A Response to ACPA Statement on Rising Cost of Higher Education

The ACPA leadership team wrote a thought-provoking piece in mid-February calling to question blame that is being directed at student services for the rising cost of higher education in the United States. The statement includes a reminder about the pedagogical potential of all spaces and programs on campus and how our work outside the classroom has a significant effect on student learning. In addition, the authors outline several factors that have created growth in staffing and programming among student services, which has led to the belief that "administrative bloat" is one of the causal factors in increased cost of higher education. While I agree with the authors that external factors have led to increased staffing and therefore increased costs passed along to students, we in fact should shoulder some of the blame. Let me explain.

An analogy you likely have heard and that a former colleague of mine would often use is that the high-stakes game of college admission (particularly at tuition-driven institutions) creates a market that student services often struggle to meet. He would tell our student services offices that Admission was in the sales business and they were selling families and prospective students on the notion that our institution was similar to a luxury vehicle. Like a luxury vehicle, our institution was top-of-the line, set the standard for the industry and had all the bells and whistles. And while rising cost was an issue, what's a little bit more money when you were getting the best thing out there? The problem was - or so the analogy goes - that while the luxury vehicle was being sold out front, the work behind the scenes in the maintenance shop was really only suited to handle used cars that could get by without much attention or with inferior service. So while costs are high up front, the level of service being provided could never live up to the needs of the customer who had high expectations for a superior experience.  Keeping up with the front of the house does not necessarily mean more administrators, nor can it necessarily mean a bigger budget or more programs. So how do we keep up and insure that our services are up to par for the entitlement that ever-increasing tuition costs are creating while at the same time removing the blame that is being placed on us?

The leadership team's article says that the compounding factors that have caused administrative bloat are partially to blame for rising costs. So it's not the additional staff, per se, but rather the issues that have led to increased staffing that are to blame. I would agree with that sentiment, but I don't think it frees us from responsibility. What we have right now is a problem of adaptation vs innovation. When budgets get pinched and tough questions are asked of us, we tend to adapt the current services and programs we have to meet an emerging need. We enhance one aspect of what we do and scale back on another. This adjustment masks the deeper need for change and re-inventing our services.  While adapting and tweaking programs and services is healthy and necessary, it also allows for the perpetuation of our ability to cling to "what we've always done."  While we know we should always be assessing and re-thinking the services we provide, the adjustments we then make are often just temporary until we have to adjust again. Adaptation ends up being the band-aid; innovation is systemic and can create sustainable change.

Disruptive innovation has shaken American higher education to its core. New methods of delivery, new opportunities for connection between faculty and students and a shift in how we think about the value of traditional education have us talking. What started as static in the background of our conversations has now been amplified and what is invigorating to those of us who see the potential is also scaring those of us who adhere to traditional views of higher education. So how can we incorporate the disruption and stir things up in our own areas of the field? How do we re-think the services we offer? We should look at structure, at the scope of our reach, at maximizing our willingness to share perspectives on knowledge and by leveraging our influence through social media and new technologies. 

To get back to the analogy of the luxury vehicle, innovation will allow us to demonstrate our ability to create sustainable systemic change and provide service to our students that matches the high expectations they have upon agreeing to join us for their college experience. An increasingly higher price tag should equate to increasingly better service. Higher education cannot and should not be immune to the open market.  So are we partially to blame for rising college costs? Absolutely. But it is hard for justify that thought; when I look around my own institution, I feel we are under-staffed and over-worked as we try to serve our students. It is clear that there are many systems and processes in American higher education that are on shaky ground - and some that are broken. In times of budget cuts and blame, agency matters. We have the ability to take ownership of our capacity for change and innovation and to create change that will strengthen the understanding that our students and parents (and our critics) have about our vital support of the academic mission of our institutions. The seismic shift in higher education is happening and so far many of us have tried to maintain our balance and stay alert - but it is time that we take our place alongside the innovators.

This year's ACPA conference is about re-invention and the timing could not be better. Let's use the opportunity to talk about innovation and change and prepare ourselves for what lies ahead - these are challenging but exciting times to serve college students.

You can find me on Twitter @pottscharlie or email him at cpotts@gustavus.edu

The Fear of Failure

I spent a few days at the end of January at the ACUHO-I Chief Housing Officer Institute in Atlanta. It was an awesome experience for which I am grateful. Tremendous connections with colleagues from institutions around the country and intensive sessions around topics of all sorts related to college housing.

I was excited to take advantage of the opportunity but apprehensive about what to expect. I often feel I'm still pretty new to this job (this is the middle of my third year) and sometimes I feel naive about my role among colleagues. I've spent my entire career at small, private institutions in Minnesota - a vastly different experience than just about everyone I meet at national conferences.

The conference set-up was fantastic. Detailed, thorough presentations by talented, dynamic chief housing officers and a lot of structured small group time to digest and reflect. The institute faculty were tremendous and provided support, guidance and advice throughout the four days. My small group faculty member was Dan Pedersen, the director at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. Funny to travel 1,000 miles to connect with someone at an institution that's less than two hours from your home campus. Dan was calm, reassuring and ready to share knowledge with our small group and I owe him a debt of gratitude for making the conference environment so welcoming.

I realized quickly that I felt I was in over my head at the institute. As I took a seat next to folks from the University of South Carolina, Colgate, the University of Florida, etc, I realized that I was not sure how to talk about my experience at Gustavus. Though tremendously proud of my institution, I found myself referring to it and to my experience here as if it was inferior. "Oh just this small private school in Minnesota," or "You've probably never heard of us...," etc.

I'm often motivated by my fear of failure. I think on some level many of us - whether we are honest with ourselves about it or not - are worried that the world will discover that we're frauds. The world will find out that we are just faking our way through, under-qualified and not up to the challenge. I know it's unhealthy to have fear be a motivator - particularly when talking about work. The fear of failure coupled with some grade-A introversion makes it difficult to thrive at events like the CHO Institute. What could I possibly have to share that these people don't know? What if I open my mouth and I don't say the right thing? What if they find out I'm a fraud? After all, my only qualification for attendance was that I paid the registration fee.

I quickly became overwhelmed by what I don't know. 

But then I started to realize I had an authentic story to tell about my own experience. Sure, I don't manage my budget the way a Big Ten public institution would. No, I don't have a staff of 30 to run our operation. No, I haven't been responsible for a major construction project. But I do have experience. I have a unique perspective on issues and I have the ability to both absorb and transmit knowledge that is useful.

Student housing has an incredibly supportive network of professionals. Dan told our small group a couple of times that it's not necessarily about what you don't know, but more about how you take in the knowledge that's shared by the competent professionals that surround you. Each of the faculty members was an "expert" in a specific area, but each readily admitted they didn't know everything about everything - that they are, to some degree, still figuring it all out, too.

My feelings at this institute made me think more deeply about that fear of failure and how it drives much of what I do as a professional. I read an interesting piece in Forbes last spring. It was column called "5 Ways to Conquer Your Fear of Failure," and I actually called it up again while in Atlanta for the conference. 

The article summarizes that a lack of failure means a lack of risk-taking. And as someone who's pretty risk averse (I live in Minnesota and won't walk out onto a frozen lake in the winter. Just too risky. And yes, I realize it's two feet of ice), this is a big challenge for me to accept.

The article encourages us to:

1. Embrace our mistakes - I makes lots of these. Owning them and learning from them is always the hard part, but it will help me understand why it's okay to fail.

2. Stop trying so hard - Pushing hard and only making minimal progress can certainly feel like failure. Usually the solution is right in front of us if we find out how to see it.

3. Ask for help - I hate asking for help. But not asking for help is what almost assuredly leads to my failures. Suck it up and ask for help. As the wise Mr. Pedersen said at the CHO Institute, everyone has their own expertise to lend and it serves you well to ask others for their input.

4. Say no when you're afraid to - I often just say yes because it's the nice thing to do or because it will cause less conflict if I do. And I need to remember this when asking those whom I supervise to take on projects.

5. Say yes when you're afraid to - Attending the CHO Institute was a "yes" to something that scared me. I knew going into it how I might feel in a room full of 50 accomplished professionals, but I took the leap and am thankful that I did. Focus on the great things that could happen with your decision and just say "yes."

I learned quickly that it's okay to be overwhelmed by what I don't know. Being overwhelmed and understanding the things I don't know is what creates for me a desire to learn. My fear of failure is often unfounded, but it keeps me motivated to develop personally and professionally. And I learned that we all know more than we think we do.

The lessons learned at a conference are not always what you intended.

How do you feel about fear as a motivator? Where have you learned your greatest professional lessons? I'd love to hear your thoughts - find me on Twitter @pottscharlie

The Power of Blogging

I seem to be at a mental standstill with blog writing. I have a few ideas - none fully formed. And I don't seem to have the motivation to write at this moment.

But I'm making an attempt to encourage colleagues to write. I was inspired by #SAchat folks to try my hand at creating a blog and now we have created a blog for our Student Life Division at Gustavus. We have a few entries ready to go for the month of February and the hope is that it will grow and develop as we begin to share more with each other in written form.

Check it out at http://studentlife.blog.gustavus.edu/

If you have thoughts on how to inspire others to write and/or have great examples of divisions or departments that do this now, please let me know! You can find me on Twitter @pottscharlie

Photo credit: http://todaymade.com/blog/5-ways-to-make-your-blog-better-today/

Rethinking Resolutions

The end of another year. I remember hearing people older than me talk about how the years go by more quickly the older you get. I can now attest to that fact - the years seemingly do just fly by now. The day to day demands of work, parenthood and school fill my time and I find myself surprised every 1st day of a new month when I realize another month, another season or another year has passed me by.

The year 2013 has ended and many of us welcome 2014 with open arms and an optimistic view. This is traditionally the time we create our list of resolutions. We've all done it... we create our list of things we'll do differently and better in the new year. Most of us stick with those changes for a week, maybe a month, before we settle back into the way we've always done things. Sure, sometimes a resolution will stick but it's often at the expense of some other part of our life.

The gym will be busier for a few weeks, we'll all eat healthier for a month and we'll all make sure we tell others we care about them more frequently through Valentine's Day. Then the resolutions will subside for most of us and we'll fall back into our routine.

We rarely treat resolutions like we do goals we set in the workplace and I think we should - it helps provide structure and opportunities for regular markers to judge progress. As you set your resolutions/goals, think about...

• Purpose - Why are you doing this? Is it to improve your life or are you doing it for others? Why is it valuable to YOU to set this resolution? What is the end goal?
• Who's involved? - Are you going to achieve this alone? Do you need assistance or support from others? Identify those who can/will support you and let them know you need their encouragement!
• Action steps - What are you actually going to DO? Write out a calendar, a list, a chart, stick figures with bubble thoughts... whatever you need to establish a set of action steps that will lead you to your goal.
• Progress updates - How and when will you measure your progress? Will someone else check in with you? Will you regularly reflect (in writing or by talking to someone) on your progress?
• Reward - Is there reward if the goal is accomplished? Or is the accomplishment reward enough? You know what will motivate you, so decide if a reward for achievement is needed and then do it!

Some of you are thinking "Wow, that's over-thinking it." If you have trouble setting detailed personal goals or if you aren't interested in highly-specific goals for the new year, I encourage you to re-frame your thinking about resolutions. Instead of a laundry list of extremely specific things you want to change that may only lead to disappointment (i.e. run a 5k in a specific time; write 15 professional blog posts; etc), generalize your resolutions by creating a mindset about how you'll approach the year. These might be less measurable than if you used the method above, but they are general enough that they can lead to positive, healthy choices in your life. Some examples:

• Pledge to work hard.
• Pledge to do the very best you are capable of doing.
• Pledge to choose your attitude.
• Pledge to choose your own approach to the balance of WORK and LIFE.
• Pledge to be realistic about your limitations and your potential.

However you think about resolutions or goals, make 2014 fantastic!

Let me know about your resolutions - find me on Twitter @pottscharlie or email pottscharlie@gmail.com

What Do We Mean When We Say "Managing Up"?

What does it mean to "manage up"?

During a recent Student Affairs Chat (#sachat) session on Twitter, a conversation about supervision challenged some of my thinking about the topic. That week's #sachat session (on October 31) was the first week that our professional staff did a team chat. We reserved a meeting space, had lunch, watched the chat unfold on a projector using Twitterfall and engaged in conversation with colleagues from around the country.  The topic happened to be about supervision, which led to an interesting conversation on Twitter as well as in our meeting room since I was with the staff I supervise.

The Twitter conversation seemed to move between how professionals supervise student staff and how professional staff supervisory relationships are created. A string of comments led us into a conversation about "managing up." No one in our room could accurately define what we mean when we say "manage up," so I'd like to examine it here.

The notion of "managing up" makes me a little anxious. My first thought was that the idea sounded manipulative and self-serving. My basic initial understanding was that it involved managing the relationship with your supervisor to give yourself more control (or the perception of more control) over your work environment.  How could that be healthy for an organization?  As a relatively new supervisor with a tremendous amount of room for growth in all facets of supervision, I am continually analyzing whether "managing up" is healthy or unhealthy in my own department and division.

So what is "managing up"? Allison Vaillancourt wrote a piece in July 2013 in The Chronicle of Higher Education's "On Hiring" blog called "Are you managing up?" Vaillancourt defines managing up as "the practice of engaging with the person above you in the organizational food chain in the way he or she prefers to be engaged and acting in alignment with his or her priorities." All judgements aside about her use of "food chain" for her definition of organizational structure, I think she makes some good points. Vaillancourt clarifies that managing up is different than sucking up in that it "requires adapting rather than selling your soul."  The definition that Vaillancourt provides is really about the ability to analyze the culture and dynamics of an organization under the influence of a specific leader - who are the go-to people? What matters most to the leader? How do you shape your ideas to resonate with the priorities of the leader?  Okay - I can get on board with this definition. It makes sense to me and makes the term feel a little less manipulative.

Jennifer Gould and Joshua Hettrick presented a session at the 2012 NEACUHO Fall Drive-In Conference titled "Managing Up: Engaging your supervisor in productive ways."  The transcript of the presentation provides some insight into another way of defining "managing up."  Gould & Hettrick give a list of guidelines for how to manage up effectively. Where I struggle with their guidelines, though, is that what seems to be intuitive about good supervisor/supervisee dynamics is being framed as "managing up." This is an interesting development (maybe not a new one, but certainly more of a revelation to me than I thought it would be).  The need to shift the sense of power to the entry- or mid-level professional feels very much like a Millennial generation thing - that ideas like "communicate effectively," "no surprises!," and "provide solutions, not problems" are no longer just basics of organizational dynamics but now must be commendable efforts by those who are actively trying to control the dynamics of their relationship with their supervisor.

I am concerned about professionals now (including those in my generation) who feel that supervisors must adapt entirely to the preferences and style of work of the supervisee. If a relationship is not always positive or there are consequences to ineffective work production, then the perception is that a primary reason is some dysfunctional supervisory style. While I certainly think that there is a shared responsibility for the supervisor and the supervisee to work together to create an effective relationship, I'm not convinced that it needs to be a 50-50 share on the compromise. Call it old school or call it callous but I feel that a majority of the adjustment should be to on the shoulders of the supervisee to adapt to the priorities of the supervisor and/or leaders of the organization.

Are there bad supervisors? Absolutely. But generally those in supervisory roles are tasked with different levels of understanding and vision for an organization and therefore approach roles and responsibilities differently, which can often lead to tension or conflict - both healthy and unhealthy - between supervisors and supervisees. So while "managing up" can be an effective way for a supervisee to try to gain control on their work environment and relationships, it can also be misguided. We tend to know much more about our own role or those that report to us than we do about the roles of those who supervise us - I know the ins and outs of the Area Coordinator positions I supervise much more than I understand the pressures and responsibilities of the Vice President to whom I report. I work hard to understand the multiple dimensions of my Vice President's job and I feel that sort of relationship management is more about perception and awareness than it is control.I feel my perceived approach to relationship management promotes a stronger interpersonal working relationship, but I would tread very lightly into trying to manage any part of that relationship that dealt directly with the functional aspects of her job.

TJ Logan's Student Affairs Feature article about self-awareness speaks to this idea of "managing up" and clarying how the supervisor-supervisee relationship functions. Logan discusses the value in understanding one's role and being more self-aware about the ability to influence or control decisions. He ends the piece by saying "It is not just about engaging and having a voice. It is about doing those things in the most effective ways possible."  So while it is important for a professional to determine the ways to be engaged in decision-making and leadership, it is also incredibly valuable to be self-aware and understand that - as Logan writes - "If you always have something to say, people will stop listening." Understand your role in an organization and be mindful of how and when trying to "manage up" will be most beneficial to your team.

So is "managing up" manipulative? Is it healthy? Is it beneficial to an organization?  Upon further examination and thinking in the context of how I interact with my supervisor (and how my staff interacts with me), framing "managing up" in terms of organizational efficiency and by making transparency a priority makes me feel a little more at ease with the idea.

How have you heard the term "managing up"? Do you find yourself utilizing techniques of managing up that allow you to be more productive or allow your team to function more efficiently? Share your thoughts with me on Twitter (@pottscharlie)!

Tweet

"College Gameday" and Masculinity

My four-year old boys greet every fall Saturday with the same phrase when they wake up in the morning. They find me in bed or at the breakfast table and I say "What day is it today?" and - in unison - they yell "It's college game day!" I smile each time I hear the phrase knowing that the boys are beginning to understand that we share something in common. I love college football. I love the passion, the pageantry and the idea that while the notion of amateurism is long gone, there is still something special about the enthusiasm and heart that 18-22 year old males throw into a game that's become such a spectacle. The game is played by college-aged men and coached by slightly older men and much has been written and said about the culture of football; we are all aware of the hyper-masculine rituals and testosterone-fueled aggression. While college football players often embody the entirety of the definition of college-aged masculinity to the viewing audiences, what we see on TV and hear in the media should not provide us our truest definition.

Part of the enthusiasm that accompanies college football is the mass marketing of the game. ESPN is a primary driving force behind the widespread accessibility and popularity of the sport.  ESPN's flagship college football preview show is called "College Gameday" and features analysts, former players and talking heads discussing all the games for the week and addressing special interest stories.  The content of the show rarely raises above grandstanding and analysis - and it truly is one of the best examples of how media can promote a sport and expand an audience base.

Each week College Gameday picks a new venue - they visit a campus where a big game will be played that day. The show is a university marketing office's dream (so many eyes on our institution!) and appears to help spread the word about great college towns (just ask Fargo!), but one of the traditions associated with these campus visits is a nightmare for those concerned with male college student development.

*Photo courtesy of Bleacher Report

I tuned into College Gameday this morning with both of my boys at my side. My eyes were immediately drawn to a big hand-drawn sign that read "Skov Eats Luna Bars." Shayne Skov is a linebacker for the Stanford Cardinal and is a player who wears his hyper-masculinity on his sleeve while playing football (just do a Google image search of his name). The sign made me wonder what the intent of that sign was. Perhaps this is my own assumptions about what the creator of that sign meant but Luna Bars are described as "the whole nutrition bar for women."  So on it's face this sign is a joke (and not even a very good one) attempting to insinuate that Skov isn't a "real man" and he isn't a real "tough-guy" and that he likely eats nutrition bars for women and that somehow makes him less of a man. (Note: I realize that the sign was just a lame joke, but stick with me... it gets better. Or worse).

The signs are a tradition for the program. Fans show up at an insanely early hour to line up and be the fans in the background while the show is broadcast live.  Fans are encouraged to bring signs to hold (as seen behind the set in the picture above). The next sign I saw on screen said "Hogan cried when the Jonas Brothers broke up." Again, a relatively unfunny joke about Stanford quarterback Kevin Hogan and how he is such the opposite of the hyper-masculine football player that he likely shed tears when the popular boy band broke up. Okay, so these two examples are obnoxious to those of us who care about the portrayal of masculinity... so where's the BAD stuff, right? I noticed a graphic in the upper corner of the screen directing viewers to search "#GamedaySigns" on Twitter to see more. I wish I had not searched...

The two examples I saw online were "Stanford girls are so bad, Tiger left college early," a joke aimed at Tiger Woods' apparent lack of moral fiber and commentary on how even a womanizer like Tiger couldn't find enough attractive women at Stanford. Distasteful at best and glorifying careless promiscuous behavior by college men at worst. Judging by the number of re-tweets, this joke about jock culture and masculinity was pretty funny to a lot of people.

The other example made me quit looking for more. A picture of a sign read "Jonathan Martin sits when he pees." Jonathan Martin is the Stanford alum who is at the center of one of the most public conversations we've likely ever had about bullying. The alleged incidents and ensuing investigations have made national headlines and have rocked perceptions of the National Football League and how pervasive hazing and bullying are in locker rooms and in football organizations. Martin was the target of alleged bullying by a teammate and has repeatedly had his manhood questioned by media, fellow football players and even teammates. In a case that has forced us to examine what we mean when we say "football culture" and how we either defend or castigate those who perpetuate that phrase, to poke fun at Martin's masculinity is shameful. (Note: I do understand that ESPN could control whether or not that sign is displayed and they chose to allow it - but we should also remember ESPN has much to gain by keeping the drama of the Martin story alive as it produces special segments and regular updates about it).

I recognize that ESPN is not responsible for the creation of individual signs nor are they obligated to completely censor any sign that could be of questionable content (after all - some signs are legitimately funny and are much better than seeing hundreds of plain signs that just say "Go team"). But where ESPN does have culpability in the perpetuation of faux-masculinity and hyper-masculinity is in allowing certain signs (like the one targeting Jonathan Martin) through the door and onto our screens.

Producers and talking heads also are responsible for the messages spoken during the program. A few weeks ago one analyst (David Pollack) said women should not be allowed on the newly-formed college football playoff selection committee. The woman who is on the committee? Condoleeza Rice. One of the most powerful and respected women in our country and someone with a deep knowledge of athletics.  What was her flaw that makes her incapable of serving on the committee?  She's a woman, and according to Pollack there clearly is no way a woman - who never played the sport at any level - could possibly understand this complicated and macho game. Those who know the game well must still wear jockstraps to work and still chest-bump in front of the water cooler at the office, right David? Pat Forde from Yahoo! Sports wrote an entertaining column about his feelings regarding the display of male chauvinism. Pollack has since come out and tried to clarify his statements, but likely at the advice of ESPN and his agent. How do we expect fans and our college-aged men to know better about how damning these portrayals of masculinity can be when the talking heads are sharing those beliefs?

Messner & Solomon (2007) wrote that a sport like football is so pervasive that it embodies the hegemonic definition of masculinity. Our views of masculinity are shaped by the sport even though a vast portion of the population does not adhere to that definition. This is where the stereotyping and proliferation of skewed definitions of masculinity provide a troubling lens through which to view the sport, particularly on our college campuses. Davis & Laker (2009) suggest ways to address the pervasive stereotypical definitions of masculinity among college-aged men by asking a few important questions of administrators: What groups of men garner the most attention on campus? What images of men and masculinity are most prevalent on campus? What groups appear to be marginalized (and then understanding how the definitions of masculinity between those groups differ)?  How can we re-vision our understanding of a sport that creates the dominant definition of masculinity for us and then use it to create a more inclusive definition of the term?


Football is a great game. Football fields and locker rooms can be grounds for tremendous learning, cultivation of brotherhood and friendship and the development of vital leadership skills for our young men.  The perpetuation of stereotypes and misconceptions of masculinity do no justice to the notion that healthy ideas about what it means to be a man can come from this sport.  College Gameday isn't helping us explain the role of masculinity in sports to its viewing audience, but men who play the game and those who support it and work with college-aged men who play it can have conversations around these topics. We can correct and re-direct about skewed definitions of masculinity.  I will continue to feed my children's enthusiasm for these sacred Saturdays and talk to them about what it means to be a real man and why there's value and honor in playing (and watching) this game.

Tweet Follow @pottscharlie

The "Un" Experience

 

I just returned from Evanston, Illinois after attending the SAtech "Un-conference" hosted by the wonderful folks at Northwestern University.

The Student Affairs Technology Unconferences are intended to connect professionals in order to share knowledge and ideas around technology and to promote networking by "building something together, onsite, through common interest groups."  The first SAtech Unconferences were held in Boston in 2011 and 2012 and have been held all over the country this spring and summer.

I was looking for a professional opportunity development this summer that would push me to explore my interests in technology and social media. ACUHO-I in Minneapolis in June was terrific, but it is a very large, relatively traditional-style conference... and while ACUHO-I organizers certainly encouraged interaction and networking, the event itself is too bulky and too complicated for me to really achieve what I had hoped.

The unconference model turns the responsibility of sharing and acquiring knowledge to the participants. In traditional conference models, someone with what we presume to be higher-level knowledge of a topic stands in front of us and talks in order to share information. We take notes, maybe engage in small-group conversation or Q&A, but then head to the next session to soak up more information.  The unconference model puts the participants in charge - for this event, we suggested topics via a Google document before we arrived and then voted on the topics we most wanted to discuss. Each break-out session was assigned a topic and we then chose which sessions to attend based on our own interests. Once in the room of our choosing, we..... INTERACTED. We shared our experiences within the general boundaries of the topic, shared best practices, ideas and knowledge, took notes and sent Tweets.

I signed up for the Chicago event (#satechchi) with the hope of challenging myself to step beyond my typical level of comfort and try something new.  I hoped to gain a better understanding of the unconference process - to see what the buzz was all about - and to network with new colleagues.  I hoped to contribute useful information about the things we do at Gustavus, but more importantly my hope was to expand my knowledge on technology in student affairs - how to do the things I love to do BETTER and with more PURPOSE.

I did all that and more. I met new people and tapped into parts of my brain that needed to be bothered. The conversations disrupted some of the ways I think about communicating with students and the role that technology plays in my professional life (and how that inevitably spills into my life outside of work).

#satechchi was a fantastic experience and I highly recommend attending one of the unconferences in this series if you have the chance.

A few words of unsolicited advice and a summary of my thoughts from the weekend:

1. Be prepared to challenge yourself. The unconference experience was more intellectually stimulating and mentally taxing than any other conference I have attended. The idea of the passive conference attendee is impossible - engagement and involvement is crucial in the unconference format. I was challenged to think critically about what I do in terms of technology and social media and to be able to share the "why" and the goals of the work I do.

2. Awkward pauses are part of the deal. In my first session, a group of about 12 professionals sat around a meeting room wondering where our facilitator was. Everyone probably knew that one of us would just have to start the conversation, but we all pretended we believed someone "official" was supposed to be there and was probably running late and would be in to present information at any moment. We stumbled over false starts and awkward jokes for about 10 minutes before someone had the courage to get the conversation rolling.  Lucky for me, I'm all awkward pauses... so I was right at home staring at my shoes and waiting for someone to take the lead at that first session. The joke that was thrown around several times is that the "Un" in "Un-conference" actually stands for "UNcomfortable silence." And there were many uncomfortable silences, but each and every one ended up opening the room to a wonderful, productive conversation about the topic at hand.

3. No one is the expert and everyone is the expert. Unconferences are about sharing - about sitting down together in a room and tackling a topic that the group chose. One of my favorite leadership lessons is that your greatest strength is the person standing next to you. Our greatest opportunity to learn at an event like #satechchi is from the others in the room.  We walk in with a similar question or problem and share ideas and experiences in order to bring new solutions and plans of action to the table.

Along with this notion of nobody/everybody being the expert, be prepared to throw yourself out there and meet new people. I am an introvert and conferences often push me to the brink of exhaustion and anxiety - but in order to fully engage in the unconference experience means having to take a step out of the introvert's comfort zone and share.

4.  Follow the backchannels! The Chicago SAtech conference used the hashtag #satechchi on Twitter, which provided a way to catalog online conversations and thoughts via social media. A great deal of learning can be done via Twitter backchannels - even those not in attendance were able to actively engage in conversations around the topics we were discussing in person in Chicago. Even if you can't afford the time or money needed to attend an unconference, the use of Twitter to follow along provides incredible insight into the kinds of learning that happens at these conferences and can provide cheap (read: FREE) and low-risk professional development opportunities.

5. Apply what you learn! No conference can be worth the resources you invest in it if you are not bringing ideas home and applying new knowledge to your work. The lessons, ideas and thoughts are shared in rapid succession at an unconference, but the #satechchi hashtag provides a record of the things discussed - including links to awesome resources you can use to enhance your work around technology and social media.

At the end of the unconference day, we were encouraged to share our "take-aways" from the event. Many of these can be found on the #satechchi feed. I had a lot of information to take away and some really great new ideas to try to implement in the work I do at Gustavus. Perhaps the biggest take-away for me, however, is more philosophical - and more professionally existential - than how to use new tech devices or market our services in better ways. I learned that it is important to take opportunities to force a fundamental shift in the WAY in which I think about what I do and why I do it.  The unconference idea is so simple, but such a 180-degree flip in the traditional ways that I learn at conferences. I appreciated the awkward moments, the opportunities to connect, and the encouragement to Tweet. I look forward to finding ways to "un-" some of the things we do at my institution and to attending similar unconferences in the future.

Thank you to the wonderful professionals at Northwestern (@jpmchaley, @coryphrare and @JPKirchmeier) for putting together this event. I look forward to #satechchi 2014!

Connect with me on Twitter @pottscharlie 

 and read more about the SAtech Chicago experience at #satechchi