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

Teaching Apology

I recognize nearly every day the things I need to do to become a better professional. That list can often feel daunting and the sheer amount of space for improvement - while exciting when I am motivated - can often seem downright overwhelming. But I am also learning how to be a parent and the student affairs professional side of me often takes great relief in knowing that parenting well is infinitely more difficult than being a solid professional. A career in student affairs allows me to recognize that the parallels between parenting and the work I do run deep.

With twin four-year old boys, I am constantly reminded of how trying parenting can be. We are lucky to have happy and healthy boys, but they are BOYS in every sense of the stereotypical definition. Rough and tumble, lots of fun derived from noisy bodily functions, competitive and "cool." Thankfully they also have many important moments of sensitivity, compassion, sadness and joy. But above all else right now, they are dudes. Dudes sometimes do stupid things. And the boys are feeling their way through doing stupid things and formulating what is right and what is wrong. We had a learning opportunity last night that made me reflect on the work I do with college-aged students.

The boys were playing as my wife and I were cleaning up around the house. We heard some muffled yelling in their bedroom. This was not "I'm in pain!" screaming, but rather that suspiciously devious yelling accompanied by giggling that sends up red flags in the minds of parents. My wife got to the room first and opened the door to hear one of the boys yelling some choice words out the window of the house. The boys do not yet know curse words (as far as we know) and they do not quite understand the pejorative nature of some of the words they hear on a daily basis. They were yelling "Hey chubby man!" at the neighbor a couple houses away from us. They have an understanding of "chubby" from talking about babies and they have started using it when re-runs of The King of Queens come on TV (sorry, Kevin James). So they know what the word means but do not understand how it could make another person feel - which is where we come in as parents.

We were not quite sure at first who the boys were yelling at or if anyone heard, but we closed the window and had a firm discussion about their actions. When asked if they were yelling that at anyone in particular, they sheepishly nodded and pointed at the neighbor's house. By this point the neighbor was out of view. Angie and I debated what to do and decided that the neighbor may have heard and give the boys the opportunity to apologize.

We velcroed up the shoes and headed next door. Both boys were crying at this point - one boy said "I don't know what to say" and the other said "I'm scared!" We coached the boys a little bit before heading over, explaining why it was important to apologize and giving them some words to use. Using "I'm sorry I said bad words to you" was the script we gave the boys. We arrived at the neighbor's garage and the young man (probably mid-20s) and his mother were outside and they indicated they heard yelling and gave us a smirk, but we did not know for sure WHAT they heard. They are not the friendliest of neighbors (in fact, this was the first time we've talked to them in the two years we've lived in our house), and they were not overly receptive to the apology. But the boys said what they had to say and we apologized again. At this point one boy decided to say "Sorry I said 'chubby' to you." I cringed as my face began to blush - I wanted him to apologize but not to USE THE WORDS AGAIN! But he's a four-year old and even a rehearsed script can go awry. We thanked them for letting us talk to them and moved along.

The neighbors in the next house were out working and we decided to talk to them, too. The young man and his father were very receptive to the boys' apology and the older man thanked the boys for having the courage to talk and told them a couple times that they "did the right thing." The boys wiped a few tears away and smiled before we headed back home. We had another discussion about using words carefully and had another round of the "not everyone looks the same and everyone is important no matter what they look like" conversation.

I was angry and frustrated that the boys would say those kinds of things to other people. I felt like we had failed to teach them how to care for others. But then I realized they are four years old. And I realized it's not the worst thing they will ever say to someone else, and hopefully those more hurtful words still come when they don't yet understand what they mean. Because even though kids use hurtful words, you always hope it's because they don't understand the meaning, right? It doesn't make it better, but it makes it easier for a parent to reconcile.

This entire incident made me reflect on the work I do with college students. A former colleague of mine used to end fall RA training with a list of "charges" to the newly trained staff - a list of things that the group was charged with doing over the next year. The list was a way to remind staff about the things we had discussed during training and emphasize the things we hope to see them do (i.e. "respect different perspectives," and "risk the awkward conversation," etc). I have adopted this practice and while a vast majority of the items on the list have changed, one that remains is "teach apology." Hearing this for the first time was a revelatory moment for me - understanding that it was important to teach staff how to forgive and move on in relationships.

One of my great challenges in life and in my work is letting go and forgiving - even after someone apologizes. As much as I try not to take it personally when someone directs hurtful words at me or does something disrespectful to me, I do. And that one incident or moment of lapsed judgement is what I remember about that person each and every time I see them. My children are too young to understand this concept and our neighbor is likely not going to hold a grudge against a couple of four-year olds... but it is significant to me that these conversations happen now so that the ability to grasp the ways words hurt others has a lasting impression on their development. We need to teach our children and our students apology. Not only the significance of the meaning of a genuine apology, but the act itself. What does it look like to apologize? How do I approach the interaction? How do I start it and how do I end it?

The restorative justice movement in student conduct systems created opportunities to teach apology - but the process needs to extend beyond violations of student codes of conduct. It should apply to conversations we have about developing professionally, interacting socially and "being good neighbors." I have hope that our four-year olds will learn to use words more carefully and will have to apologize enough to learn how to do it effectively, but it is up to us to teach them. And it is up to us to teach our college students the same thing.

Thoughts? Feedback? I'd love to have a conversation. Find me on Twitter @pottscharlie or email cpotts@gustavus.edu.



(Photoillustration Ivy Tashlik; original images Shutterstock)

Gustavus Residential Life - A Year in Review (aka "playing around with Piktochart")

Gratitude Week

Life is busy during closing at the end of the year, but I wanted to write a quick note about gratitude – an important thing to keep in mind at this time of year!

We don't say "thank you" enough. We are part of a culture of entitlement and instant gratification and many of us struggle to take the time to be appreciative and grateful for the things other people do to help us along the way. We decided to try to do something about that through an online initiative a couple weeks ago at Gustavus.

The Residential Life department sponsored "Gratitude Week" on our Facebook and Twitter accounts during the first full week of May. We encouraged students, faculty, staff and alums to take an opportunity to say THANK YOU to someone who has made a difference in their life. We "featured" a new group each day in order for us to recognize as many groups as possible and to open comfortable pathways for the audience to be engaged.  

The key to gaining momentum for this project was to include others who had a larger audience. The Res Life Facebook page works well for us, but we are a pretty niche market compared to the general Gustavus Facebook page, the Alumni page or the Admissions Twitter account.  I relied on the willingness of others at the college to share in the work of expressing gratitude and it paid off.  The response was very good - particularly for the first time with this event and a still-growing audience on our Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Responses and comments were wide-ranging and it was evident that alums were some of the first to chime in about things they appreciated about their Gustavus experience.  We had staff and faculty thanking one another and lots and lots of "likes," one of the keys to gauging whether a Facebook message is spreading.

So why be thankful for others? There's very little - if anything - that we do alone. In "The Narcissism Epidemic," Dr. Jean Twenge and Dr. W. Keith Campbell argue that the reliance on others should create in us a need to be grateful. Twenge and Campbell reference the idea that paying attention to your wider social networks also off-sets entitlement. An example is given about a speech the Dalai Lama gave about the myth of independence.  The story is of observations made while listening to the speech.  "If you are so independent, [the Dalai Lama] asked, who grows your food? Who sews your clothes, builds your house, makes sure that water comes out of your showerhead? How were you even born? The fact is, he said, we have not done one single thing alone, without the help of a small army of others, and yet we talk about the necessity and supremacy of independence. It's completely irrational."

Twenge and Campbell also talk about the idea that gratitude mitigates entitlement. Twenge & Campbell reference a study in which people were asked to list the things for which they were grateful once a week for ten weeks. Compared to the group of people in the study who did not do this, those who were intentional about being grateful reported a greater sense of well-being and enjoyed better health.  If we spend more time focusing on being grateful for the things and the people that we do have, we will spend less time being concerned about the things we do NOT have or feel we deserve.

We have a strong network of others on campus who make the work we do possible. The network of others also make up a large part of our social network. We spend hours a day with these people - often more than with our own families during certain times of the year - so our ability to recognize and appreciate others sustains us.

Alma Mater: Coming Home to Work

What's it like to return to work at your alma mater? I returned to Gustavus about 18 months ago to serve as the Director of Residential Life. I was 10 years removed from my own graduation from the place and was excited to return. I have now worked in the Director of Residential Life role here for about 20 months and there are so many advantages to being back... and the challenges are plenty.

According to records kept by our Alumni Relations office, there are currently 112 alums working at Gustavus. Considering there are about 750 employees on campus (around 620-630 are full-time), there is a noticeable influence of alums working here.

My institution is one that values tradition and places an emphasis on belonging.  I often hear that a student “is totally a Gustie,” or someone describing an alum by saying “Oh, she is such a Gustie.”  There are certain qualities and values that we hope our students have.  Do they all? Of course not. Do they have to have these qualities to be successful or feel at home? Certainly not. But I think part of this tradition is passed along by alums returning to Gustavus to work and those employees then continue to pass along notions and ideas about the collegiate experience.

Coming back to my alma mater, I heard about the challenges.  “Things aren’t like they used to be!” or the always popular “This is the way we’ve always done things – you know that, you’re an alum,” which can be challenging to any change you try to implement.  But these are just things I have personally experienced in my brief time back at my alma mater.  I was interested in hearing more from others who had returned to their alma mater to work in student affairs. I connected with colleagues via Twitter and did an email interview with three student affairs professionals to get their perspective – what I found was pretty interesting.

I reached out via Twitter to inquire about research that might exist about experiences working at your alma mater. What I got was a few quick responses offering to do interviews to provide some anecdotal information about the experience.

The first respondent was an entry level residence life professional whose first job was at her alma mater, which is a small, private institution. She will be referred to as EL for “entry level.” The second respondent was a mid-level professional whose job is primarily in technology support for student services at a mid-size, public institution that is part of a large state system. He will be referred to as ML for “mid-level.” The third respondent was a vice provost and dean of student affairs at a mid-sized private institution. He will be referred to as SA for “senior administrator.” Each was sent an email with interview questions.

In one sentence, why did you return to your alma mater (or stay on...) for your current professional position?

EL: “I stayed at my alma mater for my current position because of my knowledge of the institution and that [the college] values the whole development of students.”

ML: “Working for UCSB Student Affairs gives me professional and personal fulfillment with the work I do for/with students and my colleagues in a supportive and challenging environment that allows me to learn every day.”

SA: “I was lucky enough to have great mentors who, during my senior year, encouraged me to stay at [my institution] and earn an MA degree -- which ultimately led to my first professional job here and the rest is, as they say -- history!”

What is one challenge you find in working for your alma mater?

EL: “I started working [at my alma mater] pretty quickly after graduating. Holding on to what you know as a student and now what you know as a staff member [makes it] challenging to move forward without holding onto your experience as a student.”

ML: “[The] typical challenges faced by anyone working in higher ed – expectation to provide service with limited resources in a bureaucratic institution.”

SA: “There are certainly times when I don't agree with the direction of things or…what I think is in the best interest of the students, but I also understand that people make decisions for all kinds of reasons, and while I may be more connected and see the decision as hurting a campus tradition, I also recognize that people and places continue to change and evolve.”

Are alums working at your institution viewed differently than non-alums? (i.e. - are you known as the "insider")?

EL: “I believe alums working at my institution are viewed differently. Alums know many different people and have information that can provide insight and further development and ensuring that a change isn't something we have already tried. At a place like my institution where tradition is highly valued, students connect with alum staff in a different way because of the shared experience.”

ML: “For those who have known me since I started working here in the mid 1990’s and as a student leader, I suppose I could be considered as an “insider”. Because I’ve been here for a while and I’ve been so involved with my volunteer work (TA, org advisor, committees, etc), I know a lot of folks and I think a lot of folks know me as well, not just in student affairs but in other divisions as well.”

SA: “There is certainly a culture where there is a strong, active cohort of alums working here. They tend to know how to get things done (navigate campus culture) in ways that might be slightly quicker than others who come in to work at [this institution] from the outside. That being said, having new perspectives is always important and while I bring one voice of history, others bring new ideas and fresh perspectives from other places that often help us continue to improve and enhance what we do on campus.”

Are you ever expected to do more (or do things differently) than a colleague in a similar position on campus because you are an alum?

EL: “As an alum, you know the place that you are working and because of that you not only represent yourself, but you represent the traditions and values of your campus. You expect to help the current student body have the same experience and value the institution as much as you do. As an alum you… know the institution inside and out. It is often your job to teach non-alum colleagues how things work on campus.”

ML: “I don’t think so. For one, unless mentioned in some conversation, we don’t typically know who are alums/non-alums so expectations are not differentiated based on this.”

SA: Probably now [as a senior administrator] -- but people tend to look at the alums as having a really good sense of the place, including the traditions. As a result, I probably am a person people do ask about the community if they have a question or… they may expect me to know the fight song more than other folks - and be willing to teach it to the new staff.

What advice would you give to someone hoping to work at their alma mater?

EL: Be open to change. The pieces of your institution that you value and love might be different because you might see them from a different perspective. Make an intentional effort to meet faculty and staff that may have come when you were gone. Reach out to them individually to learn what they love about your institution.

ML: “Hopefully, you cultivated positive relationships and built some networks when you were once in your alma mater. Use these connections to find some opportunities that may not be generally available to the public.”

SA: “As long as you can balance the fact that things will change, sometimes for what you might perceive as less successful or a different direction than you would, then you will be fine.  I have a lot of pride in my campus and working with students. I often remind them that it is my alma mater, too - so we all share a special affinity for campus.”

The responses from the three interviewees provide a glimpse into both the challenges and rewards to working at your alma mater. All express a deeper care or love for their institution. While it is absolutely possible to have your affection for an institution grow over time without having attended the place, there is a certain connection one usually feels with their alma mater (a connection that is strong whether they had a good experience or not-so-good experience). Two of the respondents mentioned change – and being open to change by those who you may feel do not understand the place like you do.  In fact, the “outsiders” may very well have fresh perspective that will greatly enhance what you are doing – so be open to change.  I interviewed folks from three very different institutions, and I think the answers spoke to the differences – perhaps smaller schools or private institutions that are not affiliated with a larger state system create a stronger identity that carries through to alums working there. Regardless, each individual has an affinity for their alma mater and had a strong enough desire to continue their connection that they stayed (or returned) to continue the work they benefited from as students.

There is an advantage to coming home - to walking into a situation that lives within a context you recognize and understand. This position I have at my alma mater is by far the most challenging professional position I have had, but aspects of it have been made easier by my knowledge and "feel" for the place. Did it change in the decade I was gone? Absolutely; but not at its core. The values and the ethos of the place remain the same... and adjusting to new language or new faces has made the challenge all the more adventurous.  I try to anticipate change while remaining in touch with the reasons I love my alma mater – and while most of those reasons were formed while I was a student, they are renewed – and new reasons are born – nearly every day.

Scott Russell Sanders is a terrific writer who is well known for his essays that often deal with the ideas of “place” and “home.”  In his 1993 book "Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World,” he writes about home. And while he is referring to something other than one’s alma mater, I think it has a transferable message. Sanders writes:

"One's native ground is the place where, since before you had words for such knowledge, you have known the smells, the seasons, the birds and beasts, the human voices, the houses, the ways of working, the lay of the land, and the quality of light.  It is the landscape you learn before you retreat inside the illusion of your skin.  You may love the place if you have flourished there, or hate the place if you suffered there.  But love it or hate it, you cannot shake free.  Even if you move to the antipodes, even if you become intimate with new landscapes, you still bear the impression of that first ground."

This quote has long stayed with me as an important way to view home.  It is the place we know and understand.  It is often the first opportunity we have to rationalize "place" and understand how the world works around us - physically, socially, emotionally and politically.  Even moving away cannot remove the presence of home - or alma mater, the equivalent for many - and some of us are fortunate enough to return to it.

Thoughts? Feedback? I'd love to hear it! Find me on Twitter @pottscharlie or email cpotts@gustavus.edu