There are so many different career tracks in Higher Ed, and so many different titles and combinations of responsibilities, that it can be hard for graduate students and new professionals to figure out where a position falls in an organization, to understand what the day-to-day experience might be in a particular job, and to key in on skills and interests that will help them make good arguments for a particular kind of job.
In response, Higher Ed Career Coach is introducing a new guest post series where experienced professionals will share more about their jobs, the skills and experiences that helped them get those jobs, and what they really spend their time doing.
In order to have some uniformity to the series, guest posts in the Career Tracks in Higher Education series must answer a common set of questions. The article should be at least 500 words, and when published, will have a headline in the following format:
Career Tracks in Higher Education: [Area]
For example: Career Tracks in Higher Education: Judicial Affairs
You are welcome to suggest any subtitle you like. Articles longer than 750 words may be published as two or more separate posts. If your article is published, you may also be invited to be a guest on the Higher Ed Career Coach show to discuss your article and your career.
8. Number of Years of Full-Time Experience You Had When You Started This Position:
9. What was the minimum education required for your current position?
10. How many years of experience were required for your current position?
11. What are your major responsibilities in your current position?
12. Does your role require direct service to students? If so, explain.
13. How many persons in your department hold an equivalent rank?
14. How many people do you supervise? Are they Full-Time or Part-Time? Professional Staff, Trades/Custodial Staff, or Student Staff? (Please list numbers for each.
15. What is the title of the person your report to? What is the title of that person’s immediate superior?
16. What is your typical day like? Your typical week?
17. What do you spend the majority of your time doing in your current role?
18. What did you think you would be doing more, when you applied for the job?
19. What survival skill is most important in your current role?
20. Do you serve on committees within your department? Division? University-Wide? What roles do you play on these committees?
21. What advice do you have for persons seeking this type of position?
I spent 14 years of my life working at Penn State, 12 for the Office of Residence Life, and 2 for the Smeal College of Business. It was my home and I am still proud of my former colleagues, my old students, and of the many good things that Penn State has contributed to the world. So this week, I am heartsick, angry, shocked, disappointed and like many, I am not sure what to do with all the various thoughts and feelings.
There are no easy answers, but something good must come of this, so this week, I am doing a two-hour podcast on the topic, and hopefully taking calls and comments about the situation.
While sharing your thoughts and feelings are part of this, I am hoping to hear some thoughts on how this case can provide lessons and ways to improve the handling of similar incidents in the future.
Please listen live from 11 am until 1 pm ET this Friday, and call in to (347) 989-0055 to share your thoughts and advice.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”–Edmund Burke, Irish orator, philosopher, and politician.
If there ever was a situation where the 18th century philosopher’s famous quotation applied, it is certainly the sordid tale that came out of Happy Valley at the end of last week. Like many in the nation, I was shocked and heartbroken to hear the sexual abuse accusations against Penn State’s former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, and the allegations made that the athletic director, Tim Curley, and the vice president for finance and business, Gary Schultz, may have participated in covering for Sandusky, and lying to a grand jury.
For nearly 14 years, I was a member of the administration at Penn State, as an employee of the Office of Residence Life. For part of that time–my first three years–I was the live-in residence life coordinator for Nittany Apartments, the on-campus apartment complex that houses many of the upperclassman on the Nittany Lions football team. In this capacity, I had the opportunity to interact with athletes, members of the athletic staff, university police, and colleagues from across the University. So this week has been somewhat surreal for me, as I read the news about people I’ve met, and familiar places on campus and in the community that I called home for almost a generation.
To say that the men involved in this scenario were well-respected is an understatement. Jerry Sandusky, the man at the center of this firestorm, was once lauded as the heir apparent to legendary coach Joe Paterno, and has been celebrated in the community as a champion for underprivileged boys, as the founder and lead fundraiser for his charity, the Second Mile.
Tim Curley, as athletic director for a Division I sports program, has weathered many storms in the past, and like many athletic directors, he is liked and respected by some, and reviled and ridiculed by others. Gary Schultz was a long-serving and admired member of the community, and has been referred to in the press as a man with strong family values. Penn State even named a new child care center after him. On different occasions, I heard both these men speak about the accomplishments of their programs, and my impressions of both men were that they were likable, good people, with serious levels of commitment toward improving their departments and maintaining the high standards of integrity, pride, and respect that many associate with the Pennsylvania State University. In fact, until I read the news the other day, I had never heard anyone say anything bad about Gary Schultz–ever.
Though I was shocked to hear the allegations against Sandusky, and heartsick over the responses of people within the administration who failed miserably in their attempts to get to the truth and do the right thing, I wasn’t surprised. Unfortunately, I did understand how such things could happen. They are the result of bureaucratic leanings toward policies and procedures over common sense, coupled with poor communication, and an intense need for self-preservation.
As a member of the residence life staff, I was responsible for following up on many situations involving personal conflict, violence, and illegal behavior. When you help run residence halls, you get to know the true nature of student life and the complexities of human behavior and interaction like no one else at the University. There is an underbelly to any campus, and ugly things happen. Sometimes good people do bad things. Sometimes bad people take advantage of the system.
No matter what, each person deserves to be accorded some basic rights to fairness and due process. Processes take time, and procedures have to be followed, because you can’t just act against someone without reason. You would also be a fool, indeed, to act against powerful, well-respected community heroes, without solid evidence and a solid commitment to follow-through. This is where policies and procedures get in the way, and where self-interest and self-preservation often trump common sense and common decency.
Maintaining confidentiality is an important part of the equation, but it must be weighed against a sense of responsibility, and carried through with a serious commitment toward doing what is right, what is just, and what is good for the community. Actions can be taken confidentially while processes play out. The trick is that you have to take the right actions, and to do so, you need the right information in the first place. To get the right information, you have to create a culture where doing the right thing and telling the truth are valued more than perceptions and reputations grown out of pride and a shared mythology.
To truly maintain a commitment to doing the right thing, one must also set aside some other enduring principles: the CYA principle (“cover your ass” at all costs), and not pissing off the “powers that be.” But the cost of doing so in a bureaucracy may be loss of position, loss of influence, and loss of further opportunity. When people are afraid, the tendency is to protect oneself. It takes personal courage and steadfast determination to follow through, because the really ugly situations that occur in bureaucratic organizations usually get plugged into processes that drag on so long that, in the end, even serious sanctions are diminished by the time that has passed between the action and the consequence, no one learns anything, and the witnesses and victims have endured stress, hardship and maybe even further victimization while they wait for a resolution.
What can institutions and administrators do to change things? First and foremost, we need discussion about how power and privilege play out in the University community, and second, we need policies and procedures that clearly protect persons from reprisals when reporting unseemly behavior by persons in positions of authority and influence.Third, we need good training and administrative support to ensure that people know what to do, and that situations are handled properly.
As the situation continues to play out in public, there must be serious and sustained efforts behind the scenes to deconstruct not only the situation and to understand the errors and omissions of persons involved, but to understand the impact of unclear policies, ill-defined roles, and a lack of protections, checks and balances, and common sense in how this particular situation played out, so that things like this can be responded to properly, if and when they happen again.
I wish it could be as easy as installing some universal moral compass in those people we trust, so they do the right things each time, and without question. Lacking that, we need to make it easier for others who witness wrongdoing to know what options they have to respond, and to create environments where people can come forward without fear of reprisal.
Article first published as When Good Men Do Nothing on Technorati.
Incivility in the workplace can take many forms, from verbal abuse and harassment, to manipulation to acts of violence. 1.4 million employees experience it each year.
It has tremendous costs, as well. According to Dr. Rajashi Ghosh, an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Development for the School of Education at Drexel University, incivility costs the U.S. economy $23.8 billion each year. And academic environments are not immune.
On this week’s podcast, I will air an interview with Dr. Ghosh , who was the author of a recent article on the “incivility spiral” in mentoring relationships, which was published in a special issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources, which she also co-edited. In this article, Ghosh examined how different acts of incivility between mentors and mentees can devolve into negative relationships.
With mentoring programs being one of the popular ways that we seek to develop up-and-coming professionals, Ghosh recommends that institutions (and their Human Resource Officers) provide structured approaches, including codes of conduct for mentors and mentees, better orientations for both sides of the relationship about roles, boundaries, and conduct, formal processes for reporting inappropriate behavior, and better follow-up from HR and management.
Drexel will host a Human Resource Development Symposium September 17, “HRD’s Role in Addressing Workplace Incivility and Violence. Online registration is now closed, but if you are interested in attending e-mail Dr. Ghosh at rg429@drexel.edu expressing your interest in being on the waitlist.
We’ll also talk about my upcoming webinar on Creating a Killer Résumé on BigMarker, a new free webinar service, Hiring for Hope events, and I’ll take your comments and questions on dealing with incivility in the workplace.
Developing positive relationships is one of the biggest challenges professionals face when starting a new role or moving into a new work environment. When you are new, you don’t know what norms have been established, who will be helpful (or who won’t), and you’ll likely find yourself wondering when to share information and perspectives, when to keep your mouth shut, and how to evaluate potential relationships.
Since many new faculty and staff are beginning to test the potentially treacherous waters as “new fish” in the ponds of academia, the timing seemed right to get some tips and perspectives on how to establish positive working relationships and keep from being eaten alive.
Andy Curran, an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati’s Clermont College, encourages new staff to make themselves available, ask for advice from senior employees, and avoid being confrontational. He credits his ability to get along with others for his success in getting promotions and tenure during his 11 year career.
Getting information and perspectives from new colleagues may require some trial and error, so Joe O’Connell, Coordinator of New Student Programs at Arizona State University tries to tailor his conversations with people to their likes and dislikes. “For example,” O’ Connell explains, “if someone likes short, direct e-mails, then send them short, direct e-mails. They will be more receptive to your communications.”
Marlene Caroselli, a corporate trainer, keynoter, and author of 61 books, teaches a course on developing relationships at work. She advises new staff to “invite collaborative, cooperative dialogue. “This may be difficult,” she says, ” But it almost always works. Invite the person who is overly critical of your plan to join you in making it better. It’s natural to be defensive, but we’re asking you to put defenses and fences aside. Instead, form a partnership with your biggest critic and work together to strengthen your plan.”
Dr. Laurel Clark, President of the College of MetaPhysics, tells people to be “self-reflective” in their approaches to conflict. “Instead of blaming a co-worker for a conflict, look to see the part that you play in it and how YOU can cause change,” implores Clark. “If only one person changes, (and that person can always be YOU), then the dynamics of the relationship change even if the other person doesn’t.”
Please join us and call in with your tips, questions and comments at 11 am ET this Friday, August 26, tweet them to @hiedcareercoach or e-mail sean@higheredcareercoach.com The call-in number is (347) 989-0055. I’ll be tweeting additional quotes and advice from our guests on Friday as well.
In higher education, as in any industry, credentials and certifications are sought after by professionals hoping to get an advantage over their competition. In an interesting post that entered my tweet stream on Friday, Kenny Silva explored the weight we often place on credentials in the hiring process, in contrast to potential. This is especially pertinent at this time of year, when the academic year is beginning, and the hiring season slows to a crawl.
Back when I was working at Penn State, I often found myself in the awkward position of filling a vacancy or two late in the summer. In part, this was due to the area being mostly populated by upper-class students and returning staff. The priority spots in our large residence hall system were to make sure that the first-year areas were adequately staffed first. When approximately half of your 14,000 students are first-year students, and about 4500 of those live in one area, you must have priorities.
Working with first-year students is, in general, more exciting to many staff, because, well...they need you in a different way. It's more validating. Upperclassmen don't get in nearly as much trouble, and mostly, they want to be left alone to do their own thing. So there were several occasions when someone left or was transferred to a new area or got promoted when we had to fill a vacancy post-haste and pronto, and many of the more highly credentialed new hires had already been placed. These are the times when it is especially important to look for potential.
In my time as Assistant Director, I cared more about potential than credentials, and honestly, I still do, because, for the most part, my least credentialed staff were easiest to work with, related better to students, and were more motivated to prove themselves. I always appreciated that perspective, because I have always had to prove myself.
I was the last male resident assistant hired at Clemson during my junior year, and they put me on the top floor of a building where no one ever went unless they had a reason to be there. I went in knowing they expected me to fail and that I had a lot to prove. I made the most of it and went on to win programming awards and have a generally good reputation on campus. Eventually, I made Student Affairs my life's work. Along the way, I met different mentors and colleagues who kept giving me chances. Like a "diamond in the rough," polishing up my portfolio and earning credentials took some time.
When I decided to leave the university setting, I had to sort through the value of becoming credentialed as a certified coach, and recently, as a professional résumé writer. I worked with college students for 15 years, had a master's degree already, and had been coaching young professionals and colleagues on their job search materials and strategy the whole time. I didn't really think I needed a couple more pieces of paper to prove I could do this, but I got them anyway. I did so because that is the way our field works for some people, and I felt that the credentialing would remove some potential obstacles from my path.
Oddly enough, I can't remember a single time I've been practicing when a client even asked about my credentials. Instead, they ask, "How can you help me?" and "What benefits will I see from working with you?" And they weigh these against other options, many of which are free or available at a lower cost. I end up working with many of people who inquire, and when I don't, I know that I haven't distinguished myself in the right way, or shown the value of the relationship. When I do get a new client, it's because they believe I can help them, and because we connected as people who potentially could work well together.
As Silva points out:
"Our ability to succeed in any endeavor, whether it's a business or non-profit, is dictated by potential, not credential. It is only potential energy that can be tapped into in order for us to push forward. If you don’t hire the right people to bring that potential energy into your business, you will not move forward."
I've always told my student leaders aspiring to go straight into student affairs that the time period we are currently in, from mid-August to the end of September, is a great time to look for a job, if you work hard to show your potential. Time and again, this worked for me as a supervisor, and I got some great staff members out of the deal.
If you still have staff vacancies, do yourself and the universe a favor: take a chance on a candidate you have a good gut feeling about. Look for the "diamonds in the rough" and help them learn to shine!
Work with Sean. I help higher ed professionals take control of their careers with tailored services including resume and CV development, LinkedIn profile optimization and networking strategy, interview coaching, and one-on-one career guidance.
(Amazon aff. link), Dr. Laurel Smith, President of the 
