participants now reside. In her 1992 research, Komives suggested
mid-career professionals be mentored during this time to assist their professional
development. Once reaching mid-career the emphasis on support from supervisors took
on even greater importance as participants discussed how this had affected their
development.

As many participants cited the importance of supervisor support during mid-
career not everyone had that support currently and many saw it unevenly distributed
across the field. Either from personal experience or in talking with colleagues in the field,
many participants did not believe this was occurring. One interview participant
mentioned after talking to MMI (Mid-Managers Institute) participants he did not get the
sense it was occurring across the field (Slade L). Additionally, he believed if it was

happening then “it’s occurring coincidentally rather then by design” Another interview

participant talked about friends who are mid-managers in the field and are not given the
opportunity to grow and develop (George S.). A survey participant commented “Real
support would include supervisors having discussions with those that they supervise
about their career plans. . .supervisors would actually do what they could to get the
subordinate experiences that they need and want.” Most participants who commented on
supervisors echoed the sentiment that Joyce B. expressed about the role a supervisor
plays in an individual’s development “is an investment in the person and in the
organization.” Or simply put by Nancy J ., “It really depends on who you have in your
comer.”

Reasons for why this might not occur were varied but in particular, some
commented they felt supervisors believed if professionals are at mid-career then they
should have a certain skill set (e. g., budgets, managing people, supervision) and
experience, and do not require any additional training or professional development.
Supervisors who were not interested in progressing professionally themselves were also
cited by many participants as a reason for the lack of support. “If a supervisor is not
comfortable in seeing the potential in someone and developing those resources for him or
her it can also hinder professional development.” (Nancy J.) Supervisors who are
involved professionally in the field also might be the ones who are taking an interest in
the development of mid-career individuals. Responses in how development might occur
were different but many agreed it should happen with the supervisor.

There were a number of suggestions given as to how supervisors might better
support mid—career professionals. One participant commented that supervisors should

simply build into the job responsibility the expectation that individuals should be

137

evaluated by their supervisor to see if they are meeting professional development
activities and goals (Francis H.). Most saw it as conversations that happened on a regular
basis to find out what is working and what they need. This expectation included
conversations about educational goals and professional development opportunities.
Sometimes it was as minor as presenting professional development opportunities that are
in the field to individuals and letting them choose how to respond. Or realizing potential
and pointing that out to individuals. All of these suggestions translated into better
preparing individuals professionally in their current position but many also saw it as
important to their next position, whether that was in or out of the field.

Many interview participants agreed that supervisors should be preparing mid-
career professionals for either moving up, moving out, or moving on. Even if someone
does not recognize what the next step is, supervisors should be preparing individuals to
better answer that question when the time arises. Supervisors who better prepare their
employees for their next step were seen as important and effective in the career
development of individuals, especially at mid-career. Finally, the support supervisors
providing also affects how current mid-career professionals work with the individuals
they supervise, who are the future mid-career and senior student affairs professionals.

I have learned from my best supervisors ever that as a younger

professional and mid-career professional if I am not preparing GAs

(graduate students) and younger professionals to move on beyond this I

am not doing them a service to our profession. (Alice N.)

138

It is them (supervisors) that really need to pay attention to what I really need to do

to prepare this person to move up or move out, or to get a degree, something to

that effect, realize the potential and point it out. (Nancy J.)

I truly feel a good supervisor is thinking where are you heading next, whether that

be at the same institution with added responsibilities or a new position, moving on

from the institution to do something better. (Alice N.)

These final three participant quotes are telling indications from this entire section.
If supervisors are not helping in the professional development of mid-career individuals
they are doing a disservice to the field. But are supervisors the only source for
professional development at mid-career? What role, if any, do institutions have in the
professional development of mid-career professionals? In the next section I examine
participant reactions to the role institutions have with professional development.
The Institution and Mid-Career

Professional support from supervisors generated the most discussion among
participant interviews. Most participants viewed supervisor support as an important piece
in their professional development at mid-career whether they intended to stay in mid-
career or move in to senior level positions within the field. Often in conjunction with
supervisor support but sometimes separately, participants also discussed support from
their respective institutions. While not always seen as crucial as supervisor support,
participants expected some professional support at mid-career to come from their
institutions either through a student affairs division or a university-wide program. Similar
research on faculty vitality also called on institutions to support the professional

development especially at mid-career (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981, 1983; Karpiak,

139

1996). Participant responses to how their current or former institutions supported them
professionally at mid-career were varied. However, many participants felt professional
development was not happening at their institutions at a level benefiting them in their
mid-career position and beyond.

It was not clear from interview participants why some institutions provide
professionals support at mid-career and others do not but many agreed that institutions
should be providing some type of support. Among survey participants, many believed
institutions also had a role in providing professional support at mid-career. Some
commented that good institutions realize the need for professional development and
provide opportunities for staff. “If the institution is doing what it should be doing
(emphasis added) yes I think. . .there’s a responsibility for the institution to do it.” (Slade
L.). “The institution should expose me to different opportunities to expand my
role/skills. . .the institution I’m affiliated with does not do anything to support my growth
and development” (survey participant).

For participants, another important factor influencing their ability to engage in
professional development depended on if their institution even supported professional
development activities at all. “You are on your own at the institutional level here”
(survey participant). “My institution does not help me at all in advancing me in the field,
except to give me more job responsibilities on top of what I already have” (survey
participant). Some attributed professional development to current funding levels or the
leadership within the department or division, which was consistently mentioned by

survey and interview participants. Overall, many participants felt that institutions were

140

not providing professional development opportunities for staff including mid-career
individuals.

Of the institutions mentioned that were providing professional development
opportunities, many participants believed how much or how little they received also
depended on the type of institution for which one was currently working. Participants
from some large public campuses with large student affairs divisions had developed
intentional professional development programs for all staff including mid-career. One
institution has a position created by the Vice-President of Student Affairs who
specifically worked with staff development within the division. Another has a committee
established for professional development within the student affairs division. However, the
same participant commented that while they have a committee designed to create these
opportunities they are not allowed to engage in these activities during regular work hours.
She expressed concern that most individuals would not give up their personal time to
attend professional development activities (Francis H.). A survey participant discussed a
mid-level leadership development program offered at her institution for faculty, staff, and
administrators.

However, size of institution was not consistent with professional development
opportunities as other large institutions had no intentional professional development
programs in place. The apparent lack of consistency was considered part of the reason
why some campuses offered professional development opportunities while others did not.
One survey participant believed the professional support given to administrators should
equal what is provided for faculty. “This is difficult to do when faculty support is primary

and the resources are spread too thin. That support should mirror the support given to

141

faculty.” Perhaps large campuses were too big to create and implement effective
professional development programs and instead delegated that responsibility to individual
divisions or departments within the institution. This could further explain the importance
participants placed on supervisors who supported them professionally at mid-career.

With the many different types of institutions it was felt that higher education and
the field was too broad and varied for each institution to offer professional development
opportunities for everyone. “I believe that the support that the field could offer would be
in similar sized institutions providing newer experiences or add more depth to their org.
(organizational) charts” (survey participant). Additionally, some practitioners in the
student affairs field do not come from an academic background with a student affairs
emphasis which causes disparity among individuals. Understanding the different routes
participants took to reach mid-career in student affairs, some believed colleagues in their
own divisions or even outside the division should be reaching out to mid-career
professionals from around the institution to provide professional development
opportunities. This shared responsibility, as many participants viewed it, was consistent
with an intentional effort at professional development that involved institutions and
supervisors. This effort was sometimes modeled after other institutions or outside of
higher education.

Examining how institutions could create and implement professional development
opportunities for mid-career professionals, participants drew from their experience with
different models. Some looked internally and suggested looking at the student affairs
models with which they work with students within their own departments. The training

and development opportunities created for students by professional staff could also be

142

translated to other departments within the student affairs division or other areas within
the institution.

Tapping into other departments either within a student affairs division or in the
greater institution, such as career centers or counseling centers was another suggestion.
Looking outside of higher education at private or corporate industry was also suggested.
Retreats and the multiple staffing opportunities the private sector sometimes provides
were suggested as a model for higher education. The suggestions varied as much as the
participants but almost all agreed professional development for everyone including mid-
career individuals was a multi-layered endeavor.

Ultimately, one of the most important parts of mid-career professional
development at institutions was attributed to working with students. More than one
participant commented on the impact their own professional development would not only
have on their development but also how they worked with students. Some saw the
opportunities extended to them as a “trickle down” (Bill M.) benefit to the students at
their institutions in providing better service and attention. With the addition of mid-career
professional development at each institution participants saw themselves as better
educators because they were practicing, learning, and doing new and different things (Bill
M.). “My philosophy is the more time and attention, training and development we
provide our staffs we serve our students better.” (Bill M.). The sentiment shared by Bill
M. speaks to the core of how professional development at all career timeframes,
especially mid-career, can benefit not only mid-career professionals but everyone around

them.

143

Even though it was not clear from participants why some institutions provided
professional support at mid-career and others did not, many participants discussed
examples of professional support at their institutions. Many of these institutions were
creating intentional professional development opportunities for mid-career professionals
often originating from a division or department. Ways to accomplish professional
development at mid-career drew from different sources, in and outside of higher
education. Often viewed as an individual benefit, professional development was also seen
to benefit the group of individuals student affairs professionals influence the most,
students. Even as supervisors and institutions were viewed as the largest influences on
professional development, participants did not discount the impact of the field and
individuals on their development.

The Individual and Student Affairs at Mid-Career

Though many participants discussed the importance of supervisor and
institutional support for professional development at mid-career, there were some who
believed the field of student affairs and individuals themselves also played a role in this
development. In some instances the level of support was multi-faceted depending on the
situation of the individual. While this area of questioning for interview participants did
not elicit the same strong responses as the discussion about supervisor and institutional
support, participants shared some important thoughts about this topic. One issue became
clear in the responses from both groups, regardless of their institution and/or position, the
importance of receiving support for professional development at mid-career did not

change as it related to individuals and the field of student affairs.

144

Since all of the survey and interview participants had attended one of two MMI
(Mid-Managers Institute) there was some level of belief in how the field of student affairs
can support individuals professionally. What was less clear was how much or how little
the support was benefiting individuals or how much of it was targeted to mid-career
professionals. Many participants felt it was more difficult to find professional
development opportunities for mid-career individuals than it was for entry-level or senior
professionals. “The student affairs field needs to provide training in the area of career
advancement (or deciding whether to advance). It seems that a lot of professionals
stagnate at this stage because they don’t have professional development opportunities to
advance their careers” (survey participant). Some participants felt what was currently
offered for professional development in the form of workshops or sessions at conferences
they had already attended or been part of. One interview participant commented there
was less out there (in the field) that met her needs. She also felt as she progressed in her
career her needs were more specialized (Julie 8.). The issue of fewer professional
opportunities for mid-career compared to entry and senior-level practitioners was
frequently cited by participants.

Another interview participant also felt because of the type of field she was in
(student affairs) that the field must be part of the professional development but did
believe the field was as supportive with professional development needs as it could be
and that perhaps some of the professional statements need to be re-thought (Margaret T.).
“It (the student affairs field) would support more programs such as ACPA Mid-Level
Managers Institute and provide more resources (job search information, relocation info)

as well as they do for SSAO’s and entry level participants” (survey participant). Another

145

survey participant echoed this sentiment, “There is professional development at
conferences; however, most are aimed towards new and seasoned professionals.” Others
felt the support was there but was less formalized within the field and more personalized
with professionals talking to other professionals at different institutions.

The individual conversations that occurred between professionals in the field
often took place at conferences and institutes sponsored by professional associations.
Some participants felt more comfortable engaging in dialogue through individual
conversations compared to other types of support they had received. As is often the
situation at conferences there is ample opportunity to engage colleagues from similar
institutions or in similar positions. Several interview participants felt even at MMI they
gained more from the unscheduled and informal conversations with other colleagues than
the actual sessions offered. Survey participants mentioned informal interactions with
colleagues much less frequently during participant interviews.

For some participants the informal conversations among colleagues even
extended to the specific MMI they attended. One interview participant commented she
was not in the same personal situation as many MMI participants but she found in talking
with people who were helping sponsor the institute some common experiences arose, “It
was really nice to hear somebody could do it on the same kind of path that is not very
traditional.” (Nancy J .). Another felt even the larger professional associations like
NASPA were more conducive and almost supported the informal conversations that took
place at professional conferences and institutes. “I think it’s a question of anybody who
goes to NASPA and sits at a table and has a conversation there’s value there. . .but I think

it really is just focusing in on helping a person achieve their goals and the way you do

146

that is through personal conversations and revelation” (Slade L.). The support of the field
is present, if not in a formal setting such as a conference or institute, sometimes in the
ability to talk informally with colleagues about what happens in the field.

According to participants, things like engaging with colleagues, receiving support
from supervisors, or institutions all played a part in the professional development of mid-
career individuals. With this in mind, almost all participants commented on the individual
responsibility of professionals in the field of student affairs to also work towards their
own professional development, often in conjunction with other areas of support but
occasionally on their own. Many participants saw value in attending conferences,
institutes, talking with colleagues, or involving themselves professionally at their
institutions. Regardless of their professional situation, many participants felt the ultimate
responsibility lies with the individual to take the knowledge or skills gained and apply it
to their daily professional and personal lives.

Several participants discussed how opportunities had less value to them if they did
not use the newly acquired knowledge to improve their daily practice. They also felt
challenged sometimes in how to use the knowledge or skills they gained through
professional development. One interview participant commented that understanding how
to apply new ideas and skills learned at professional conferences for her own institution
was not always open and clear. She also felt unless the senior leadership in her division
supported a new idea it might be harder to implement on their campus. “Now that I think
about it at our level (mid-career) it is harder to get that new idea (across) unless the VP
(of student affairs) jumps on it as well” (Mary S.). A survey participant often saw senior-

level professionals in the field less concerned with development because of how they

147

advanced professionally. “Many of them (SSAOs) progressed through the ranks without
such support and perhaps may not see the need for it for others” (survey participant).
Other times it was a question of what skills or knowledge they need for the next position
or their own personal growth. This required participants to be more self-sufficient and
rely on themselves instead of their supervisor or institution.

In an ever increasing need to assume more individual responsibility for
professional development, participants expressed how much of a serious effort it was to
realize what skills and abilities they have now and what skills they need for the next
position.

I had (to) seek out those opportunities to see... to realize ‘ok these are the

skills I have what do I need to have, whether it be for the next position or

my personal growth’ it has to be a combination there in. (Sarah F.)

Another participant commented that while the responsibility falls on the
individual sometimes it is not clear how to proceed. “The ultimate responsibility falls on
the individual. (The) thing is they have to figure out how to do it” (Janet R.). Among
survey participants, some commented on the increasing need to fund their professional
development with personal funds. “Digging deep into my own pockets to attend a less
popular or well known meeting/conference is OK — but I wish someone else was helping
out. . .in terms of financing such opportunities” (survey participant). Individual
responsibility and financial assistance were not the only concerns for the participants. In
trying to expand what mid-career professionals learn from professional development,

there was a call to share that knowledge at their home institutions.

148

Several interview participants expressed that professional development also had
to be a continuous process that involved not only attending conferences or institutes once
a year but also then using that information. “Oh look where going to ACPA or NASPA
this year and we are done with our professional development. . .as long it (professional
development) is happening year round” (Janet R.). Regardless of how they pursued
professional development or what kind of support they received many participants
viewed it much as Bill M. and George S. did.

Definitely has to do with the individual because I could have all the

opportunities presented to me in the world but if I’m not willing to take on

the challenge of growing even being open to those opportunities, I won’t

benefit from them. (George S.)

I think as professionals we all have to have our own initiatives. We can’t

leave a grad program and just assume we will pick up the skills and

knowledge needed to sustain a career. There has to be some initiative on

our part to continue reading, to continue to set professional development

goals and we have taken some ownership of it. (Bill M.)

The idea of support for professional development is not an issue that mid-career
individuals rely on throughout their career. It becomes a combination of professional and
personal influences that involves individual desire to seek out and use those
opportunities; it also includes outside support from individuals, institutions, or
associations that are prominent in the lives of mid-career professionals. But what happens
when the professional development support is not present or does not meet the needs of

individuals? All the more identifiable sources of support were either non-existent or

149

inconsistent. Supervisors did not encourage or support development, institutions did not
develop resources, and the field was incompatible with mid-career needs. If it was left to
individuals to discover their own development and they were unclear of how to proceed
in their own professional development then the opportunities for career dissatisfaction
likely increase. This situation was compounded for participants who identified as either
women and/or people of color.
Women and People of Color at Mid-Career

Even though it was not a particular focus of the study, particular attention was
paid to how women and people of color were supported professionally and personally at
mid-career in student affairs. I explored how mid-career professionals in the field who
identified as women and/or persons of color felt about their current position, achieving
higher level positions, and professional support at mid-career. Because 11 of the 15
interview participants and 13 of the 19 completed survey participants were women,
emphasis in the section is placed on the responses of these participants. With only two of
the15 interview participants and five of the 19 completed survey participants identifying
themselves as people of color, I will discuss their reactions to mid-career support in less
detail understanding the limitation this has on the study. One common thread found in the
responses from most of the women and a few persons of color were perceived pressures
for both groups that were both internal and external. I will discuss this phenomenon in
greater detail later in the section.

Even with the demands placed on women in the field at mid-career many of the
participants felt women had made great strides in the field, including more women in

senior leadership positions and a greater ability to continue working in the field after

150

starting a family. Many of the women interviewed had children and did feel supported in
their current positions. Most attributed the support to their current supervisor who knew
how they performed and was comfortable in allowing a flexible schedule. However,
several women in that situation felt the reason their supervisor supported this
environment was they had already proved themselves capable in their position and were
not as concerned about getting the “j ob” done. However, women who had families or
were starting families expressed concern about an increasing number of women in senior
leadership positions who did not have families. It is interesting to note while
acknowledging the increase in senior-level women as a positive step, some participants
thought it also brought about a negative consequence.

The phenomenon of more women in senior leadership positions who had either no
children or adult children who no longer lived in the same household was perceived as a
negative influence on the balance between professional and personal lives. One
participant acknowledged the increasing number of women in leadership positions but
was struck by the number of these women who did not have children. “Women are
obtaining leadership positions in ways they did not maybe 30-40 years ago but I wonder
sometimes at what cost? ...it seems to me the women in leadership positions (in student
affairs) don’t (have children) or have grown children.” (Julie S.). After attending an MMI
another participant commented on the number of female faculty who did not have
families.

They had fast-tracked themselves by moving jobs about every three years,

literally every three years, they were really skipping place to place. The

only people who were married were the men and the only people who had

151

kids were men, none of the women who were faculty were married or had

kids, they were senior practitioners. (Kathy S.)

One interview participant commented about working with two different vice-
presidents in student affairs at the same institution, the first who had no children and the
second who had two adult children who were not living at home. “There is really not as
much understanding there as there could be for women in the field who choose to have
children” (Kathy 8.). She continued by sharing something her Vice-President said to her
during a candidate search at her institution. “At one point during the director search my
VP said to me she was like ‘you know having you have two kids and a husband who
commutes it is just too much.’ I thought, that is an interesting comment. What she meant
in her comment was it was too many responsibilities for me outside of work.” This
participant also suggested how the expectations on women are different from their male
counterparts in the field.

Some of the women in the study often felt in the middle because they were treated
differently from their male colleagues and supervisors. To one interview participant the
stereotypes of women as nurturing and caring individuals were still being perpetuated in
the field, “there is an expectation that women continue to give, not just with kids” (Julie
8.). Another interview participant saw a different stereotype reinforced with women who
were learning to be assertive as managers or supervisors. She felt many women do not
enter the field with solid management skills and begin gaining them at mid-career, but
they also get viewed as the “care takers for students” (Alice N.). Because many women in
student affairs are not given those skills early on in their career it becomes difficult to

“find that role without being called the “b” word or being looked at as the mean person

152

around the office” (Alice N.). Another interview participant took a more localized view
of how women were treated.

It is institutional dependant but I do find that the men I have worked with

or under, they tend to be very traditional and do not look at women as

capable. . .men in leadership positions that were either direct supervisors or

high up in the administrative level that I felt did not treat me as an equal.

(Nancy J.)

As many participants believed stereotypes for women still existed in the field,
participants of color also had similar feelings about their experiences as mid-career
professionals working in student affairs.

Participants of color working at predominately white institutions felt pressures
from being the only one or two individuals who were not white in their departments or
divisions. Interestingly, participants thought the pressures they felt about their situation
was both an internal and external pressure. One interview participant felt pressure as one
of only two persons of color in her department. “I know I have to work a little bit harder
to be seen as an equal at times and that could again be my own personal hang-ups” (Sarah
F .). Setting an example for other people of color was also mentioned by another
participant. “An internal or self-made pressure is my want to be an excellent example to
other black males. . .because I think all students benefit in seeing a black male with a
doctorate degree in a senior position at any institution” (George 8.). While internal
pressure about being a person of color was felt by participants, there was more pressure

felt from their department, division, and institution.

153

External pressure seemed to extend externally for participants in other ways. One
participant believed people of color in student affairs have made great efforts to reduce
pressure but still felt that inside and outside the field people of color are still looked at
more closely then their white counterparts. As an African-American male the participant
felt an added pressure to succeed.

I think also externally, people of color, and I will say specifically men, are

looked at more intensely. . .under a greater degree of scrutiny than others,

that’s just part of everyday life for me as an African-American male, in the

academy and outside of the academy. (George S.)

The participant also recounted how this pressure was sometimes real for him as he
moved further in his career in student affairs. “1 have experienced already here at this
institution there are some people who have a problem with me (emphasis added) and
there is no other basis for it besides me being a black male” (George S.). The internal and
external pressures did not deter any participant from achieving success but was an added
dimension to their mid-career position that other white participants did not face. A survey
participant also commented on how individuals outside of her division made her feel as
she needed to prove her ethnicity and skills to the institution.

My colleagues felt that I have the capability to be the director of an office,

but I feel that there are students and other administrators who feel that I’m

not “Black” enough to appeal or empathize with Afiican-American

students on campus and with other students of color for that matter.

(survey participant)

154

According to participants, support at mid-career came from various areas and
individuals. Even as participants viewed support from supervisors and institutions as the
most critical to mid-career, many were not encouraged in how that was occurring.
Participants also saw support from the field as inconsistent and lacking for mid-career
professionals versus their entry and senior-level counterparts. Mid-career persons of color
and women in the study encountered additional difficulties receiving support not often
felt by their mid-career Caucasian and male counterparts. The discussion about support at
mid-career was not limited to professional affiliations and institutions. The issue of
professional support coupled with the balance of their personal lives often lead
participants to consider their future in the field. If participants were feeling confusion
about their mid-career identity and the professional development support was inadequate
at mid-career, these issues combined to create an unsatisfactory experience for mid-career
professionals. And as many participants had already noted, mid-career was a period that
many considered an appropriate time to begin thinking about their professional future.

Why Student Aflairs Professionals Stay or Leave, and How to Keep Them

Why was mid-career a time for many participants to evaluate their futures in
student affairs? Because many participants had to combat losing balance between
professional and personal lives, so often a concern for student affairs professionals at any
career timeframe. This evaluation process affected both participants with or without
partners or families and crossed gender lines. When asked what would alleviate this
pressure, the one unifying agreement among participants on what or whom had the
biggest impact on finding and maintaining this balance was with their supervisors. This

more then any other issue involving attrition and retention in the field had the greatest

155

influence on participant satisfaction. The supervisor/mid-career relationship appeared to
be the single best way to combat attrition and the worst possible issue affecting retention.

The supervisor/mid-career relationship included having supervisors who
expressed clearly that participants needed to find balance, for example by not coming in
early the day after a late evening program or taking time-off after peak work times on
campus. Participants agreed supervisors who took an active role in helping them balance
their professional and personal lives were the most significant factor in alleviating this
issue. Interview participants with families had many issues to consider when thinking of
moving to another institution. The pressures of balancing professional and personal lives
at mid-career, the occasional lack of adequate professional support, and push to advance
into senior-level positions often lead participants not to only re-evaluate their careers but
also consider leaving the field of student affairs entirely. In the next several sections, I
examine how these pressures felt by participants and their responses affect the important
issues of attrition and retention in student affairs.
Attrition in Student Affairs at Mid-Career

As many participants discussed in previous sections, mid-career was a time to
evaluate their professional and personal lives. Twenty-five years ago, Arnold (1982)
advocated firrther study of mid-career professionals in student affairs because it was a
time of building employment dissatisfaction, with many participants in this study
expressing similar feelings. Many participants reached mid-career and started families,
while others started doctoral programs. Some participants also viewed this time as an
opportunity to consider their career path and whether or not it meant continuing to work

in the same fimctional area or in the field. Mid-career was an important time for

156

participants to begin thinking about or even making important decisions that could impact
the future of the field. In this section, I present responses from participants of both groups
about their feelings of leaving or staying in the field at mid-career. I also examine the
responses of participants surrounding being at the place called “mid-career” and how this
important time in their professional lives is often filled with feelings of excitement,
anxiety, hope, and confusion about what the next phase of their lives might hold.

After talking about leaving or staying in the field at mid-career many participants
had considered it since reaching mid-career but among this small sample most were
content to remain in student affairs. Rosser (2004) found among 4000 mid-level
administrators, the higher the mid-level leaders’ satisfaction, the less likelihood of them
leaving the field. There more of the interview participants who stated unequivocally they
would never leave the field compared to those who stated they had considered leaving the
field. The survey participants were more unbalanced in their response to leaving the field.
Seventeen of the 23 survey participants or 75% indicated they had thought about leaving
the field of student affairs entirely and many of the 17 considered leaving in just the last
year alone. As not all participants expressed a desire to leave, there were also some
participants who discussed why they would not leave the field.

Participants who discussed never leaving the field used phrases like “I am pretty
rooted in the field” (Slade L.), “I have never thought about it, I will do this forever”
(Carrie P), “that is what I am drawn to and passionate about” (Margaret T.), or “I’m good
at what I do and it feels good to have an impact” (survey participant). However, even
those participants who offered a few reasons why they might consider leaving the field,

ultimately made comments like “I guess there could be some family or other

157

circumstances that could force me out but I plan to be here” (Bill M.) or “That’s (leaving
the field) really hard because I don’t know that I would” (Slade L.). Among interview
participants who discussed leaving the field, most had no immediate plans to leave the
field at any point in the near future. While this was good news for the profession, among
those same participants there were some intriguing reasons discussed that would make
the decision to leave the field an easier one.

The participants who considered leaving the field entirely discussed a familiar
pattern in why they would leave: issues of campus politics and low salaries. Even as
participants agreed getting increased compensation did not factor heavily into their
decision to enter the field, most still expressed concern that current salaries were not
adequate for the amount of work produced. Austin (1985) studied different categories to
determine job satisfaction of 260 mid-level administrators. Among other indications,
Austin found extrinsic characteristics such as salary level had an impact on job
satisfaction. However, this seem to be contradicted by Rosser’s (2004) study, which
found mid-level leaders who were paid higher salaries had a lower level of morale. In
support of Austin’s research from 20 years prior, salaries at mid-career were still
considered an important and influential issue for many participants.

Participants often cited anecdotal data from the private sector or informal
discussions with friends outside of higher education when discussing how much less
student affairs professionals were earning. One interview participant even cited research
data that reported how student affairs professionals are “horrendously paid” (Julie 8.).
While most interview participants did not comment as strongly about feeling underpaid,

it was an issue that still resonated with participants even at mid-career. When discussing

158

challenges in the field and leaving the field entirely, 10 of the 19 completed survey
participants listed salaries and compensation as one of the biggest reasons impacting that
decision. One survey participant commented, “Poor compensation for increased
responsibilities or hours.” Another survey participant cited how the lower compensation
affects her personally, “I just had a 2nd child and am having a hard time paying for
daycare and a mortgage on a student affairs salary.” Finally, one survey participant also
compared her compensation to other positions within her own department on a more local
basis. “There is a HUGE salary gap between me and the next position higher. I do not
feel respected in my current position.”

The perception of lower salaries in the field did generate some discussion among
all participants but the issue of campus or institutional politics also seemed to generate
similar responses from participants. Many interview participants felt one of the reasons
they were unsure of or not interested in advancing to senior-level positions was because
of the political climate at some institutions. Among survey participants, campus or
institutional politics was also a popular response for a reason to leave the field although it
was not as popular as the issue of compensation. When describing campus politics,
participants described the red-tape, bureaucracy, and senior-level administrators that they
felt impeded their work on campus. Advancing to the SSAO position was viewed
negatively because of the amount of time this position would be involved in with campus
politics. Comments such as “I was tired of playing politics, worn out from the politics”
(Janet R.) or “I definitely don’t want to be a VP or Dean. . .they deal with a lot of politics”
(Nancy J.) were examples used by interview participants. Some participants were

concerned about their experiences with campus politics at multiple locations and how that

159

impacted their feelings of staying the field. “If I was in multiple institutions where that
was the case that would push me away from the field” (Janet R.). In what many outside
of higher education consider an obstructionist issue facing institutions, participants were
no more positive about dealing with the issue of campus politics.

In all the responses from participants about campus politics no one offered any
positive responses to working within the political structure. “We talk a lot about being
caring people but we get caught up in what the institution wants and what the politics
dictate that you forget about the people involved and to take care of them” (Nancy J .).
Among survey participants who commented on campus politics everyone viewed it
negatively. One survey participant commented on how it affects her ability to try new
things on campus. “My perspective within the unit is appreciated but I must be more
political with in the organization to have my voice heard.” Another survey participant
was facing similar challenges serving in an interim position, “with every month I’m in
my interim position, I’m becoming more and more tired of the politics and the ridiculous
obstacles that are preventing me from conducting my job effectively.”

Even as many participants were interested in advancing to senior-level positions
the issue of working with campus politics was always referred to in a negative manner.
“The politics of my position has gotten out of hand and I believe that my superiors don’t
know and don’t care to assist me in navigating successfully through the sea of
bureaucracy” (survey participant). Salaries and campus politics were the two most
common responses for why participants would leave the field but they were not the only

issues discussed.

160

Money and politics dominated the responses among participants for reasons to
leave the field. Other responses, such as becoming a faculty member, college president,
lack of professional support/development, and family commitments were mentioned by
participants. A survey participant commented on not spending as much time with her
family.

I get a lot of the “crap” that no one else will do, and much of that involves

being on campus in the evening and weekends. It would not be so bad

except that no one else has to be here, and I am missing out on things my

family is doing.

Participants who talked about becoming a faculty member had already made that choice
before moving into mid-career.

I am not going pursue my PhD in higher education, I’m instead going to

be working at management which essentially means I am leaving the field.

I don’t see myself as a student affairs practitioner, I feel more comfortable

in the world of management and organizational behaviors. I find research

more attractive but I don’t have time in my current job. I will be one of

the greatest friends to student affairs as a faculty member (emphasis

added). (Alice N.)

Receiving inadequate support in their current positions was mentioned by a few
participants and was similar to the discussion about professional and career development
and the critical role supervisors had in supporting it. Another area of concern for some
participants as they advance in the field was the possibility of fewer senior-level positions

available.

161

Supported by research which suggests there will be fewer senior student affairs
officer positions available in the future (Harder, 1983), both groups of participants were
also asked if a fewer number of senior-level positions in student affairs would impact
their decision to remain in the field. Less then half of the survey participants agreed that
it would impact their decision while a much smaller proportion of interview participants,
four out of 15, expressed concern about fewer senior—level positions. One survey
participant tied it directly to her desire to remain in the field. “Why would I want to stick
around when I know that my chances of making it are even slimmer? I have to be
realistic. . .I’m already at a disadvantage in the hiring process. I am a white female that
comes with children.” Another survey participant was more philosophical about fewer
numbers of senior-level positions. “I feel that my generation of student affairs
professionals will never see that day when we are considered senior level because those
that are at the senior level are still young (they’re not old as dirt).” The idea of fewer
senior-level positions available for a much larger group of mid-career professionals was
in contrast to the implicit push by the field for mid-career individuals to advance.

An interview participant commented on how the expectation of the field often
pressures individuals into advancing, “We talk about pushing people forward because of
what you think they should do rather then meeting them at their level and figure out what
they want and how letting them choose” (Slade L.). This discussion was in contrast to the
information in Chapter Four where participants were concerned about the expectation of
the field to advance into senior-level positions. However, these sentiments were

expressed by a minority of the both groups of participants.

162

Reinforcing the idea that participants were not affected by fewer senior-level
positions, many participants were content to work in mid-career or mid-level positions
for the remainder of their careers or had no desire to advance into senior-level positions.
Interview participants who considered leaving the field also discussed how their
professional experience within student affairs would translate outside of the field and
higher education. Student affairs practitioners often find themselves working with
multiple areas and can develop skills that are highly transferable outside of the field and
higher education. From managing people to working with budgets, mid-career
professionals have a career path that lends itself to pursuing positions outside the field.

How the Experience of Student Affairs Translates Beyond the Field

From the previous section, where participants discussed thoughts of leaving the
student affairs field, some of the same participants also discussed the translation of their
current experience outside of student affairs. Lorden (1998) concluded mid-career
professionals often leave student affairs to pursue attractive career opportunities outside
the field. Most who talked about this issue felt very positively about the translation of
their experiences because they had worked in more than one firnctional area within
student affairs. In considering leaving the field some had already thought about how their
skills could be marketable outside of not only student affairs but also higher education.
Research has suggested many of the skills student affairs professionals possess are highly
transferable outside of higher education (Barr, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly,
1987). A few participants had very specialized training (counseling), and their skills had

some more obvious applications outside of higher education.

163

Participant responses about the types of fields they could work in outside of
student affairs were linked to two types of careers; either working for other non-profits
like teaching, or working in a corporate setting in management or training and
development. In the following section, I present how participants viewed their current
skills and the translation of those skills outside of student affairs and higher education.

Of the participants who responded to the question of how their skills translated
outside of student affairs and higher education, all felt they had built marketable skills
that could be used outside the field. Because all participants were at mid-career and many
were working with budgets, supervision, and staff development these skills were viewed
as highly marketable outside of the field. Many considered their current positions as more
general in nature which included getting a wide breadth of knowledge and experience,
and participants saw this benefiting them not only outside of the field but also higher
education. “I have a generalist position which means again I am not specialized... I think
they (skills) would translate very well because the things that I do even though we are in
a higher education institution I could do in another field” (George S.). This response was
also echoed by other participants. The idea of working in a more generalist position
allowed many of the participants to work with budgets, supervision, and staff
development on a regular basis.

The supervision of staff or managing people, whether it was professional staff or
students, was discussed by many participants as the most transferable skill outside the
field. Interestingly, the response also had some participants torn because while they
believed the skill would translate well outside of the field, it was also one of their least

enjoyable aspects of their positions. Regardless, the experience in managing people and

164

the corresponding interpersonal communications was seen as very important for working
outside of student affairs and higher education.

I think that the level of delicate interpersonal relations that we ask of

people in student affairs would be more then adequate to manage people in

other arenas. I think we really do ask for a very high level of skill in

interacting with people. (Kathy S.)

Another participant believed it was a large component of his current position, “Managing
people which is big. . .huge thing” (George S). The skill of managing budgets was also
discussed as a transferable skill because participants felt budgets and managing resources
were in almost every field and could be viewed in different ways.

As part of their current and former positions many participants worked with
budgeting and resource allocation. This skill set is often associated less with entry—level
professionals and more in mid-career and senior-level positions. In addition to managing
people, participants felt managing budgets and resources were skills that translated
outside of the field and higher education because the concepts did not change even if the
organization did. “As you move up budgets are budgets, if you know how to talk money
and you know how to manage money you can use that in all sorts of ways” (Kathy S).
“The transferability of those skills like multitasking, budgets. . .this is probably a reason
why some folks choose to leave the profession” (Frank B.). “I could manage budgets,
processes.” (Janet R.) Managing money and people were the most universal responses
given by participants for transferable skills outside of student affairs and higher

education. However, participants also discussed their experience in training and

165

development, and staff selection as transferable outside of the field especially in a
corporate setting.

Participants who had worked with staff either supervising them directly or
indirectly felt the training and development aspects of their positions prepared them to
work outside of the field. Some also viewed this as piece that could be coupled with
consulting or corporate training. “I think I’ve been fortunate, I say that because I think I
have a lot of experience in selection, recruitment, and training and development so I think
that could translate well into human resources and other areas” (Sarah F.). “When you
think about all the jobs available now in corporate training, consultation-lots of folks in
student affairs could market themselves for those positions” (Julie 8.). One participant
offered that because the field of student affairs was becoming more like the business
world the application of these skills was even more transferable. “We seem to (be)
becoming... similar to the business world with accountability and I see the business
world taking more of the leadership development. . .various pieces come into play” (Sarah
F .). The link between certain skill sets gained at mid-career in student affairs into a
corporate setting was not always as clear as with other fields. Experience in teaching and
non-profits seemed a more natural connection for some mid-career participants.

A few participants who talked about transferable skills outside of student affairs
and higher education had backgrounds in teaching or had taught classes while working in
student affairs. This seemed a more natural fit to participants who talked about a teaching
background and how they could instruct again outside of the field. Another interview
participant who was active in her local church thought the skills of student affairs

practitioners could also translate into other non-profit organization outside of higher

166

education. Finally, one interview participant who had a counseling background but
worked in student affairs believed the experience working with people could translate
outside of the field and higher education. With her background she was also able to teach
at a college level or work in private practice.

All of the participants who discussed working outside of student affairs and
higher education expressed no hesitation in how their skills and experiences could be
translatable. Some commented because of the varied nature of the profession they felt
well-prepared to begin working in another field regardless of the industry. One
participant described this idea best when she said “I think this is probably one of the most
diverse areas in order to prepare someone to do a variety of things outside of the
university environment” (Francis H.). In the previous sections, I presented candid
responses from participants about the difficulties they face at mid-career coupled with
issues of low salaries, high workloads, and work/life balance. Familiar career stresses
combined with a belief that mid-career is a time to gain valuable and transferable skill
sets creates an increased concern about the retention of mid—career professionals. For
many participants, their frustration with mid-career in student affairs translated into a
belief that their current skills would position them well to pursue career opportunities
outside of student affairs and higher education. However, even faced with difficult
professional and personal issues, participants talked as much about why they stay in the
field after reaching mid-career as they did about leaving.

Retention in Student Affairs at Mid-Career
The reasons given by participants for staying in the field of student affairs

covered some familiar themes for student affairs and higher education. Participants

167

discussed their work and the impact it often had on students’ lives. Others commented on
the professional and personal benefits available to them either at their institution or in
general throughout higher education. Some enjoyed the changes in the field and higher
education that created opportunities to try different things in their professional careers.
Again relating back to the support of supervisors at mid-career, a few participants even
discussed current leadership at their institution or in student affairs as a reason to remain
in the field. Even as the reasons for staying differed among participants, they viewed
mid-career as a time when many positive things were also happening in their professional
and personal lives. In the following section, I discuss reasons participants offered for
wanting to remain in the field of student affairs after reaching mid-career.

Not surprising to me as someone who also works with students at a university, the
two most cited reasons for staying the field were working with students, and the benefits
of working in student affairs and/or higher education. Many participants cited working
with students as a major factor for entering the field and most still found this to be a
rewarding and engaging aspect of their professional lives. Repeatedly participants who

99

talked about working with students used words like “impact, “interactions,”
“rewarding,” and “passionate” to describe their feelings when working with students. “It
would be because of the students and the opportunities to have those interactions”
Margaret T.). “I think probably number one (reason) are the students and the fact that
we. . .really have an impact on shaping the lives of people. So I think the students and the

work that we do really keeps us here” (George S.). One survey participant stated it very

simply, “I LOVE working with students.”

168

Relating back to an earlier section about advancement in the field, there were
similar responses to why some participants had no desire to advance into senior-level
positions. A fear of losing the daily and strong connections with students was the most
frequent reason for not wanting to advance beyond mid-career and staying in the field.
Even as participants also recounted difficulties working with students, many believed the
positive connection they had working with students was an important aspect of their
professional lives. “The one honest truth in all of this is I still love the students. I still
really get a kick out of working with them.” (Kathy S.) “Students have a vibrancy, an
optimism and a sense of being engaged in something important” (survey participant).
This sentiment was echoed in spirit by many participants when asked about working with
students.

Participants who talked positively about working with students also commented
on other internally rewarding aspects that impacted their professional lives including
working with other positive colleagues, making a difference, and sometimes affecting
change in the world. Some participants felt the ability to work with other like-minded
individuals in the field was another contributing factor towards their positive experience
at mid-career and wanting to remain in the field.

I think (to) have some good colleagues really gets people wanting to stay. (Sarah

F.)

In student affairs you have amazing people you work with overall in

comparison to my friends in other fields, you get to work with much

cooler people who are much more caring and understanding, who

generally want to know about you versus other fields. (Margaret T.)

169

Working in a student affairs division affords the professional with a

readily available group of colleagues who are also bright, verbal, usually

interesting people.” (survey participant)

These comments synthesized much of what participants discussed about the
impact of working with other individuals in student affairs.

Continuing to make a difference was also cited as a reason to stay, “For me it’s
because I make a difference ...when I realize that I’m not making a difference in my job
that’s the day I’ll walk away” (Slade L.). Another participant talked about how her
partner looked at what she did, “My husband says you know I just go to work and I build
things, you go to work and you build people” (Janet R.). Others found the university
environment as a whole more supportive and flexible, from such benefits as vacation
schedules to personal support. While recognizing that salaries in student affairs are
sometimes lower than in other fields, participants viewed the larger benefits of working
in student affairs and higher education as a positive factor for remaining in the field. For
one participant it was free housing while working in residence life, for a few others it was
flexible work schedules, sick and vacation time, and family friendly environments that
also impacted their decisions to remain in the field. Only one survey participant
commented on a benefit to working in higher education and the ability to work towards
her doctorate. There were few participants who also commented on the supervisor
support or the leadership within the division as positive influences on their decision to
remain in the field. Again, these comments mirror earlier sections, which examine the
supervisor’s impact on the professional and career development of mid-career

professionals in student affairs.

170

The support of supervisors or divisional leadership was not cited as often as other
reasons for remaining in the field, but its importance was mentioned by a few participants
and supports earlier parts of the research stressing the importance of this occurring for
mid-career individuals. Participants felt supervisors and SSAOs should be concerned
about their staffs, provide positive support, and work to combat issues like burnout. “It’s
an obligation on SSAO(s) that burnout does not happen” (Frank 8.). “Burnout becomes a
big issue because of not paying attention to staff and getting bored” (Nancy 1.).
Participants looked to supervisors and senior leadership as having a direct impact on
retaining individuals in the field. “It does go back to hopefully having some good
supervisors that really value these folks and provide encouragement...definitely putting us
into a positive drive to realize what our worth is” (Sarah F.). The importance of
supervisors and senior leadership in professional and career development was frequently
commented on by participants in this and other sections throughout this research.

The decision to leave or remain in the field was often complicated by professional
and personal decisions. Some familiar stresses were discussed by participants for leaving
the field such as low salaries and campus politics. However, there were also some
familiar benefits cited by participants for remaining the field like interactions with
students and colleagues, intrinsic value, and generous personnel policies. Just as the
reasons why individuals enter the field can be very personal, the reasons for leaving or
remaining were often as personal. Individuals sometimes make those decisions as simply
as how one participant phrased it “I think people just make it work, they’re here because
they want to be here” (Francis H.). In making it “work” and getting mid-career

professionals to remain tied to the field, I asked participants to discuss how the profession

171

and institutions could enhance their professional connection and ultimately support
retention.

As participants answered questions about leaving the field, the translation of their
skills outside of the field, and why they remain in the field, they also discussed strategies
to counter individuals leaving the field at mid-career. In a previous section, I presented
participant reactions to leaving the field including not surprisingly many looking for
higher salaries. Because research shows the two most cited reasons why individuals leave
the field are higher salaries and professional burnout (Bender, 1980; Burns, 1982; Evans,
1988), I asked interview participants to respond with strategies to counter attrition
without specifically discussing those two issues. Participant answers to the question of
combating attrition were varied and sometimes drew on personal experience. However,
most answers could be grouped around giving individuals more professional
opportunities to counter the negative impacts of lower salaries, and professional burnout.

A few of the participant responses also centered on personal issues that affected
individuals outside of their professional lives. Unfortunately for some participants, they
believed whatever student affairs or higher education created to counter the issue of
attrition there was no one way to counter at the situation because every individual had
different reasons for why they might leave. In this section, I detail participant responses
about how the field and/or higher education could combat the issue of attrition in student
affairs.

The issue of attrition in student affairs has been a recognized concern in the
literature for the last 25 years (Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982; Burns, 1982; Evans, 1988;

Wiggers, Fomey, & Wallace-Shutzman, 1982). The same literature has discussed

172

different reasons for why this occurs and what could be done to combat the issue. The
literature has also examined when attrition most occurs, citing mid-career as a time of
higher probability because of the changes happening to professionals during that period.
Since all of the participants for this research identified themselves at mid-career and
many have held several different positions in the student affairs they offered different
strategies for how the field could best counter the issue of attrition.

Perhaps the most cited method for combating attrition offered by participants was
through different opportunities made available to mid-career professionals. The
opportunities mentioned included professional development, additional or cross-training,
and advancement. Several participants thought these opportunities would allow
individuals to grow professionally and personally even if it did not mean advancing
beyond mid-career positions.

As a lot of time people burn out because they’ve been doing the same

thing for so long, even in the same position you could be given great

opportunities to grow in that position. (George S.)

They are not challenged or they feel if they have mastered their jobs and are not

looking to advance or assume new responsibilities. People struggle with new

identity there as well. (Bill M.)

Allowing somebody to develop a new set of expertise that would serve the

center/department but helped the individual feel like they are growing. (Julie S.)

Often the opportunities participants discussed for growth involved professional

development but some felt just providing that option was not enough.

173

Some participants talked about professional development opportunities to combat
attrition but some also believed supervisors and departments were not challenging those
individuals engaged in professional development to share their experiences. One
interview participant felt even if more resources are made available for professional
development and training the expectation should also include presenting that information
to colleagues at an institution. “1 think sometimes supervisors send people to conferences
and don’t ask them what they learned, there needs to be more accountability, they are not
challenged by forcing them to analyze and reflect” (Frank B.). “Getting people to do
workshops about what they do it helps them understand that what they do is important
and valuable.” (Mary S.)

The continuation and sometimes increase of resource allocation for professional
development such as conferences and institutes was also a mentioned frequently by
participants. This included more specialized or targeted opportunities for specific areas or
career aspects of the field. “I think they (student affairs) are starting to do more like
offering special institutes and things to revitalize people, having more conferences that
are specific to certain areas” (Margaret T.). “There are other ways to compensate people
such as funding specialized professional development...” (Julie 8.). Some participants
believed one kind of specialized training could include the ability to work in different
areas or perform functions not normally attached to their regular position.

The use of cross-training was brought up by several participants as a way to
prevent attrition by allowing individuals to learn new skills and grow professionally

without having to leave their current institution. A few participants currently had this

174

option available within their division and worked with colleagues who had taken
advantage of the opportunity.

Cross-training, other workshops, or activities that gets people out of the

office doing other stuff or maybe just changing what they do. At my

institution we do cross training... (Mary S.)

Even with the director of financial aid we know that eventually that she

wants to move outside of financial aid to move up to another position. (It)

is giving her opportunities outside of frnancial aid that will help build her

experiences and her resume which could involve even things like serving

on judicial boards. (George S.)
There were variations on the idea of cross-training. One participant worked at an
institution where the Vice-President of Student Affair’s office created a professional
internship within the division.

Our VP’s office created as a professional internship to encourage

specifically minority staff to try out the vice-presidential administrative

kind of role. One staff member for one semester at a time to work daily in

the VP’s office to really see what is going on. (Nancy J.)
Not as many participants had experience with cross-training but those who did thought it
a very beneficial counter to attrition within the field. For some participants, the
opportunity to just talk with other colleagues instead of working with them was a strategy
to consider in combating attrition.

A few participants talked about the ability to network with colleagues either at

conferences, at their institutions, or on the same research as a strategy to keep people

175

engaged and help combat attrition. One participant saw this as an extension of
professional development opportunities which helped with feelings of burnout, “for me
the opportunity to... talk with colleagues across the country who share the same concerns
and can vent and share solutions together” (Julie 8.). Another took this one step further
and viewed her interactions as a chance to talk with mentors, “the strongest thing for me
has been upper-level, or more senior level people at other institutions that I can call and
say this what I’m facing and I am dealing with and they can help put it in perspective and
navigate” (Janet R.). These were more individual strategies to combat attrition and
remain professionally engaged which is how some participants viewed the issue of
countering attrition in the field.

The choices that some participants made for their own professional engagement
were related to their individual situation as opposed to general strategies across the field
or higher education. One participant commented that institutions were too different across
higher education to create one or two strategies to combat attrition within the field.

I think you have to meet each employee individually, find out what

motivates that individual because I don’t think you can make that blanket

statement. I think there are far too many types of institutions, and I think

there are far too many types of professionals in the field that I don’t know

that we are ever going to get our hands around that” (Slade L.)

Another participant believed each individual needed to make choices that suit
their specific professional and personal situation at mid-career. “I think (it) has to do with
personal choice and what you want to do. We have to make choices. . .combating burnout

is an individual choice of what you want to do.” (Francis H.) Even as a few participants

176

commented on viewing attrition from an individual situation there was still some concern
about how the field contributes to the mission and goals of higher education.

Even with the numerous strategies offered by different participants whether from
an institutional stance such as increased professional development and cross-training or
from an individual perspective like talking and working with colleagues and mentors, it
was still unclear what role the student affairs field had in working on the issue of
attrition. One participant believed the field was not as successful as it could be in
demonstrating its contribution to teaching and higher education. She felt professionals in
the field often are not entirely clear if they have contributed to any student learning.
According to her, this problem was partially solved by the field being more directive in
how they contribute to the learning environment.

I think we need to get better about what we do. A lot of what I see is that

we are not focusing on what student affairs contributes to higher

education. . . .A lot of us get stuck in what can we do more of, we have

something for students, spend their money wisely but have no proof that

they are learning anything. . .One of the solutions is for student affairs to

get a little more directive in what they do and what they contribute to a

learning environment. . .Hopefully that will suffice to alleviate burnout

because we will be really contributing. (Nancy J.)

This was the only participant to directly discuss the issue of how student affairs
contributes to higher education and student learning, and its affect on attrition, although

many of the suggestions offered had an indirect affect.

177

Finally, the issue of having a balanced professional and personal life was also
discussed by one participant in addressing this question. Because the issue of work/life
balance was the subject of a previous section, I will not repeat the responses of
participants on this issue. However, for one particular participant the issue of leading a
balanced life was a way to combat burnout and attrition and according to her the only
way to stay professionally viable in the field over many years including mid-career. She
viewed this as a skill mid-career professionals needed to learn that involves “selling”
(Kathy S.) themselves to their supervisor and senior leadership so they could continually
appreciate and give feedback on the work being performed. This was occasionally
complicated by senior leadership that sometimes did not value a balanced life because of
generational differences. Unfortunately, for many mid-career participants who are not
living a balanced life, the field will continue to feel the effects of talented mid-career
professionals leaving student affairs.

The strategies offered by participants ranged from institutional to individual to
interpersonal. All of the suggestions had merit depending on the situation and motivation
of the individual but would need the additional support of supervisors, institutions, and
the field together to address issues of attrition in student affairs at mid-career.

Summary

In Chapter Four and Five, I provided a window into the lives of mid-career
student affairs professionals and how this period can be a rewarding but often challenging
time for many professionals. Participants faced issues of existing in dual worlds with
entry-level tasks and higher-level responsibilities. This created feelings of being stuck at

mid-career and not being supported as they choose to remain at mid-career or prepared to

178

advance into senior-level positions. These experiences were compounded by the
influences of their personal lives onto their professional careers. As Chapter Four
concluded with discussions of professional and personal lives converging at mid-career,
Chapter Five continued the story of the mid-career experience with a view into how the
satisfaction of participants related to the professional development they receive during
mid-career. This support came from many different sources including supervisors,
institutions, the field, and individuals. The professional development experience for
participants directly affected how they viewed their current and future position in the
field. Many participants viewed mid-career as the most important time to reflect and
sometimes act on their future in student affairs. However, all was not lost for many
participants who remained in the field for many different reasons, and they offered
thoughtful and productive ways to enhance the experiences of all mid-career career
professionals.

In the next and final chapter, I will review the research questions, methodology,
and the participant sample from my study. I then present the major findings from my
study surrounding how the mid-career professionals experience is defined and supported.
I then discuss the implications these findings have on individuals, institutions, and the
field including mid-career identity and retention. From my findings, I conclude with
remarks and suggestions for further research on the mid-career experience, and its impact

on the future of institutions and the field.

179

CHAPTER SIX

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

This study has examined mid-career student affairs professionals and how their
experiences have shaped their professional lives. The study participants were student
affairs professionals taking part in one of two institutes for mid-managers, held on an
annual basis and sponsored by two of the primary professional associations in student
affairs. They self-selected themselves as being mid-career in the field and provided an
appropriate background for beginning to study the experiences of mid—career student
affairs professionals. Over a period of approximately nine months, these study
participants submitted surveys or gave interview discussions regarding their working and
personal lives as student affairs professionals.

This chapter will begin with a review of the research study questions, the
methodology I employed in my research, and a description of a sample used in both
phases of the study. I will then discuss the major findings of my study as they relate
directly to the mid-career experience of student affairs professionals. My findings will
highlight serious implications for the field of students affairs, as they could impact
current and future professionals, as well as the future success of student affairs in
institutions of higher education. I conclude chapter six with a call for more needed
research on mid-career professionals, especially involving women and persons of color,
the responsibility of professional development during mid-career, and how advancement

and attrition during mid-career experience impact the field of student affairs.

180

Research Questions, Methodology, and Sample
Before beginning the study, I developed several research questions to help guide
and frame the research.

1. What are the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career
professionals” in student affairs?

2. How do these individuals define “mid-career”?

3. What challenges and supports are present for mid-career professionals in
institutions and student affairs professional organizations?

4. How do the challenges and supports affecting mid-career professionals influence
their decision to stay or leave student affairs?

The research questions were used to assist in developing topics of inquiry from the
existing research. This included a discussion of what attributes contributed to a better
definition of “mid-career,” as the existing literature and the student affairs field itself was
less clear about this issue, which created some confusion among study participants.
Consequently, one of the primary goals of my study was to rely less on traditional
definitions offered by the field or past research, and gain an understanding of mid-career
through the responses solicited by the participants themselves. These responses allowed
me to compare and contrast my findings with those offered by the field and research, and
demonstrate that “mid-career” is an issue of confusion and concern by student affairs
professionals. Additionally, information offered by participants contributed towards
developing a major narrative of the study with a more expanded and elaborate definition

of mid-career. This definition was an important piece in the development of Chapters

181

Four and Five, and became the foundation for discussions on participants’ experiences at
mid-career.

The research was designed as a mixed-methods study consisting of surveys and
interviews conducted over a period of nine months. I then created a survey as an on-line
instrument where participants completed 10 questions on their mid-career experiences,
while remaining anonymous. The survey was undertaken first to help test and guide the
levels of inquiry for the interviews. During later months, I solicited participants from
both institutes to participate in detailed interviews conducted over the telephone with
electronic member-check of completed interviews via email. The survey gathered 19
completed responses from 23 total respondents. Using the responses from the survey to
help inform the line of questioning for the second phase, the interviews were completed
over approximately three months with 15 different participants.

The appendix includes a demographic breakdown of both the survey and
interview participants as reported to me. All interviews were transcribed by me and sent
to each interview participant for member-check. Because all respondents had participated
in one of two institutes for mid-managers no effort was made to recruit individuals by
race, gender, age, position, title, or responsibility. However, after organizing the data,
some of these factors did have an important influence on the experiences of participants
and were reported in chapters four and five.

Major Study Findings

1 organized the findings into two chapters in order to chronicle the experiences of

participants which ran along a career tirneline beginning with entry-level, moving into

mid-career, and concluding with their professional futures. Findings indicated an

182

important distinction and contradiction between how the field and institutions define mid-
career in student affairs, and how participants actually exist at mid-career. While there
were similar descriptions offered by participants as reported by research (Benke &
Disque, 1990; Fey & Carpenter, 1996; Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann’s, 1993), for
many individuals it went beyond titles, responsibilities, and positions.

Mid-career was viewed by participants as an often confusing time which
contributed to a sense of feeling that they existed in two worlds, performing entry-level
tasks but with higher-level expectations. Participants felt the field of student affairs and
institutions were not helpful in defining and clarifying mid-career because both
subscribed to a one-dimensional view which did not consider the actual experiences of
individuals at mid-career. The confusion of existing at mid-career was also compounded
by participants trying to balance their personal lives with their working lives, where life
changes were occurring simultaneously. The definition of mid-career offered by the field
(Barr, 1990; Benke & Disque, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987; Fey &
Carpenter, 1996; Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann’s, 1993) versus actual mid-career
experiences was often seen as an incomplete indication of how participants were actually
viewing their professional futures.

Often, participants’ inability to reconcile their own mid-career experiences with
what was being offered by the field led many to feel they either could not move beyond
mid-career or were often overlooked by the field and institutions. This thread continued
to surface throughout my study. Closely linked with the definition of mid-career was how
participants viewed their future in the student affairs field. As previous chapters have

shown, the issue of retention and attrition in the field of student affairs has been discussed

183

in research (Bender, 1980; Burns, 1982; Evans, 1988). Because mid-career is seen by
student affairs professionals as a time of professional and personal change coupled with
confusion about their future in the field, I was interested in drawing out from participants
whether their desire to leave or stay in the field was affected by this experience.

The conflicting nature of the mid-career definition was mentioned frequently by
participants when discussing their intentions to leave or stay in the field at mid-career.
The issue of attrition was compounded for many participants by their feelings of being
poorly compensated in their positions involving entry-level tasks and higher-level
responsibilities in an atmosphere of frequent institutional political roadblocks. This
period in their professional career (Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982), more then any other
segment was seen as one where participants pondered their futures in the field.

A second and somewhat surprising finding from this study involved the
professional development or support participants felt should happen at mid-career. For
them, professional support came in different forms at this point in their career.The most
often cited professional support originated with participants’ relationship with their
supervisors. Supervisor support was discussed equally among survey and interview
participants with both groups highlighting its importance in their development. Many of
them also viewed this support as occurring when they were in their first or second
positions after graduate school, before they had even reached mid-career. Unfortunately
for the field, participants did not believe the support given by supervisors was adequate
or happening frequently enough to be of positive benefit to them. The lack of
professional support from supervisors had wide-ranging effects for participants. It

influenced how they supported other professionals who reported to them, impinged on

184

their ability to advance into senior-level positions, and impacted how they viewed their
own future in the field.

The unequal distribution of professional development across institutions and the
field also influenced the mid-career experience for participants but was not discussed as
much as that of supervisor support. Similar to the feelings expressed earlier of being
professionally stuck in two competing worlds, the issue of professional development had
participants spending more time thinking about their futures in student affairs.

Taken separately, the two conflicting issues of defining mid-career, or the lack of
professional support from supervisors, might not warrant much concern from institutions
or the field, but viewed as part of the overall mid-career student affairs professional
experience both have the potential to influence and impact the current and future position
of individuals at mid-career who contribute to the bulk of student affairs professionals in
the field.

Implications

There were five major implications resulting from my study that I will discuss in
this chapter. They stem from significant areas of concern in the lives of mid-career
professionals as discussed above, such as professional support of supervisors and
associations, redefining the mid-career experience, and understanding how these issues
affect attrition in the field. If these implications are not better understood from within the
context of the overall mid-career experience many more talented individuals will
continue to question their future in the field. From the issues discussed in the previous
chapters, the most serious, yet perhaps easiest implication to address, begins in the

departments and divisions where mid-career professionals are working. This is the issue

185

of the supervisor/mid-career professional relationship, which has the most far—reaching
consequences of all the findings from my study.
Professional Support from the Supervisor

As in many professions, individuals might expect their supervisor or manager to
provide some level of professional support that might assist them in their current position
and beyond. Student affairs professionals would not be any different from their
counterparts in other fields in looking to their supervisors for support in current and
future endeavors at all periods of their careers. Most professionals in student affairs who
advance in the field eventually have the opportunity to supervise other individuals, who
are either professionals, graduate students, or undergraduate students. So why, after
reaching mid-career, do so many participants in this study point to the lack of
professional support from their supervisors? Clearly, as shown in my study, this is a
recurring issue that is being passed on from generation to generation of professional
supervisors. Institutions and the field of student affairs need to look at how and where
professional development and support is occurring. My study indicates an obvious
connection between the skills involving supervision and managing people and how this
experience is influencing the mid-career experience.
Professional Support from Associations and Institutions

Conferences and institutes present many different opportunities for professional
development. However, these opportunities do not include sessions that address many of
the skills mid-career professionals need in order to become good and future supervisors.
In addition, conferences and institutes only occur once or twice annually and often focus

on specific topics put forth by participants. The professional associations that sponsor

186

these conferences and institutes need to ensure the topic of supervision is addressed at
different levels and institutions. Much like the MMI that all of the study participants
attended, professional development opportunities supported by professional associations
need to provide more targeted ways to address the needs of its members. Studies like this
point to the issues and concerns that many mid-career professionals feel are not being
addressed by the field and their institutions. The issue of training supervisors not only to
be better supervisors but also to support the mid-career experience is the responsibility of
institutions, but it becomes a multi-faceted approach that should combine the cooperation
of professional associations in the field as well as institutional resources.

Many participants also believed the variety of institutions did not encourage
consistent strategies for combating attrition within the field, by providing the necessary
kinds of development for their professional future. This issue could also combine with
the needs of professional support from supervisors. Ironically, it is the institutions that
contain the resources for providing the kinds of strategies, or development, needed to
enhance the supervisor/mid-career professional relationship, as well as for other
professional areas. Development workshops could benefit supervisors who have limited
experience in supervision and assist in ending the cycle of poorly trained supervisors.
These same supervisors are the professionals who reach mid-career after experiencing
inadequate professional development during entry-level positions and continue to repeat
this experience for the individuals they supervise.

When mid-career student affairs professionals do not feel supported or
professionally engaged, their divisions, institutions and the field suffer from stagnation

and student affairs risks losing involved and active professionals who keep the field of

187

student affairs moving ahead. Mid-career professionals emulate how they were
supervised and this experience helps shape their own supervisory style and method. The
field supports the professional development of individuals and graduate programs help
prepare them for a career in student affairs. Unfortunately, graduate programs only last as
long as commencement and professional conferences are not always cost effective and
only occur annually. This leaves individuals who work along side mid-career
professionals to encourage, provide, and create the professional development
opportunities that mid-career individuals feel they are not receiving. This support
originates from within divisions, institutions, and the field. It means mid-career
professionals are connecting with other mid-career and senior-level professionals who
mentor them from all over the field. In creating these professional networks for mid-
career individuals it helps evenly spread the responsibility of their development at mid-
career across the field and higher education.
Redefining Mid—Career

Once they reach mid-career, who exactly are the professionals that make up a
large, experienced and complicated segment of the student affairs population? Are they
just the titles and positions they have achieved, along with reaching a “certain age” or
years of experience that the field suggests characterize mid-career, or are they, instead, a
combination of expectations and responsibilities that create a multi-layered experience at
mid-career? The answer for participants in this study is a mixture of both, thus creating
an often confusing and frustrating experience at mid-career. When asked to define mid-
career, participants gave familiar answers found in the literature from the field and

institutions. However, it was the actual experience participants were having at mid-career

188

that transcended their position that labeled them as mid-career. The mid-career
experience, combined with familiar definitions from the field, creates an unsettled time
for individuals who question their role in student affairs.

This ambiguous role creates a professional identity crisis for mid-career student
affairs professionals, where they exist in parallel worlds of entry-level responsibilities
and high-level expectations that often compete for their professional time and expertise.
This could result in individuals never fully recognizing their professional potential
because they fluctuate between two competing priorities. This would suggest that the
field, institutions, the supervisors, and even the student affairs individuals themselves
need to subscribe to a more detailed and complex definition of mid-career. It should also
be characterized by a multifaceted understanding of the numerous roles played by many
mid-career professionals and how these roles impact their effectiveness in their positions
and at their institutions.

The mid-career experience for participants in this study often centered less on the
title, position or years in the field, but more on the feelings they had about their everyday
responsibilities. Participants often described the dualistic existence of performing entry-
level tasks combined with higher-level responsibilities and expectations, as a confusing
place to reside in their professional careers. Had they in fact arrived at mid-career as their
position indicated, or were they still lingering in entry-level positions as evidenced by
some of their responsibilities? Indications from the field and their institutions seemed to
suggest that they had indeed arrived at mid-career. Yet, after attending an institute for
mid-managers and returning to their institutions with a renewed sense of “mid-

careemess” and using that new awareness in their work, they arrived back on campus

189

even more confused about their “place” in their career and still struggling with existing in
two worlds.
The Expectation to Advance

All of the participants self-defined themselves as mid-career professionals in
student affairs. While many participants discussed how the field, institutions and their
personal lives affected mid-career, there was a concern by some who were happy at mid-
career but felt pressure from the field to advance beyond this career segment. Because
mid-career is currently defined more by titles, positions, years in the field or age then
experiences, it can contribute to individuals feeling the field does not value their mid-
career experiences and supports the expectation that success in the field is defined by
advancement. Many participants believed the creation of this expectation was being
supported primarily by the field of student affairs. It becomes even more problematic as
individuals face a narrowing career ladder as they advance in the field.

The expectation of success through advancement in student affairs creates an
additional pressure on mid-career professionals. As my study has discussed, this
expectation is another example of how the field does not consider nor understand the
experiences of mid-career in student affairs. Consequently, two groups of individuals
exist in mid-career, one group who is dissatisfied with their experiences, as many in my
study were, and another group who are generally satisfied at mid-career but are feeling
pressure to advance because that is a fundamental way success is defined in the field.
Ultimately, for the field to continue supporting the professional development of mid-

career professionals it needs to define success in multiple ways which includes

190

advancement but also other factors. If student affairs does not expand the definition of
success it risks losing talented and experienced mid-career professionals.
Attrition in Student A flairs

The confusion felt by mid-career student affairs professionals could eventually
lead to dissatisfaction in their professional and personal lives, and because research has
shown that mid-career is often a time when individuals examine their professional future,
the dissatisfaction could easily lead to attrition from the field. Added to this confusion is
a lack of professional development offered by supervisors, institutions and the field, and
it becomes an increased attrition problem for a profession already symbolized by low
salaries, unsustainable workloads, and overwork. Fortunately, all was not lost for many
participants in this study when it came to issues of attrition.

Participants offered suggestions they believed would help combat attrition, such
as increased supervisor support, cross-training within divisions, a professional mentoring
network across the field, and opportunities to enhance professional vitality modeled after
faculty programs. Unfortunately for many, the culture of student affairs does not
encourage professionals to be balanced in their professional or personal lives, and this
makes many of these suggestions unattainable. So where do mid-career professionals go
in their search for a mid-career identity? As participants discussed in the study, they do
not go to their supervisors or institutions for assistance, because the ambiguous signals in
the field of student affairs tacitly encourages confusion and a lifestyle of pressure and
stress. Instead, these mid-career professionals leave their positions, either remaining in
higher education but occupying another professional arena, or they leave higher

education entirely.

191

Although, by leaving the field of student affairs, mid-career professionals do not
provide a much-needed solution to the problems that remain behind, their departure does
highlight the fact that mid-career is filled with anxiety, confusion, and uneasiness. This
recognition of the problem by the field of student affairs and institutions could be the first
step in changing the mid-career student affairs experience for one of the largest and
experienced groups of professionals in the field.

The next and crucial step for the field and institutions is to act on the mid-career
experience and begin to create initiatives and programs to help change the mid-career
experience for many individuals, thus reversing the stereotypical view that mid-career in
student affairs can be a negative experience for professionals.

Study participants offered various strategies for assisting in keeping people in the
field; some as simple as mentoring mid-career professionals and others as complex as
providing a more comprehensive understanding of the mid-career experience on a
national level. If the mid-career experience is not more fully recognized and understood
then as the increasing numbers of retiring senior-level practitioners begins to accelerate
as some suggest, there will be no experienced, committed, and dedicated professionals to
fill the void. This is a serious and potentially field-changing occurrence that could take
years to reverse and could erase all the gains made by the field over the last 40 years.

Future Research

In both the survey sample (15 out of 23) and interview sample (11 out of 15), the
majority of participants were women. Many of these women had either partners, families,
or were thinking of starting a family, and a few, but significant number of participants,

identified themselves as persons of color. As a result of having a majority of women

192

participate in the study, I advocate the need for firrther research on women in student
affairs with an emphasis on women in senior-level positions and their influence on
women at mid-career. I also call for additional research on persons of color and the
additional challenges and hurdles they face at mid-career. Because many participants
viewed their development at mid-career as the responsibility of an external source, I
advocate including the idea of lifelong learning for professional development. Finally, I
call for more specific research into the link between the mid-career experience and
attrition in student affairs, which includes an improved understanding on the effects of
the supervisor/mid-career professional relationship, re-defining mid-career, and the
institutional climate for mid-career professionals.

Women Advancing at Mid-Career

The majority of women participants in both the survey and interview components

of the study and their responses to their experiences as mid-career women in student
affairs, suggest they still face some familiar and often ingrained challenges. The
demographic breakdown of study participants showed many had partners and either had
or were seriously considering having children while at mid-career, and many of their
responses echoed complaints many women in the workforce have voiced for decades.
Issues such as inflexible work schedules, career prominence in a partnership, male
supervisors without children or a spouse who takes care of them, and a professional
lifestyle not modeled around having children, all affected the mid-career experience. An
interesting aspect to the issue of mid-career women was also discussed by participants
involving women in senior student affairs positions who either did not have children, or

whose children were not living with them. While many of the participants embraced but

193

also challenged things occurring for women in student affairs, many were dismayed at the
apparent lack of women in senior student affairs officer positions on their campuses, who
might have chosen not to have children to advance in the field or whose children were
grown. Participants felt their female supervisors in this situation might not understand or
appreciate their family situation. Some participants attributed this occurrence to an issue
of advancement, commenting that perhaps women had to sacrifice a family life at mid-
career in order to advance in the field.

Women who are stuck at mid-career

As women in student affairs continue to reach mid-career and begin thinking
about advancement in the field, the issue of family and personal commitments can
become a more complex issue. Moss Kanter’s (1993) research from the 19703 and 19905
on men and women in organizations highlighted issues that negatively affect the ability to
advance. Moss Kanter (1993) believed these issues affect women more then men and
often cause them to feel stuck without advancement opportunities. An important area to
research beyond this study might include how women at mid-career are thinking about
families and how it factors into their desires to advance in the field. As this study has
shown, mid-career is a time to evaluate how personal and professional commitments
coincide. If mid-career women are feeling conflicted between wanting to begin a family
and advancing in the field and they decide to leave the field because of this conflict, this
can impact attrition and lead to fewer talented professionals progressing into the senior-

level positions in the field.

194

Race and Ethnicity at Mid-Career

This research also revealed how the issue of culture, race, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic background can detract or enhance this experience and would be an
important component to be added to a study of mid-career in student affairs. While none
of these factors were a focus of this study, there was enough discussion from participants
who identified themselves as persons of color to warrant further study about how mid-
career presents additional challenges in these areas. Research has shown that those
individuals, not identifying with the white majority, continue to face issues in
professional environments that could overlap and complicate their existence in mid-
career. The added issue of external and internal pressures faced by some persons of color
further complicates the mid-career experience. It would be important to note why and
how these pressures still exist in higher education and, specifically, in student affairs. In
this study, the challenges mid-career women and persons of color in student affairs face
relate back to the discussion about retention and attrition in the field. As the study has
shown, mid-career becomes an important time for individuals to evaluate their
professional and personal lives in the field.
The Culture of Advancement

Even before individuals enter the student affairs profession, in graduate school
they are inundated with messages about career development in the field. From attending
their first professional conference to working for seasoned members in the field, the
frequent message is success equals advancement. From title changes to responsibility
shifts, as professionals progress in the field success is often focused around advancement

either in positions or institutions. The professional culture of the field influences how

195

professionals in the field discuss their own development. Many participants in my study
directly tied either their own development or success to advancement or felt pressure
from others to move up within the field. However, for professionals who are content at
remaining in particular career segments such as mid-career, what message does the field
send them?

The field needs to examine the professional culture that exists where individuals
especially those at mid-career, feel they must advance to succeed. The conversation
concerning professional development and success should include multiple ways of
defining success that includes options such as lateral changes, skill changes and lifelong
learning within a career segment. This does not imply that advancement is not an
important aspect to keeping the field fresh, revitalized, and dynamic. Instead, it suggests
that the definition of success in student affairs should be more inclusive then exclusive of
the multiple ways professionals choose to achieve it.

The Impact of Mid-Career on Attrition

Even as this research specifically studied how the experiences at mid-career can
influence attrition in student affairs, it is still not entirely clear how much of an effect it
created, although there was enough data to warrant continued research into this issue. If
there were enough factors to influence participants to seriously consider leaving or
remaining in the field, further research is necessary to determine which issues might have
a higher correlation during mid-career to influence such a decision. The familiar issues of
low salaries and increased workloads have been documented in the literature (Austin,

1985; Rosser, 2004), and while study participants mentioned these issues as influential in

196

discussing attrition from the field, there were many other issues as well that impacted
study participants’ discussions.

The concern around retention and attrition for student affairs and research is the
lack of in-depth and longitudinal studies of this issue which could establish a clear link
between mid-career stressors and professionals leaving the field. Past research on mid-
career includes attrition as a concern, (Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982; Burns, 1982; Evans,
1988) an issue student affairs professionals discuss with their colleagues still in the field
and with those who have already left the field. However, there are no specific studies
documenting this as a concern for student affairs so that the field and institutions can
develop strategies to specifically address the reasons why people are leaving the field.
This includes studying individuals who have left student affairs, but remained in higher
education, and individuals who have left the field and higher education entirely. These
experiences are what research should focus on to understand the true scope of the issue
and to what extent it negatively impacts the field. Until this happens in a purposefirl and
meaningful way, student affairs will have to rely on small examples of research, such as
this study, that hint at this issue, but are not comprehensive enough to make informed and
educated decisions about retention and attrition.

Responsibility for Professional Development at Mid-Career

As this study has shown, professional development involving supervisors was
seen as a critical influence on the mid-career student affairs experience. Less clear from
the research was how much professional support should occur between supervisors and
mid-career professionals. Based on the discussion of participants from this study, there is

an apparent disconnect between how institutions and the field believe professional

197

 

development and support occurs and how mid-career professionals are actually
experiencing it. One possible reason for this was suggested earlier in this chapter
involving a closed loop involving past new and mid-career individuals who did not
receive adequate professional development. Those same professionals are now the senior
and mid-career individuals responsible for supervising a great majority of new, and more
importantly, mid-career professionals, who are experiencing the same lack of
professional support and development. There are conference sessions and institutes in
student affairs, and professional development at many institutions specifically targeting
how individuals become good or better supervisors. So why are supervisors not being
trained to help develop and support their staff to prosper professionally at an institution
and in the field?

Lifelong learning as part of professional development

Throughout my study, when participants discussed their experiences and
satisfaction at mid-career, most connected this experience to external influences
including the field, institutions, and their supervisors. Even as all of the participants had
taken some responsibility for their own professional development by attending one of two
institutes for mid-managers, most relied on external sources to have the greatest impact
on their professional development. What was not clear from my study was how many of
the participants believed that the concept of lifelong learning should also have a role in
their professional development experiences at mid-career. As practitioners we advocate
to our students the responsibility they have on their own education and development. Yet
most participants in my study never discussed their own responsibility in the mid-career

experience. Additional research specifically looking at how much professional

198

development comes from external sources at mid-career and how much is internally
derived would also assist in determining where and how professional development should
occur.

Formal professional development

All of my study participants attended one of two institutes for mid-managers
sponsored by a professional association in student affairs. This appeared to be the
launching point for many in my study pursuing professional development at mid-career.
However, as I indicated in my major findings, considerable emphasis was placed on the
relationship participants had with their former and current supervisors in student affairs.
Some participants also discussed professional development as an individual responsibility
which seemed to drive how all professional development decisions were made. These
different emphases on professional development originate from three different areas
within student affairs. Grouping these under professional development headings results in
three different ways to achieve professional development: formal, informal and non-
formal.

What was not clear from the results of my study was to what extent professionals
should develop in either a formal, informal or non-fonnal manner. Certainly the field and
participants supported the more obvious applications of formal development such as the
mid-managers institute. However, they also lamented the absence of the informal
development tied to the support from a supervisor or institution. What was missing from
my study and could assist in supporting professional development at mid-career was a
clarification of what types of professional development are best suited for the career

segment, when should it occur and how do the different ways prepare mid—career

199

professionals for success in the field. If the field and to some extent institutions support
and value professional development at mid-career, then there needs to be a more
conscious effort to also understand how professional development is not just an annual
conference or institute but an on-going analysis of the changing needs of mid-career
individuals as they develop.

The Vital Mid-Career Professional

One of the goals of this study was to report on best practices for institutions, as
well as the field. As discussed in the research on mid-career faculty (Baldwin, 1979;
Baldwin, 1990), institutions need to understand how to create professionally vital
environments for their mid-career student affairs professionals. The field of student
affairs seems to have a better sense of the mid-career period, yet still falls short of how to
keep those individuals engaged as part of their experience. Study participants discussed
several ways of helping prepare supervisors to develop mid-career professionals. This
would be a first step in understanding the complexities of the supervisor/mid-career
professional dynamic. Comprehensive and institution-specific studies of how universities
and colleges provide professional development for supervisors in order to better support
them should be encouraged and developed by the field, researchers, and practitioners in
student affairs.

These types of studies not only legitimize the concerns of many mid-career
professionals who do not feel supported by their supervisors, it also informs the field and
institutions of best practices that can be adopted or encouraged by senior student affairs
officers in their own divisions. This study began identifying an important missing

component in the supervisor/mid-career professional relationship. It should go further by

200

 

looking at how the field prepares individuals as they reach mid-career. I asked
participants in my study to discuss their experiences in the student affairs graduate
program and how it helped them prepare for mid-career. While this time was focused
more on preparing them to be new professionals in the field, many participants felt
essential skills such as supervision, budgets, and managing people should have been
addressed during their graduate programs. These were the same skills participants said
the field and institutions often used to indicate someone had reached mid-career. This and
the issue of the mid-career professional/supervisor relationship represent a larger question
of how intentional is the field and institutions in preparing individuals for mid-career in
student affairs?

Participants from my study indicated the preparation for mid-career neither begins
in graduate school nor as new professionals, and are labeled by the field as mid-career
because they hold a certain title or position and have been in the field for a pre-
determined number of years. There is no intentionality in preparing individuals for mid-
career or recognizing how their development is not accomplished in isolation either by
random acts of engagement or individual responsibility. Student affairs needs to examine
how professional development should be more intentional such as organizing training for
individuals in teams or engaging professionals in a community of learners. From her
research on organizations, Moss Kanter (1993) called for more emphasis on team-
building to help the diverse workforce “appreciate and utilize fully each other’s skills”.
The idea of organizing professionals around learning communities or teams is taken
directly from research on student learning communities currently found at many

universities and colleges. Other fields such as healthcare already organize and train

201

individuals in teams either by floor or specialty. It is now up to the field and institutions
to study and understand how the mid-career segment is not an automatic arrival of the
individual but an intentional evolution of the student affairs professional who requires a
myriad of professional development experiences to enhance this time period.

The “New” Definition of Mid-Career

Throughout the study, participants voiced concern about how student affairs
defines and classifies the mid-career experience. How mid-career was defined by many in
this study was in significant contrast to the classifications student affairs was using to
label and define these same professionals. It seems important for the field to embark on
an evaluation of the terms and methods it uses to define mid-career professionals and
begin research to enhance and improve those definitions that encompass a more
thoughtful description of the mid-career experience. This study suggests the current
language used by the field to define mid-career professionals negates the richer, yet
complicated experience that is mid-career. Further research on how mid-career in student
affairs is often limited by the labels attached by the field and institutions would assist
mid-career professionals in interpreting their own experiences once reaching this
important period.

The complex definition of mid-career offered by study participants, also
generated the feelings of existing in a dualistic world. The world for participants was one
part entry-level and another part higher-level, both often in conflict with the other in their
professional and personal lives. The definition of mid-career can no longer just be
subscribed to mere titles or positions; it must include the experiences of mid-career

professionals in the field whose lives have been chronicled and studied across all areas in

202

student affairs. The research must support the need to understand this critical timeframe
in the lives of mid-career professionals and how they are more then their titles or
positions. This new research should include qualitative and quantitative studies which
enable the field to encompass the wide—ranging types of institutions that exist in higher
education where mid-career professionals reside. New and ongoing research must
demonstrate to the field and institutions that the rewarding, confusing, and often muddled
time known as mid-career is not something to dread reaching, but instead a time to
develop as competent student affairs professionals.
Conclusion

Mid-career student affairs professionals compose a large and complicated group
of individuals in the field who perform many of the vital firnctions found at institutions.
This puts mid-career individuals in a unique situation to have a greater impact on the
students they work with and in the field of student affairs. Unfortunately, as this study
has demonstrated, mid-career in student affairs is also one of the most misunderstood and
challenging career timeframes in the field. The challenges originate from several different
areas that continue to enhance the confusion mid-career professionals experience in their
roles at their institutions and in the field. These challenges contribute to an uncertain time
in the lives of mid-career professionals that erode the vitality and significance of this core
group of individuals.

This study pointed to a student affairs field which, for many participants,
contained numerous concerns for them at mid-career. It began with a lack of a clear and
consistent definition of who a mid-career professional was, and culminated with a sense

of their existing in two worlds, which was detrimental, not only to their current roles in

203

student affairs administration, but also impacted how they envisioned their future in the
field. Even as the field attempted to create more meaningful and thoughtful ways to
alleviate some of the issues facing individuals at mid-career, participants instead viewed
student affairs as one of the main sources of their frustrations. For many in this study, the
field was clearly not doing all it could to address the difficult issues facing mid-career
professionals.

Taking a more local view of their mid-career experience, many participants
looked to institutions and their colleagues for assistance in understanding and developing
at mid-career. All of the study participants had supervisors and some worked at
institutions that supported their development in varying ways. Supervisors were seen as
the key individuals to help make sense of mid-career by encouraging and supporting
professional development at the institution and in the field. But for participants it often
fell short of their expectations and for some it was lacking almost entirely. As
participants searched for a clearer identity at mid-career their institutions and supervisors
did not meet their expectations. Without a clear definition of who they are as
professionals, and lacking support for their development from supervisors and
institutions, participants began to question their future in student affairs. If they did not
feel supported professionally and were not even sure who they were, participants faced
the task of trying to understand their mid-career status on their own.

This time of professional uncertainty was coupled with changes in mid-career
individuals’ personal lives. All of these factors came together to create an environment
open for the possibility of leaving student affairs. Adding such issues as low salaries and

high workloads to the uncertainties of mid-career created for them the potential for

204

leaving the field. While there is not yet a serious drain of talent from the field, this study
has shown that the experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals could have an
impact in accelerating this trend.

It is now time for the field, institutions, and individuals to recognize that mid-
career is not just one more stop along the career path in student affairs, but a time of
significant professional achievement, influence, and vitality. There must now be a
concerted effort by all three stakeholders to understand who mid-career professionals are
and how their experiences are shaped and influenced by all of them. Without this shift in
thinking, the future of mid-career student affairs professionals will remain as uncertain

and unclear as this study suggests.

205

 

 

APPENDIX A: ON-LINE AND INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT DATA
DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF ON-LINE SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
all demo aphic information was gnorted by participant to researcher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGE SEX RACE/E THNICI TY INSTITUTION TYPE AREA
student

30 F African-American 4-year, private activities
small, private, 4- executive

34 M ? year director
Old, British, large

48 F ? institution counseling_

urban, large,

50's* F African-American commuter student life
43 F Caucasian small, public, 4-year student life
44 M ? large, public, 4-year ?

26 M Caucasian small, public, 4-year student life
residence
32 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year life
38 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year counseling
private, urban, 4- campus
32 F ? year activities
42 F Caucasian large, private, 4-year student life
student
32 M Asian—American large, public, 4-year activities
33 M Caucasian large, public, 4-year ?
student
31 F Caucasian largg, public, 4-year leadership
student
32 M ? large, public, 4-year activities
student
32 F Caucasian larg public, 4-year conduct
47 F Caucasian small, public, 4-year counseling_
mid-sized, private, student
33 F Caucasian 4-year union
residence
30 M African-American large, public, 4-year life
residence
40 M ? Jublic, 4-year life
dean's
36 F African-American large, public, 4-year office
student
42 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year activities
34 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year fitness

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Used age of 55 for non-specific age reporting
“Average age= 37.09

 

 

206

 

 

 

DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
all demographic information was reported by participant to researcher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PSE UDO- Afl SQ RA CE INSTITUTION TYPE AREA
NYM ETHNICITY
Joyce B. 45 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year disability
resource
Julie S. 38 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year counseling_
Frank B. 27 M Caucasian mid-size, public, 4- student life
year
George S. 30 M African- mid-size, public, 2- student
American year affairs
Margaret T. 30 F Caucasian ' small, private, 4-year dean's
office
Nancy J. mid F Caucasian large, public, 4-year student life
30's* assess-
ment
Carrie P. mid F Caucasian large, public, 4-year student
30's* union
Sarah F. 33 F person of large, public, 4-year residence
color life
Janet R. 32 F Caucasian medium, private, 4- campus
year activities
Bill M. 34 M Caucasian large, public, 4-year dean's
office
Alice N. 31 F Caucasian public, 4-year student
Iife***
Francis H. 34 F Caucasian ' large, public, 4-year dean's
office
Slade L. 37 M Caucasian large, public, 4-year student
activities
Kathy 8. 37 F Caucasian small, private, 4-year campus
activities
Mary S. 50's* F Caucasian medium, public, 4 IT (within
year student
affairs
division)

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Used age of 35 and 55 for non-specific age reporting

"Avegge agg=35.53

 

 

***not directly reported to researcher

 

207

 

 

FAMILY DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
all demographic information was reported by participant to researcher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135_§U1)0NYM FA Mtg CHIL_o_I_g~:N
Joyce B. ? yes
Julie S. divorced yes
Frank B. married ?
George 8. single no
Margaret T. married ?
Nancy J. married ?
Carrie P. married yes
Sarah F. single no
Janet R. married no
Bill M. married yes
Alice N. married no
Francis H. married yes
Slade L. married expectingat time of interview
Kathy S. married yes
Mary S. ? ?
Joyce B. ? yes
Julie S. divorced yes
Frank B. married ?

 

 

 

208

 

APPENDIX B: ON-LINE SURVEY
MID-CAREER IN STUENT AFFAIRS
1. Consent and Confidentiality

You are being asked to participate in a pilot study examining possible factors
influencing the retention and attrition of mid-career or mid-level student affairs
professionals. In this pilot study you will complete a questionnaire concerning
specific themes developed from the literature on mid-career time-frames. There are 6
questions sometimes with multiple parts designed to elicit short answers based on
individual experiences as a mid-career student affairs professional. It should take you
approximately 15 minutes to complete. Please indicate in your responses which
question you are replying to e.g. #4a., #5, or #9c., etc.

 

Your completion of this questionnaire is voluntary, you may choose not to participate
at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain
questions or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. All
questionnaires will be kept confidential by the researcher to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

 

If you have any questions about this pilot study you may contact the investigator,
Michael Houdyshell, 4001 W. McNichols, Detroit, MI 48219, (313) 993-1033, or
houdyshe@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, you may contact-anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko, PhD,
Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at
Michigan State University (UCRIHS) by phone (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 432-4503,
ucrihs@msu.edu. 202 Olds Hall. East Lansing 48824. By completing this
questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this pilot study
and have your answers included in the project data set. If you choose to not continue
with the pilot study please exit this questionnaire now.

 

2. Professional Background

1. Please briefly describe your experiences in becoming a professional in student
affairs.
In your response please indicate your age, gender. title. type of institution you
currently work at, and if you consider yourself part of a traditionally
underrepresented group.

3. Student Affairs and the Mid-Career

How would you define what it means to be a mid-career student affairs
professional?

209

Do you think the student affairs field provides enough professional support to
individuals reaching mid-career time frames?

What does that support (skills) look like or what could it look like?
4. Professional Advancement

Would a decrease in the number of senior level student affairs positions influence
your decision to remain in the field as you progress professionally?

How does the field of student affairs prepare you professionally as you advance in
the field?

 

How does your particular institution prepare you professionally as you advance in
the field?

5. Professional Preparation
What helped prepare you for your first position(s) in student affairs?
What kinds of things could have better prepared you for your first position(s) in
student affairs? e.g. stronger link of theory to practice in your graduate program.
stronger supervisor, more assistantship/practicum experience, etc..

6. Attrition

Have you thought about leaving the field of student affairs entirely in the last
vear?

 

In the last 2-5 years?

If you answered yes. please list any reasons affecting these thoughts. e. g.
institutional issues. personal commitments, burnout, advancement

If you answered no. please list the reasons why you chose to remain.
If you have already decided to leave the field entirely in the next year please list
what factors contributed to this decision. e.g., institutional issues, personal

commitments, burnout, advancement

Are you interested in participating in a longitudinal study further exploring factors
that influence the retention and attrition of mid-career professionals?

7. Follow-up and Future Study

Thank you for your participation in this questionnaire. Your responses will help
further research on mid-career issues. If you are interested in a follow-up

210

telephone conversation concerning your answers or would prefer to answer these
questions over the telephone please email the researcher at houdyshe@msu.edu or
call 313-993-1033.

 

211

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR MID-CAREER STUDENT AFFAIRS
INTERVIEWS
To be completed before each interview begins
I. email solicitation sent to target population seeking participation
2. interested participants have received follow-up email explaining study
3. informed consent form completed and returned to researcher

PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Please describe in detail what you currently do in student affairs and how you
entered the profession. opening interview statement

2.

MID-CAREER AT STUDENT AFFAIRS

1. How would you define what it means to be at mid-career in student affairs?-key
question

2. How do you think the student affairs field chooses to recognize and define mid-
career?-probing question

3. Talk about your experiences moving from being a new professional (first or
second position) into more mid-career student affairs positions? probing question

4. Discuss your reactions to defining mid-career in student affairs more broadly such
as with the different professional experiences or more specifically such as with
the number of years in the field and/or position title? probing question

5. Some in student affairs have commented that being at mid-career in student
affairs is an important time in their career to decide whether to continue in the
profession. What do you think of this statement? probing question

6. What is your reaction to the idea that individuals at mid-career in student affairs
are often rooted in two worlds-one, performing some entry-level tasks and two,
expectations of performing higher level functions and responsibilities? probing
question

 

GRADUATE SCHOOL OR ASSISTANTSHIP PREPARATION OR PRE-FIRST

PROFESSIONAL POSITION

1. If you graduated from a traditional student affairs master’s program, how did it
prepare you for your first professional position?-key question

2. What would the pre-professional or graduate assistantship preparation look like to
prepare you for your first professional position and beyond? —key question

3. If you had an assistantship in a student affairs area during graduate school what
things during that time helped prepare for your first position? follow-up to
question number 2

4. In your graduate program do you believe you received more skills based or theory
based training? Key question

5. Discuss how the link from theory to practice was taught and/or established during
your graduate program?-key question

PROFESSIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AT MID-CAREER

212

PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONGRUENCE
l.

2.

3.

. Talk about how you believe the field prepares individuals professionally as they

advance in their career especially at mid-career.-key question

Where should the responsibility of providing adequate professional support
should fall? F ollow-up to question 1

Discuss the role institutions play in providing professional support for student
affairs professionals. follow-up question to question] and 2

Talk about how the field provides professional support for individuals at mid-
career who do not choose to advance to a senior level position. probing question
Discuss the role supervisors have in supporting someone professionally at mid-
career? probing question

r5

How does being at mid-career in student affairs correspond to your personal
situation?-key question

Talk about how the field supports individuals at mid-career who have families or
are thinking of starting a family. —key question

How do you think being at mid-career in student affairs impacts the decision of
when to start a family? F allow-up question to number 2

How does the number of hours beyond the traditional 40-hour work week that is
often required of student affairs professionals impact mid-career individuals?
probing question

Discuss some of the additional pressures exerted on women at mid-career in
student affairs. probing question

 

CAREER LADDER AND SENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS POSITIONS

l.

2.

3.

Discuss your reaction to the idea that the number of senior level positions in
student affairs gets smaller as individuals move through mid-career.-key question
Please define what it means to be in a Senior Student Affairs position. probing
question

If you were ready to move into a senior level position, how would it impact your
decision if you needed to move to another institution and/or move out of the area
to attain a position? If you have a family? Probing question

Talk about your reaction to the idea of feeling “stuck” at mid-career because of
the inability to advance beyond mid-career. probing questions

If you choose to leave the field, discuss how your skills and experiences would
translate outside of higher education. Probing question

ATTRITION IN STUDENT AFFAIRS AT MID-CAREER

1.

2.

What reasons would cause you to consider leaving the field after working in mid-
career? —key question

Research cites low salaries and burnout as the two most common reasons given
for mid-career individuals leaving the field. If raising salaries and decreasing
responsibilities are currently not available options to combat the problem of
attrition, how else could institutions and the field combat this problem for mid-
career professionals? -—key question

213

3. Again, given that low salaries and burnout are the two most common reasons why
individuals leave student affairs, why do you think more people choose to remain
in field then leave? -key question

4. If you chose to leave student affairs, talk about why or why you would. not remain
in higher education. Probing question

 

214

REFERENCES

Arminio, J. L., & Hultgren, F. H. (2002). Breaking out from the shadow: The question of
criteria in qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4),
446-460.

Arnold, K. (1982). Career development for the experienced student affairs professional.
NASPA Journal, 20(2), 3-8.

Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.). Statement of ethical principles
and standards. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from
http://www.myacpa.org/au/au_ethical.cfm

Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.) Professional development.
Retrieved March 31, 2007 from http://wwwmvacpaorg/pd/mmi/

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Austin, A. E. (1984). The work experience of university and college administrators.
Administrators ’ Update, 6(1), 1-5.

Austin, A. E. (1985). Factors contributing to job satisfactions of university mid-level
administrators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Chicago, IL.

Baldwin, R. G. (1979). Adult and career development: What are the implications for
faculty. Current Issues in Higher Education. 13-20.

Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty career stages and the implications for professional
development. In J. H. Schuster & D. W. Wheeler (Eds.),
Enhancing Faculty Careers (pp. 29-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty vitality beyond the research university: Extending a
contextual concept. Journal of Higher Education, 61(2), 160-180.

Baldwin, R. G. & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic careers as a developmental
process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 52(6),
598-614.

Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1983). The condition of the professoriate: The

variables and the data bases. In Baldwin, R. G. & Blackburn, R. T. (Eds.),
New Directions for Institutional Research, 10(4), 95-101.

215

 

Barr, M. J. (1990). Making the transition to a professional role. East Lansing, MI:
Beginning your journey: A guide for new professionals in student affairs. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED470564)

Belker, J. S. (1985). The education of mid-career professors: Is it continuing?
College Teaching, 33(2), 68-71.

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

Benke, M., & Disque, C. S. (1990). Moving in, out, up, or nowhere? The mobility of
mid-managers. In The invisible leaders; student aflairs mid-mangers,
Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Birnbaum, R. (1991). Making decisions and making sense. In How colleges work (pp. 56-
81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blimling, G. S. (2002). Reflections on career development among student affairs leaders.
New Directions for Student Services, 98, 27-36.

Boice, R. (1986). Faculty development via field programs for middle—aged, disillusioned
faculty. Research in Higher Education, 25(2), 115-135.

Bolyard, C. W. (1981). Career development: Who’s responsible in the organization?
In Montyross, D. H. & Shinkman, C. J. (Eds.), Career development in the 1980s,
theory and practice (pp. 290-293). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas Publishing.

Bossert, R. (1982). Career mobility of mid-level administrators in higher education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

Brown, M. (1998). What are the qualities of good research? In F. H. Hultgren & D.L.
Coomer (Eds.), Alternate modes of inquiry in home economics research (pp. 257-
297). Peoria, IL: Glencoe Press.

Burns, M. A. (1982). Who leaves the student affairs field? NASPA Journal, 20(2), 9-12.
Caffarella, R. S. et al. (1989). Mid-career faculty: Refocusing the perspective.
Review of Higher Education, 12(4), 403-10.

Carpenter, D. S., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Kelly, J. P. (1987). Transferability of student
affairs skills and competencies: Light at the end of the bottleneck. NASPA
Journal, 24(3), 5-14.

Carpenter, D. S., & Miller, T. K. (1981). An analysis of professional development in
student affairs work. NASPA Journal, 19(1), 3-10.

216

Carpenter, D. S., & Miller, T. K. (1990). Professional development and career issues for
mid-managers. In Young, R. B. (Ed.). National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335998)

Carter, T. J. (2002). The importance of talk to mid-career women’s development: A
collaborative inquiry. Journal of Business Communication, 39 55-91.

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational
Researcher, 14, 13-17.

Cliente, K., Henning, G., Skinner Jackson, J ., Kennedy, D., & Sloan, T. (2006). Report
on new professionals needs study. Washington, DC: American College Personnel
Association. Retrieved December 11, 2006.

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

Cytrynbaum, S., Lee, S., & Wadner, D. (1982). Faculty development through the life
course. Journal of Instructional Development, 5(3), 11-22.

Doyle, J. A. (2004). Where have we come from and where are we going? A review of
past student affairs philosophies and an analysis of the current student learning
philosophy. College Student Aflairs Journal, 24(1), 1-18.

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

Fey, C. J ., & Carpenter, D. S. (1996). Mid-level student affairs administrators:
Management skills and professional development needs. NASPA Journal, 33,
21 8-23 1 .

F reiberg, M., Zbikowski, J ., & Ganser, T. (1997). Promoting mid-career growth through
mentoring. Journal of Stafl Development, 18(2), 52-54.

Gordon, S. E., Strode-Border, C. & Mann, B. A. (1993). The mid-manager in student
affairs: What are CSAOs looking for? NASPA Journal, 30(4), 13-16.

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

Harder, M. B. (1983). Career patterns of chief student personnel administrators. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 24, 443-448.

Harned, P. J., & Murphy, M. C. (1998). Creating a culture of development for the new
professional. New Directions for Student Services, 84, 43-53.

217

Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of career. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Holmes, D., Verrier, D., & Chisolm, P. (1983). Persistence in student affairs work:
Attitude and job shifts among master’s program graduates. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 24, 43 8-443.

Holmes, T., & Cartwright, S. (1991). Mid-career change: The ingredients for success.
Employee Relations, 16, 7.

Howard-Hamilton, M. (2004). Considering the doctorate. In K.A. Renn & C. Hughes
(Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student Aflairs at Mid-Career, Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.

Hughes, C. (2004). Reflections of a working mother in student affairs. In K.A. Renn & C.
Hughes (Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student Affairs at Mid-Career, Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnsrud, L. K. (1999). Predicting and reducing midlevel administrative turnover.
College and University Personnel Association Journal, 50(1,2), 1-8.

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

Jones, S. R. (2002). (Re)Writing the word: Methodological strategies and issues in
qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 461 -473.

Karpiak, I. E. (1996). Ghosts in a wilderness: Problems and priorities of faculty at
mid-career and mid-life. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 26(3), 49-78.

Klingner, D. E., & Nalbandian, J. (1985). In Public Personnel Management. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Komives, S. R. (1992). The middles: Observations on professional competence and
autonomy. NASPA Journal, 29(2), 83-90.

Kovan, J. T., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). “Being called awake”: The role of transformative
learning in the lives of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(2),
99-118.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The mid-life transition. The seasons of a man’s life (pp.191-208).

218

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Lofquist, L. H., & Davis, R. V. (1969). A theory of work adjustment. Adjustment to work,
(pp. 43-55). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

London, M. (1990). Enhancing career motivation in late career. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 3(2), 58-71.

Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal, 35(3),
207-214.

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

Marshall, S. (2004). Motherhood and student affairs: The skillful art of managing work
and family. In K.A. Renn & C. Hughes (Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student
Affairs at Mid-Career, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

 

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Adult development and the learning
experience. Learning in adulthood, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Moss Kanter, R. (1993) Men and women of the corporation, New York, NY: Basic
Books.

National Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.). Grad preparation
programs. Retrieved March 30, 2005 from
http://www.naspa.org/gadprep/index.cfm

National Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.) Knowledge
communities. Retrieved March 31, 2007 from
http://www.naspa.org/communities/kc/index.fin

Renn, K. A., & Hughes, C. (Eds.). Roads taken: Women in student affairs at mid-career.
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Richmond, J ., & Sherman, K. J. (1991). Student-development preparation and placement:
A longitudinal study of graduate students’ and new professionals’ experiences.
Journal of College Student Development, 32(8), 16.

Rickard, S. T. (1982). Turnover at the top: A study of the chief student affairs officer.
NASPA Journal, 20(2), 37-41.

219

Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, 8., & Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step:
Mixed methods research in organizational systems. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 19-29.

Roper, L. (2002). Relationships: The critical ties that bind professionals. New Directions
for Student Services, 98, 1 1-26.

Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The
unsung professionals in the academy. Higher Education: The International
Journal of Higher Education, 48, 317-337.

Rosser, V. J. & J avinar, 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), 813-827.

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schor, J. B. (2003). The (even more) overworked American. In J. de Graff (Ed.), Take
back your time: Fighting overwork and time poverty in America, San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.

Tarver, D., Canada, R., & Lim, M. (1999). The relationship between job satisfaction and
locus of control among college student affairs administrators and academic
advisors. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 96-105.

United States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics (n.d.). 2005 Current
population survey. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from
http://wwwbls.gov/opub/ted/2005/jan/wl_(1/art04.htm

Volkwein, J. F ., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public
and private universities. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 95-116.

Ward, L. (1995). Role stress and propensity to leave among new student affairs
professionals. NASPA Journal, 33(1), 35-45.

Whitt, E. J. (1991). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of
College Student Development, 32, 406-415.

Wiggers, T. T., F omey, D. S., & Wallace-Shutzman, F. (1982). Burnout is not necessary:
Prevention and recovery. NASPA Journal, 20(2), 13-21.

Williams, S. L., & Fox, C. J. (1995). Organizational approaches for managing mid-career
personnel. Public Personnel Management, 24, 351-363.

220

Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Twombly, S. B., & Rice, S. (2004). Dual career couples. In K.A.
Renn & C. Hughes (Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student Affairs at Mid-
Career, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Wood, L., Winston, R. B., & Polkosnik, M. C. (1985). Career orientations and
professional development of young student affairs professionals. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26(26), 532-539.

Young, R. B. (1990). Professional development and career issues for mid-managers. ‘
In Young, R. B. (Ed.). National Association of Student Personnel Administrators,
Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335998)

 

221

A

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll