Inclusive Supervision in Student Affairs

A Model for Professional Practice

Amy B. Wilson, Carmen M. McCallum, Matthew R. Shupp

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138584174
• eBook ISBN: 9780429013522
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Inclusive Supervision in Student Affairs provides a new, action-oriented model that addresses what supervisors should do to create more inclusive environments for all staff and to help inform socially just practice. Grounded in theory and research and framed through the lens of continuous professional development and personal growth, this book helps Student Affairs professionals at all levels develop effective leadership skills that demonstrate multicultural competence. Providing a conceptual model and self-assessment tool to enhance professionals' preparation for supervision, this book also helps readers reflect upon their own capacity to enact an inclusive supervisory approach through the use of case studies and end-of-chapter questions.

PART I

OVERVIEW OF INCLUSIVE SUPERVISION

Part I of the book encompasses Chapters 1–3. Chapter 1 addresses the overarching question of “Why Inclusive Supervision?” We highlight the importance of supervision in student affairs and in particular the need for a new model rooted in multicultural competence. We examine the challenges of successful supervisory practice in contemporary higher education organizations, present research and reflections on how supervision is learned, and address our basic assumptions and agreed-upon norms for supervisory practice. We provide a brief opportunity for you to reflect on your past supervisory experiences and conclude with an opportunity to reflect upon your own inclusive supervisory practices by completing the Inclusive Supervision Inventory. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background and literature that has informed the development of this new supervisory model, which is inclusive of research on supervision in student affairs, multicultural competence in student affairs, and the complementary work of multicultural supervision in the counseling field. Chapter 3 concludes this section by discussing the details of our research, which informed the development of the Inclusive Supervision Model and the complimentary Inclusive Supervision Inventory.

Chapter 1

Why Inclusive Supervision?

WHY A BOOK ON SUPERVISION?

As former student affairs practitioners, and now as faculty preparing aspiring student affairs professionals, we understand and appreciate the importance of supervision as an administrative function. We understand the immense time that supervision takes in the overall management of individuals, departments, and divisions. As products of professional preparation programs where supervision was learned mostly on the job through internships and graduate assistantships and not necessarily in the classroom, we know there is not enough emphasis or consideration in graduate preparation programs on how to effectively supervise. As former practitioners, we experienced the highs of great supervision and the lows of questioning your supervisor’s competence. As current faculty, we are privileged to hear stories of amazing supervisory experiences. Yet, more frequent and more troubling, are the stories of frustration, struggle, and disempowerment. These particular stories became, and continue to serve as, the foundation for our quest to better understand supervision within student affairs.

It is ubiquitously stated in the literature that new student affairs professionals depart the field at alarming rates. Specifically, approximately 50% of these professionals depart within the first five years of employment and do not return (Holmes, Verrier, & Chisholm, 1983; Lorden, 1998; Silver & Jakeman, 2014; Tull, 2006). We contend that poor supervision is a primary contributor to new professionals’ departure. Supervision has been examined and identified as a key factor in job satisfaction and retention in student affairs (Cilente, Henning, Kennedy, Skinner, & Sloan, 2006; Tull, 2006; Winston & Creamer, 1997). Supervisors have significant potential to influence new professionals’ perceptions of their work environments and help them define who they are in the context of that position (Tull, 2006). Supervisors are instrumental in helping newer professionals successfully transition into the profession. The supervisor and the effectiveness of this socialization process can significantly and positively impact the satisfaction of new professionals. Effective supervision, however, should not simply be a concern for those working with newer professionals. Effective supervision should be a concern and priority at all levels, as it is the foundation for organizational success, which is invariably linked to student success.

Unfortunately, in a profession in which people are continually tasked with increasing responsibilities and demands, the perception of supervision has become narrowly viewed as an administrative function to deal with performance issues. Winston and Creamer (1998) noted that “supervision in higher education often means being ‘called on the carpet’ for poor performance or misdeeds” (p. 29) and some supervisors believe that competent and well-adjusted staff do not need supervision. Therefore, when staff members are seemingly competent, qualified, and performing well, supervision as a developmental, relational, and goal-oriented process is often lacking. Professionals in these situations will likely have fewer supervisory sessions and the focus of those sessions is often more on day-to-day operations rather than conversations about personal growth and professional goals. We assert that effective supervision is needed for all degrees of performance (poor and excellent), at all levels within an organization, from new professionals to senior-level administrators, and that effective supervision goes above and beyond the task of merely making sure things get done.

SUPERVISION IN BUREAUCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS

Our comments regarding the absence of prioritizing supervision within student affairs may not come as a surprise. Perhaps, like us, you have grown frustrated with the status quo and are motivated to find small ways to break the cycle. However, in order to disrupt the currently established systems, one must propose a few hypotheses as to why supervision is rarely made a priority within our field. What makes prioritizing supervision so challenging?

In our experience, rarely have we witnessed institutions of higher education without some form of organizational chart: a bureaucracy. There are obvious positive reasons why institutions are organized in a bureaucratic manner. Within bureaucratic models, achievement of stated goals is best reached via clear and specific reporting lines. As a result, duplication of effort is minimized and efficiency maximized. Leaders in bureaucratic models typically occupy the top position of the organizational chart and hold the most authority and decision-making power. Power to enact change decreases as one’s position moves down the organizational chart. Likewise, communication typically flows one way: from the top down.

If we assume bureaucratic principles to be “inherent parts of daily life” (Manning, 2018, p. 13) within institutional operations, objectivity should provide an impartial, yet also impersonal, standardization of operations (Birnbaum, 1988; Manning, 2018). This impersonal process is intended to assure continuity of organizational operations, irrespective of who holds particular positions at any given time. Employees are the catalyst toward fulfilling institutional missions and bureaucratic models and, given their hierarchical structure, they lend assurance toward identifying the most qualified candidates for positions. Likewise, when staff leave positions, bureaucratic models, in theory, easily allow vacancies to be filled with the next qualified candidate.

While many would argue for the strengths of bureaucratic models, weaknesses certainly exist. This model is hardly nimble; it is difficult to quickly adapt to change within a bureaucratic model. Although seemingly streamlined on paper, we could equally argue that organizational charts lend themselves toward “red tape” and the need to “jump through hoops” in order to accomplish stated goals. The constant checks and balances that exist within bureaucratic models often have the opposite intended effect, slowing down efficiency and productivity. Bureaucratic models have almost no way to account for less tangible products within a system (Manning, 2018). For example, innovation and “thinking outside the box” are often touted in job descriptions yet met with resistance and discouraged when staff actually fulfill job responsibilities.

Kezar (2011) discusses the dark side of organizations, specifically within the context of higher education, stating that the dysfunctional elements can immobilize an organization if left ignored and that even the most well-intentioned leaders can feel powerless and confined by the oppressive structures traditionally in place. Bureaucratic models are often rooted in social domination and White supremacy, which is the antithesis of our social justice work within student affairs and higher education. As such, this organizational model can often be ripe with policies and implicit practices that are “biased against women, gender minorities, people of color, and others who do not reflect the ‘standard’ way of being” (Manning, 2018, p. 23). Unless leaders are aware of the impact of existing policies and practices, they will likely replicate the oppressive structures that are embedded within organizational culture.

Bureaucratic models are fairly commonplace within higher education, yet leave little room to cultivate and sustain human capital. Bureaucratic models are deficient because they put so much focus on efficiency and goal attainment, which comes at the cost of individuals attempting to move the organization forward. Morgan (1997) suggests that organizations do not inherently intend to dominate or oppress, but that these are often unintended consequences of the pressure to meet demanding goals during stressful times. In short, bureaucratic models sacrifice the human factor. Bureaucratic models, by “removing the personal and emphasizing the functional” (Manning, 2018, p. 17) place little emphasis on meaningful supervision and leave little room for cultivating and sustaining employee retention. We contend that, in order to meet the rapid changes taking place within higher education as well as the increased responsibilities thrust upon staff, greater emphasis must be placed on supervision as a means of staff retention.

WHY INCLUSIVE SUPERVISION?

The increasing diversity of higher education as a whole has forced student affairs to examine current practices, specifically as they relate to supporting an increasingly diverse student body. In some ways we have done this well. The profession has embraced the principles of social justice and inclusion as a core competency (ACPA & NASPA, 2015) and there is evidence of these efforts through many new programs, positions, policies, and practices that have been developed in the last decade. At best, these initiatives will have a positive impact on the students they are intended to support and on campuses overall. At worst, they will go unnoticed and unsustained, simply to be seen as a reactive response to changing times rather than a philosophical and intentional approach to creating inclusive campuses. Arminio, Torres, and Pope (2012) in their reflections on why we have yet to arrive at our desired destination of creating more inclusive campus environments assert that student affairs professionals should be leading campuses through an examination of inclusive practices tha begins with a personal self-examination, focused on enhancing se...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Foreword – Mamta Motwani Accapadi
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• eResources
• Part I: Overview of Inclusive Supervision
• Part II: The Four Tenets of Inclusive Supervision and Potential Barriers
• Part III: Application and Reflection
• Appendix 1. Inclusive Supervision Inventory
• Appendix 2. Safe Spaces Activity
• Appendix 3. Values-Sort Activity
• Appendix 4. Power of Assumptions Exercise
• Appendix 5. Sample Goals and Activities for Building Capacity in Multicultural Competence and Social Justice
• Index