Reframing student affairs practice

Baylor University

From the SelectedWorks of Rishi Sriram, Ph.D.

2010

Reframing student affairs practiceRishi R Sriram, Baylor UniversityJesse Hines, Baylor University

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/rishi_sriram/4/

1

Reframing Student Affairs Practice

Rishi Sriram

Jesse Hines

Abstract:

The interdisciplinary nature of student affairs requires the integration and application of theories

pertaining to higher education, management, and psychology. Each discipline offers a theory

that can be synthesized by utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames. By thinking of their

work environments in circles, student affairs managers and leaders can utilize a proposed model

to help them know how to begin applying each of the four frames in practice.

2

The amount of pressure on institutions of higher education to hold themselves

accountable for desired student outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2006) both directly

and indirectly affects student affairs professionals. Senior administrators increasingly rely on

divisions of student affairs to help produce outcomes associated with the cognitive,

developmental, and psychosocial goals colleges desire for students. Those in student affairs are

currently asked, among other things, to foster a supportive campus environment, provide

enriching educational experiences, promote greater student-faculty interaction, and connect the

learning that occurs both inside and outside of the classroom (National Survey of Student

Engagement, 2000). Although higher education institutions more readily acknowledge that the

real purpose of student affairs is to foster student learning and engagement (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh,

& Whitt, 2005), these added expectations rarely come with added resources. As those who work

in student affairs face increased demands without increased resources, doing more with less is

vital, leading to more reliance upon the leadership effectiveness of student affairs administrators

(Belch, 1995; Dungy, 2003).

In order to promote effectiveness, current research calls for student affairs professionals

to be cognizant of their personal biases and mindsets in their work. Guido, Chávez, and Lincoln

(2010) emphasize the importance of appropriately identifying an individual’s thought paradigm,

advocating for student affairs professionals to note how they view the world in order to impact

the world. Leaders in higher education need to recognize the specific lenses through which they

interpret problems and solutions in order to understand themselves and others. In other words,

“Student affairs practitioners and scholars have a responsibility to know from which paradigm(s)

they are working and to consider how their practice may be impacting those they serve” (Guido

3

et al., 2010, p. 16). Understanding paradigms is especially important for student affairs

professionals due to the interdisciplinary nature of the role.

The Interdisciplinary Nature of Student Affairs Practice

The interdisciplinary nature of student affairs practice can make managing and leading

particularly difficult. Leaders in student affairs must integrate and apply knowledge from

multiple fields in order to survive, let alone thrive (Lovell & Kosten, 2000). Because institutions

of higher education are unique enterprises distinct from regular business corporations, student

affairs leaders must know the strengths, weaknesses, and intricacies of how colleges work in

order to create or sustain change. A lack of knowledge concerning the complexity of higher

education will impede desired results. Therefore, student affairs professionals must be students

and masters of the field of higher education.

However, colleges also share organizational components with businesses. For instance, a

manager in student affairs must face many of the same challenges as a manager in the corporate

world (Kuh, 2003). While most attention goes toward the impact student affairs professionals

have upon students, administrators must first get their staff members to come together under a

common vision and work as a team before they can begin to develop undergraduates. Therefore,

student affairs professionals must be students and masters of management and organizational

theory.

Whereas most organizations seek to produce change in easily quantifiable variables,

student affairs educators have different challenges: How do you interact with and influence other

human beings in ways that help you effectively implement a vision?

Staff members come with a range of backgrounds and personalities, and student affairs leaders

must navigate those relationships in order to accomplish objectives. Therefore, student affairs

4

professionals must be students and masters of psychology (American College Personnel

Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2004; Evans, 2003).

Although by no means an exhaustive list, effective student affairs professionals must

integrate and apply knowledge of higher education, management, and psychology in order to

have the kind of impact on students that positively affects their learning, engagement, and

development. Accordingly, the natural question arises: How do student affairs professionals

understand and integrate theories from these diverse disciplines and apply them to their complex

work environments?

From Theory to Practice

Theories are mental models – lenses through which student affairs professionals see the

world around them. Theories should be tools used by student affairs administrators to make

sense of complex situations and make decisions when time and information are severely limited

(McEwen, 2003). If not viewed in this manner, theories can easily become the material student

affairs administrators endured during graduate school before embarking on the real world.

Perhaps Birnbaum (1988) puts it best: “I believe the only thing more useful to an administrator

than a good theory is several good theories – particularly if they happen to be in conflict with one

another” (p. xvi).

Following this advice, student affairs professionals can utilize theories that overlap with

one another enough to be integrated and synthesized, but that also conflict with each other in

ways that cause administrators to think carefully among alternative choices. Moreover, student

affairs professionals can do this with theories that pertain specifically to higher education,

management, and psychology; theories that, while pertinent to their respective fields, rise above

their individual disciplines. Grasping, synthesizing, and applying theories from higher

5

education, management, and psychology allows student affairs administrators to effectively

conduct their work in an increasingly complex and demanding environment.

A Theory from Higher Education: Four College Models

Student affairs professionals live in the unique universe of higher education.

Notwithstanding, onlookers certainly have some validation for labeling a university as little more

than a business. The exchange of money, the fight for fiscal and human resources, and the

upkeep of facilities all lead to the assumption that a college is essentially a corporation. But such

an assumption, at least in its simplicity, is incorrect. The words “business” and “college” are not

interchangeable. Despite their obvious overlap, these two types of institutions differ in

significant ways, including external environment, internal organization, and overall governance

(Birnbaum, 1988).

Attempting to understand the intricacies of higher education institutions is a daunting

task, but nonetheless a challenge student affairs educators face daily. Fortunately, Birnbaum

(1988) identifies four models of institutions and their specific functions. While any particular

college will be a blend of two or more of these models, understanding them in their extreme

versions will help student affairs professionals navigate their own institution. Birnbaum’s four

college models are the collegial, bureaucratic, political, and anarchical institution.

Imagine a student affairs professional working in a college where equality and debate are

embedded in the culture. This is the collegial institution. Perhaps the campus is small in size,

fostering frequent face-to-face interactions that are critical for the life of the college. These

regular interactions allow for departments to work collaboratively; there are no silos (Birnbaum,

1988). Or, in contrast, imagine a student affairs administrator working in a large organization

where structure and hierarchy are foundational. The bureaucratic institution esteems an

6

organization’s structure and chain of command. There is a constant emphasis on efficiency and

rational decision-making. This institution highly regards position; therefore, a promotion up the

organizational chart is a key power move for a student affairs administrator (Birnbaum, 1988).

Student affairs educators could also find themselves in a warzone, where everyone is

fighting for power and resources. Birnbaum’s (1988) third model, the political institution,

thrives on influence within the organization. Administrators may find themselves in fierce

competition with one another for additional funding, the hiring of a staff member, or to retain a

particular program. Departments form alliances in order to ensure necessary resources, and

power is multiplied when collaborating with other influential individuals.

While the first three models are each unique, they at least all possess a sense of order in

their respective structures. However, student affairs professionals could find themselves in an

institution so large that there is more anarchy than order, but somehow enough stability is

maintained for people to function. In the anarchical institution (Birnbaum, 1988), with

departments too numerous to track and multiple events occurring simultaneously, student affairs

professionals must focus on their small town in order to survive in the larger kingdom.

Individual and departmental agendas are pursued in hopes of somehow properly connecting

problems, people, and solutions in a manner that creates change (Kuh, 2003). The size and

complexity of this type of institution is so great that attention is diffused based upon subgroups,

common interests, or environmental factors. Birnbaum (1988) refers to these random,

spontaneous, and sometimes temporary collections of problems, people, and solutions as

garbage cans, also known as committees to those who work in student affairs.

Again, the four models described by Birnbaum (1988) are exaggerations that make the

point. Typically, a student affairs administrator will draw from the collegial, bureaucratic,

7

political, and anarchical institution in order to analyze the culture of any one particular

institution. These four models provide an avenue through which those in student affairs can

better understand their work environment.

Table 1

Birnbaum’s Four College Models

College Model Brief Description

Collegial Equality, consensus, faculty power, tradition

Bureaucratic Hierarchy, efficiency, rational decision-making

Political Fight for resources, coalitions, alliances

Anarchical Enormous, chaos, stability through inefficiency

A Theory from Management: The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

The challenges of working toward the learning and development of college students are

so demanding that integration of student affairs management and leadership issues is

underemphasized in research (Lovell & Kosten, 2000). However, countless midlevel and senior

administrators are called upon daily to form teams and manage staff as higher education

institutions seek to foster supportive campus environments. Supervision cannot fall into the

other duties as assigned category for administrators in student affairs. Managing is a core

component of the job, and utilizing theory is necessary for effectiveness.

Utilizing a parable format, Lencioni (2002) describes five common dysfunctions that

often plague teams in the workplace. The five dysfunctions are: absence of trust, fear of conflict,

lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. This short list is

deceptively simple; each dysfunction ties into a broader framework of management, leadership,

8

and organizational theory. Therefore, by understanding and applying the concepts and tools to

prevent these dysfunctions, student affairs professionals are able to translate theory into practice.

As each dysfunction builds on another, absence of trust is the first and most foundational

dysfunction of a work team. Absence of trust leads to other symptomatic problems, such as a

staff’s unwillingness to be vulnerable with others in the group. If team members cannot share

mistakes and weaknesses openly with one another, an environment of trust will be unattainable

and miscommunication will occur. For example, if a supervisor in a residence life department

knows that a hall director is struggling, he or she may remain tight-lipped with colleagues for

fear that the situation reflects poorly upon the supervisor’s ability to manage a staff. Therefore,

instead of sharing the situation and immediately seeking advice, the student affairs administrator

gambles on whether or not the problem will disappear or amplify.

Following absence of trust is fear of conflict. Lencioni (2002) advocates for conflict as

an essential ingredient to any healthy team. Conflict allows team members to engage in the

“unfiltered and passionate debate of ideas” (p. 188). Only when staff members are able to come

together in an environment where equality is esteemed and hierarchy is deemphasized can they

approach problems with creativity, care, and a sense of adventure. For example, a director of a

student organizations department may hold a meeting with direct reports about a problem facing

the department. The director asks for ideas on how to solve the problem, but then immediately

offers his or her own suggestion before seeking feedback. If a fear of conflict is present, no one

will possess the courage to address apparent weaknesses to the proposed strategy, and staff

members will likely exaggerate the strengths of the solution.

The next dysfunction, lack of commitment, pertains to the level of buy-in staff members

have with decisions. To ensure security in the organization, team members may feign

9

commitment to the ideas presented from leadership. Student affairs professionals, like all

workers, desire to be persuaded on a direction rather than ordered to follow necessary steps for

implementation. Too often, managers use their authority to force follow-through, with little

attention paid to the hearts of their followers. As an example, perhaps the director of a student

orientation department needs to make a quick decision. The director tries to encourage conflict,

but is frustrated by the (perceived) negative opinions and ideas shared. After enduring

disagreements for as long as possible, the director makes a decision and expects compliance.

Later, however, the director finds that the compliance is merely technical: staff members are

“following the rules” but have lost the meaning behind the decision.

The final two dysfunctions – avoidance of accountability and inattention to results – fit

well together. Those who work in student affairs know that results matter (Schuh, 2009). One

can have a team that trusts each other, disagrees openly in meetings, and is committed to the

vision of the department and subsequent decisions, but if these vital components do not lead to

results then what is their purpose? Real learning and development requires accountability and

results. Ultimately, staff members must be willing to address their peers’ poor performance; this

is the result of true ownership. Pressure to succeed must come from equals as well as superiors

in the organization. However, it is difficult to hold others accountable when no specific metrics

are stated relating to goals. As Lencioni (2002) notes, “Teams that are willing to commit

publicly to specific results are more likely to work with a passionate, even desperate desire to

achieve those results” (p. 219). If the director of a counseling department requires his or her

staff to counsel others with care without any specific ways to assess such a goal, no one in the

department is equipped to hold someone else to a higher standard.

10

There is no such thing as an effective division of student affairs without effective

managers and leaders. It is insufficient to decide what to do for students without also

determining how to get a team of student affairs educators united under a vision, together

seeking how to help students. Understanding and avoiding Lencioni’s five dysfunctions (see

Table 2) provides foundational organizational wisdom for those in student affairs to lead well.

Table 2

Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions

Dysfunction Description

Absence of trust Without trust, teams cannot work together successfully.

Fear of conflict Without conflict, ideas cannot be refined before becoming decisions.

Lack of commitment Without commitment, compliance is gained and the hearts, minds, and will of staff are lost.

Avoidance of accountability Without accountability, there cannot be a culture of excellence.

Inattention to results Without specific goals, staff members cannot know if they are performing well, and will therefore assume that they are.

A Theory from Psychology: The Big Five

While personality tests are prevalent in today’s society, few have a foundation of

empirical research supporting their validity and worth. In 1943, Cattell summarized his findings

on personality into 16 primary and 8 secondary factors, initiating a movement toward identifying

specific personality traits. As the research continued, certain personality factors continued to

surface. Norman (1963) found a recurrence of five personality traits in his research, which later

became commonly referred to as Norman’s Big Five. Concurrent research in the past twenty

years has shown the validation of these five factors (Costa & McCrae, 1987; Goldberg, 1990;

Digman, 1989). The five-factor model consists of: Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness,

Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, also referred to as the acronym OCEAN (McCrae

11

& John, 1992). An individual can be high in some dimensions and low in others, and personality

thereby comprises the combination of the varying degrees of the five factors.

Those high on Openness to Experience express an interest in “creativity, intellectual

interests, differentiated emotions, aesthetic sensitivity, need for variety, and unconventional

values” (McCrae & John, 1992, p. 197). Such individuals are seen as intelligent and imaginative

(Barrick & Mount, 1991). The second trait, Conscientiousness, is seen as a trait governed by

self-control. Those individuals high in conscientiousness are “dutiful… hardworking,

ambitious” (McCrae & Costa, 1987, p. 88) and are also highly organized, attentive, precise, and

high achieving (McCrae & John, 1992). People high in conscientiousness are aware of all the

various tasks associated with a particular situation.

The third personality dimension, Extraversion, refers to how an individual relates to

others. Those who are high in extraversion are outgoing, open, and talkative (McCrae & Costa,

1987, p. 87). Agreeableness, the fourth factor, is also known as likability or friendliness (Barrick

& Mount, 1991). Individuals high on this dimension focus on being courteous, nurturing, and

supportive, but those, by contrast, who are low on agreeableness may demonstrate “self-

centeredness, spitefulness, and jealousy of the other” (McCrae & John, 1992, p. 197).

Agreeableness can also be seen in the forms of sympathy and tolerance.

The personality dimension of Neuroticism is the last of the big five. However, this

dimension is reversed: A higher level of neuroticism yields negative or inflexible characteristics.

Neuroticism is the opposite of emotional stability and is demonstrated through negative

emotionality and high distress (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Barrick and Mount (1991) describe

those high in neuroticism as “depressed, angry, worried, and insecure” (p. 4). In addition,

individuals who are neurotic may seem nervous and anxious. McCrae and John (1992) associate

12

neuroticism with irrational thinking and low self-esteem. On the opposite end of the spectrum,

those low in this dimension will be composed and calm.

Taken together, differing degrees of openness to experience, conscientiousness,

extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism combine in order to form individual personalities.

The Big Five (see Table 3) provide student affairs administrators a framework with which to

understand the colleagues and students they interact with on a regular basis.

Table 3

The Big Five

Big Five Personality Factor Brief Description

Openness to Experience Creative, imaginative, and curious

Conscientiousness Responsible, self-controlled, and hard working

Extraversion Outgoing, talkative, and influential

Agreeableness Friendly, nurturing, and supportive

Neuroticism (reverse-scored) Negative, distressed, and insecure

One Theory that Synthesizes the Three

The Task Force on the Future of Student Affairs (2010) describes upcoming issues and

changes in the field, stating how, “Providing leadership to meet the future effectively requires

expanding the definition of student affairs work and focusing on ways that enable all who work

with students to do so more effectively” (p. 8). In order to continue in the expanding definition,

using multiple theories from higher education, management, and psychology will help create an

environment where student affairs professionals can thrive. Such theories align with the

suggestions of the Task Force to evaluate the “assumptions, structures, roles, constituents, and

13

partners” of student affairs professionals in order for those in higher education to work together

effectively (2010, p. 16). What is needed is a model that addresses each of these aspects in

higher education.

If student affairs educators must understand and apply theories from areas such as higher

education, management, and psychology, then learning Birnbaum’s (1988) four college models,

Lencioni’s (2002) five dysfunctions of a team, and the Big Five is a good place to begin. As

Kuh (2003) notes, “Being familiar with multiple theoretical windows increases the possibility

that one’s theories-in-use will generate more accurate interpretations of events and actions than

are possible using any single view” (p. 270). However, in the fast-paced and intense work of

student affairs, the idea of constantly drawing from these three theories may be ideal at best,

unrealistic at worst. For this reason, the ability to synthesize and integrate these theories is vital

for student affairs professionals to improve their environments by utilizing the theories in day-to-

day operations (Saunders, Cooper, Winston, & Chernow, 2000; Tull, 2006). Such integration

“gives learners a new form of power, especially intellectual power” (Fink, 2003, p. 31). If

student affairs professionals are to foster meaningful change in an increasingly complex

institutional environment, they must increase their intellectual power, and such an increase can

come by integrating the three theories via Bolman and Deal’s (2008) Four Frames.

14

The Four Frames

In 1984, Bolman and Deal published a book entitled, Modern Approaches to

Understanding and Managing Organizations. In their book and its four subsequent editions, the

authors present a four-frame model for interpreting situations and making proper decisions

accordingly. They posit that one of the most common fallacies of those who lead and manage is

“seeing an incomplete or distorted picture as a result of overlooking or misinterpreting important

signals” (p. 4). They choose the word frame to convey the theory, mental model, paradigm, or

cognitive lens that an individual uses to discern the problem and solution for a particular

circumstance. Funneling insights from both research and practice, Bolman and Deal present four

major frames – structural, human resource, political, and symbolic – and suggest that the most

effective administrators are those who can employ all four frames simultaneously in their leading

and managing.

The structural frame. The structural frame views the organization as a factory, made up

of interconnecting parts that work together seamlessly (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Key concepts of

the structural frame include differentiation and integration. Differentiation concerns the

allocation of work – how to distribute roles and responsibilities in order to maximize overall

efficiency. Integration, on the other hand, is the coordination of multiple efforts once positions

and duties have been assigned. The structural frame brings order, direction, and efficiency by

emphasizing authority in decision-making. Leaders are effective when they are architects, and

processes thrive when they come from intensive analysis.

The human resource frame. In stark contrast to the structural frame, the human

resource frame thinks of the organization as a family of people who care for and support one

another (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Building on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1954),

15

McGregor (1960) argued that managers create a self-fulfilling prophecy with their employees. If

a manager possesses a Theory X assumption, he or she believes employees are naturally lazy and

therefore need controls to keep them efficient. Theory Y, by contrast, advocates that

organizations should align their goals with the goals of employees, creating a scenario in which

what is good for the group is good for the individual. The human resource frame focuses on

individual growth, participation, and empowerment. Leaders are effective when they are

catalysts between talent and performance, and processes excel when they emphasize support and

empowerment.

The political frame. The political frame sees the organization as a war zone or jungle,

with limited resources and divergent interests (Bolman & Deal, 2008). With this frame, groups

funnel into subgroups, or coalitions, based upon common goals and the need to gain power

through alliances. Whereas some might believe that if everyone had the organization’s best in

mind the right decisions would be readily apparent, those who utilize the political frame

understand that life is seldom as simple as right versus wrong. In other words, decisions must be

made among competing goods. For example, the division of student affairs in an institution (a

type of coalition) must compete for limited resources against other important divisions, such as

academic affairs. Do you hire two residence hall directors or one faculty member? Do you build

a new student union or a new science building? The ability to influence and bargain are vital

characteristics of the political frame, and student affairs leaders are effective when they provide

arenas for constructive conflict and act as negotiators between subgroups (Stringer, 2009).

The symbolic frame. The symbolic frame takes a loftier look on life, viewing the

organization as a theatre made up of stories with heroes and villains. What something means is

more important than what it actually is, and anecdotes are more powerful than data in this frame.

16

Colleges thrive on the symbolic frame with their peculiar traditions, symbols, fight songs,

mascots, and sports teams. A shared sense of purpose and values is critical in this lens. Leaders

are most effective when they are prophets or poets who infuse meaning into otherwise mundane

processes.

The importance of the four frames is their ability to allow for reframing – seeing a

particular decision-making moment through four different lenses before selecting the best

approach. Although any particular administrator will be more inclined to see the world through

one or two of the frames (Bensimon, 1989), no one frame is better than any other; all four are

needed. Table 4 captures the variety of ways the four frames compare and contrast to each other.

Table 4

The Four Frames

Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic

Metaphor Factory Family Jungle Theatre Leader Effectiveness (Person)

Analyst / Architect

Catalyst / Servant

Advocate / Negotiator

Prophet / Poet

Leader Ineffectiveness (Person)

Bureaucrat / Tyrant

Weakling / Pushover

Con artist / Manipulator

Fanatic / Fake

Leadership Effectiveness (Process)

Analysis / Design Support / Empowerment

Arenas / Coalitions Inspiration / Meaning-making

Leadership Ineffectiveness (Process)

Manage by detail Abdication Manipulation / Fraud Mirage / Smoke

Strategies for Change

Realignment Participation Arenas Transition rituals

Barriers to Change Loss of direction Anxiety Disempowerment Loss of meaning Communication Transmit facts &

info Exchange needs & feelings

Influence & bargain Tell stories

Meetings For making decisions

For building relationships

For negotiating resources

For celebrating culture

Motivation Economic incentives

Self-actualization Power Meaning

17

Integrating the Three Theories with the Four Frames

The theories of Birnbaum’s (1988) four college models (higher education), Lencioni’s

(2002) five dysfunctions of a team (management), and Norman’s (1963) Big Five (psychology)

converge helpfully into Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames, allowing for the synthesis,

integration, and application of these diverse theories to students affairs practice (see Figure 1).

Figure1.IntegratingtheTheoriesforStudentAffairsPractice

In light of Birnbaum’s (1988) four models, the bureaucratic institution is the result of a

college utilizing the structural frame to an extreme. This is the college obsessed with the

organizational chart, efficiency, and rational decision-making. The structural frame also

provides the answer for two of Lencioni’s (2002) dysfunctions: inattention to results and

avoidance of accountability. With this frame, results matter, thereby emphasizing an

environment in which each part does its work. In addition, the structural frame directly connects

to the personality traits of both conscientiousness and neuroticism; those high in these traits find

their comfort zone in this frame. Conscientiousness is governed by self-control; individuals with

this personality trait are organized, attentive, and precise. Neuroticism, however, reflects the

Student Affairs Practice utilizing the four frames

18

dark side of overemphasizing the structural frame, with such individuals yielding negative and

inflexible characteristics.

The human resource frame governs the collegial institution, where equality is highly

valued in word and deed. This frame also addresses the first and most foundational dysfunction:

an absence of trust. When colleagues believe that others care for them, and when supervisors

seek out what is best for employees as well as the larger organization, trust is able to flourish.

From a personality perspective, such supervisors are likely to be high in agreeableness, the

driving construct for the human resource frame. Agreeableness is associated with the ability to

be courteous, nurturing, and supportive. Such interpersonal and relational skills are the hallmark

of this frame.

There may be a tendency for student affairs educators to think of the human resource

frame as good and the political frame as bad (Stringer, 2009). However, the political frame is

vital to higher education institutions because it allows for the allocation of limited resources

among competing goods. In the political institution, departments, even within a single division

such as student affairs, must make their case for additional staff and funding for programs. Love

and care within an organization should not rule out healthy conflict. In fact, as Lencioni (2002)

notes in the second dysfunction, fear of conflict can shutdown creativity and new perspectives

for solving problems or accomplishing goals. Coalitions need people who can advocate for

resources or who can, with a certain degree of emotional intelligence, share difficult truths with

colleagues. Such ability can come from the extraversion personality construct of the Big Five.

Extraversion refers to an individual’s ability to relate to others by presenting themselves as

outgoing, open, and talkative. Although not the only type of effective leadership style,

charismatic leaders are particularly gifted in political environments.

19

Birnbaum’s (1988) fourth college model, the anarchical institution, refers to universities

so large that chaos is part of the everyday culture. In such institutions, stability is somehow

achieved through the lack of efficiency that results from the size and decentralization of

departments. Due to such complexity, attention is diffused based on subgroups, common

interests, or environmental factors, thereby leading to the lack of commitment described by

Lencioni (2002). What events mean becomes more important than what they actually are, which

is the central theme of the symbolic frame. Stories, rituals, traditions, heroes, and villains bring

understanding, meaning, involvement, and commitment. Here, openness to experience is

paramount for effective student affairs professionals. Those high on this trait are creative,

intellectually curious, unconventional, and appropriately emotional, allowing them to capture

moments and lift people away from the mundane to the surreal.

No institution can be solely described by one frame, and every institution has at least

some aspects of every frame. Key concepts relating to higher education, management, and

psychology integrate into the four frames, allowing for the seeing and re-seeing of any given

scenario. Ultimately, the result is more complete analysis before a decision is made. Table 5

provides an overview of how all three theories are synthesized by reframing. Although all four

frames can and should be utilized in any given scenario, such reframing may be limited in its

helpfulness for student affairs practice without a starting point for which frame to use.

Therefore, what follows is a model for student affairs professionals to apply the frames by

thinking in circles.

20

Table 5

Integrating the Three Theories with the Four Frames

Applying the Theories to Student Affairs Practice

Thinking in Systems & Circles

Understanding how a particular college functions is simplified by looking beyond

specific characteristics and analyzing it instead as a system (Birnbaum, 1988). A system is

something organized into smaller parts that are separated by boundaries. Systems exist

throughout a college under guises such as departments, areas, and divisions. As decisions and

outcomes in a system are not linear (an outcome can influence a decision as much as a decision

can influence an outcome), student affairs professionals need a nonlinear approach to

understanding their environments: “A systems perspective requires us to replace linear thinking

with an understanding of how elements and subsystems are connected to each other in nonlinear

circles of reciprocal action and influence” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 47). By interpreting their work

environment as multiple circles with interconnecting boundaries, student affairs professionals are

able to utilize theories that are broad enough to apply toward various, complicated situations but

also specific enough to be applicable in practice.

Four Frames College Models Five Dysfunctions Big Five Structural Bureaucratic Inattention to results

Avoidance of accountability

Conscientiousness Neuroticism

Human Resource Collegial Absence of trust

Agreeableness

Political Political Fear of conflict Extraversion Symbolic Anarchical Lack of commitment Openness to experience

21

A beginning basis is needed for a student affairs educator to apply the four frames

appropriately. One way for a student affairs professional to view an organization is to think

about his or her environment as internal (within the department) and external (outside the

department but within the institution). Furthermore, within the internal and external systems,

student affairs professionals have both an inner circle and outer circle, resulting in four total

circles: Internal system, inner circle; internal system, outer circle; external system, inner circle;

and external system, outer circle. Each circle uses one of the four frames as a foundation for the

others.

22

Table 6

Thinking in Circles

Internal system, inner circle: Be the mentor. For reframing student affairs practice as

a midlevel or senior student affairs administrator, you should begin with your direct reports. For

people who are within your campus department and who are part of your inner circle, it is best to

Internal or External to

Department?

Inner Circle

or Outer

Circle?

Who Example (Director of Residence

Life)

Beginning Frame

Role Goal

Internal Inner The people who report directly to you, whom you meet with on a regular basis

Area coordinators

Human Resource

Mentor Build consensus

Internal Outer The people who ultimately report to you, but with whom you have limited contact

Residence hall directors

Structural Boss

Make decisions Expect obedience Invoke empathy

External Inner The people outside your department, but who are your colleagues/peers who report to the same supervisor as you

Director of student organizations and director of student orientation programs (all who report to the dean of students)

Political Negotiator Seek partnerships Advocate for resources

External Outer The people outside of your department with whom you have very limited contact

Provost, CFO, director of information technology

Symbolic Storyteller Communicate successes through stories, rituals, heroes, and villains

23

employ the human resource frame by becoming the first among equals. To this circle, your

primary objective is to garner input, ideas, and opinions for the purpose of building consensus

regarding common objectives and appropriate decisions to reach those objectives. The human

resource frame encourages you to care, not just about getting things done, but about the people

who look to you as a role model and mentor. Your level of success as a leader and manager is

contingent upon their level of ownership of decisions made.

Internal system, outer circle: Be the boss. Ideally, consensus on decisions should

include the entire department, but reality and the rapid pace of the college environment do not

allow for consensus of this magnitude. Moreover, attempting to build consensus among your

subordinates and their subordinates can cause rifts and confusion when people in different parts

of the hierarchical structure disagree. There comes a time when it is necessary to be boss, and

this is especially important for the people who ultimately report to you but with whom you may

have limited contact. For this circle, making decisions and expecting obedience are vital for the

success of the entire staff. However, you can also invoke empathy while being boss – helping

student affairs staff understand the impossibility of seeking consensus from everyone and

imploring them to trust their competent supervisors (who are also your direct reports). Here, the

structural frame gives credence to the fact that decisions must be made and results must be

expected.

External system, inner circle: Be the negotiator. The term politician often possesses a

negative connotation, but politics is amoral – it can be utilized for selfless or selfish purposes. In

a world of limited resources and influence, politics provides a means for choosing between

divergent interests and garnering the means to accomplish goals (Birnbaum, 1988). When

interacting with peers who are outside of your department but who report to the same supervisor

24

as you, being political does not mean being manipulative. Instead, it addresses the reality that

your supervisor will need to make difficult decisions about who gets additional funding,

personnel, etc. By becoming a politician in this circle, you will begin to not only advocate for

resources for your area, but also to seek commonalities and partnerships among the divergent

interests represented. In the end, learning how to use the political frame will allow you to

discern when it is best to partner and when it is best to compete.

External system, outer circle: Be the storyteller. With so many departments,

programs, and activities simultaneously conducted on a single campus, student affairs must

compete with other divisions for the attention of the greater college community. Scholars have

highlighted the importance of advocating the need for student affairs within every campus

(Schuh, 2009). While data can and should be used for such advocacy, it is easy to underestimate

the importance of communicating the positive impact of your area through storytelling. The

symbolic frame is often more important than the structural frame with those outside your

department and division for two reasons. First, while people may demand data, they rarely have

the time or willingness to actually analyze the data and subsequently make meaning from it.

Second, people love stories. They are moved by them, and the effect of well-designed anecdotal

evidence can powerfully shape the way outsiders in the college community view the work you

and your staff do. Therefore, the art of leading and managing as a student affairs professional

requires mastery of the art of storytelling.

Conclusion

Managers and leaders in higher education experience a great deal of external and internal

pressures. With these increased demands, student affairs administrators must navigate their

institutional culture, staff dysfunctions, and individual personalities to attain goals. This

25

balancing act, in the midst of multiple departments and agendas, can become a daunting

challenge. However, by utilizing theories pertaining to higher education, management, and

psychology, student affairs professionals can properly identify the best solutions to problems.

The world of higher education provides an opportunity to integrate seemingly contrasting

ideas into workable models that provide a foundation for effective relationships. Combining

theories from higher education, business management, and psychology can provide a framework

for viewing the complex relationships within student affairs practice. Employing the frames

provided by Bolman and Deal (2008) can create and shape relations that will be most effective to

the task and team involved.

If administrators in student affairs think in systems and circles, their leadership will be

seamless. By appropriately analyzing the interconnecting circles of the environment, assessing

the needs and contexts of each group will lead to the most effective style of guidance. Those in

student affairs administration will not only view their work as a continuous act of reframing, but

also ascertain which situations call for them to be mentor, boss, negotiator, or storyteller.

26

References

American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student

experience. Washington, DC: authors.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Belch, H. A., & Strange, C. C. (1995). Views from the bottleneck: Middle managers in student

affairs. NASPA Journal, 32(3), 208-222.

Bensimon, E. M. (1989). The meaning of “good presidential leadership”: A frame analysis. The

Review of Higher Education, 12(2), p. 107-123.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2009). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and

Leadership. San Fancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of

Abnormal Social Psychology, 38, 476-506.

Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal

of Personality, 57, 195-214.

Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B.

Woodard Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp.

339-357). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27

Evans, N. J. (2003). Psychosocial, cognitive, and typological perspectives on student

development. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student

services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 179-202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Guido, F. M., Chávez, A. F., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). Underlying paradigms in student affairs

research and practice. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(1), 1–22.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). Organizational theory. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard Jr., & Associates

(Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 269-296). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating

conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Lovell, C. D., & Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary for

success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of research.

NASPA Journal, 37(4), 553-572.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality

across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-

90.

28

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its

applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.

McEwen, M. K. (2003). The nature and uses of theory. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard Jr., &

Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 153-178). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

National Survey of Student Engagement (2000). The NSSE 2000 report: National benchmarks of

effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for

Postsecondary Research and Planning.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor

structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66, 574-583.

Saunders, S. A., Cooper, D. L., Winston, R. B., Jr., & Chernow, E. (2000). Supervising staff in

student affairs: Exploration of the synergistic approach. Journal of College Student

Development, 41(2), 181-192.

Schuh, J. H. (2009). Assessment methods for student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stringer, J. (2009). The political environment of the student affairs administrator. In G. S.

McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 425-

446). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new

professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465-480.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.

Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.

29

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher

education. Washington, DC: author.