by Sherry Woosley, Thomas Bruick, Jason Wallace, and Matt Venaas
T
he term habitat harkens back to elementary school science courses and colorful illustrations of a meadow or ocean and the lively variety of plants and animals that live and grow there. In this context, the habitat provides organisms with the shelter, space, food, and water that they need to live. If any of these are compromised, particularly for long periods of time, the habitat becomes inhospitable.
While the components of a habitat in an ecological context may seem intuitive, what about the components of a workplace habitat? Beyond the strictly physical needs, what components are necessary for a workplace habitat that creates the conditions where employees and organizations can thrive?
This question is all the more important as the discourse about work in student affairs is filled with terms like the Great Resignation, the Turnover Tsunami, the Great Reshuffle, and Quiet Quitting. Each day seemingly brings some new buzzword to describe what’s going on or an article that highlights the latest employee trend. Regardless of the words used, they all appear focused on changing the conversation or suggesting strategies that employers can use to win a war on attrition. All the while, employees are stuck in the middle, wondering what it all practically means for their work, their lives, and their futures.
For all the talk about employee retention strategies, they so far seem to have had limited success. What might be standing in the way of these potential solutions? One likely obstacle is their focus on the employees. The unspoken (and sometimes spoken) assumption is that the issues are individual-level problems. Labels like quiet quitting go so far as to blame the employees (consider the contrast in Detert’s article about how quiet quitting is actually “calibrated contributing”). Yet the conversations about employees and workplace experiences are widespread across all industries and at all levels of organizations. This prevalence suggests that the source of these issues is not individual employees.
A second factor could be the negative tone they have assumed as, more often than not, the arguments are based on deficit thinking, “a lens that judges the context in weaknesses or what is missing.” They focus on why folks are dissatisfied, why workplaces are terrible, why employees are burned out, and what’s missing from their work lives. Clearly, establishing decent working conditions, clear boundaries, and reasonable expectations is important, even critical. But the negative discussions are disheartening.
What if, instead of relying on blame and dark-cloud attitudes, organizations and departments approached the situation through a lens that is optimistic and widely focused? They could flip the script by taking an aspirational approach to the workplace and creating an environment that is more than simply the physical location where an employee performs certain tasks in exchange for a paycheck. Workplaces should be areas where people produce, connect, collaborate, grow, and hopefully thrive. When that is achieved, a place becomes a habitat.
Campus housing departments recognize engagement as critical for students and learning, but it is also important for employees and their work. In a favorable habitat, employees are involved in activities, connected with other people, or even absorbed in work tasks. Aspirational work habitats also create conditions that allow for pleasure or positive emotions, like contentment, happiness, or satisfaction. It’s not about forcing feelings or creating mandatory fun activities. It’s about an environment that has the conditions for natural smiles, laughs, and even joy.
Another component of favorable habitats is that they include opportunities for meaning or purpose. Basically, these habitats provide the conditions in which employees can engage not only in hedonistic behaviors (those related solely to reducing pain and increasing pleasure) but also eudaimonic behaviors (those related to pursuing happiness by finding meaning and purpose). Both are important for people to flourish.
In nature, the livability of habitats can be assessed by factors such as temperature and rainfall. How does one assess the livability of a workplace habitat, though? In 2022, Skyfactor and the Southern Association for College Student Affairs (SACSA) set out to do so by surveying student affairs professionals. Aggregate results from this survey paint a picture of a profession that can and does reflect the three elements of favorable habitats: pleasure, engagement, and meaning. For example, 47% of current student affairs professionals said they smile and laugh at work, 47% said they get immersed in their work, 63% strongly agreed that their job provides meaningful work, 55% strongly agreed that their job provides work that contributes to a bigger purpose, and 43% strongly agreed that their job provides work that is motivating.
Workplaces should be areas where people produce, connect, collaborate, grow, and hopefully thrive. When that is achieved, a place becomes a habitat.
Respondents' comments provide additional context. Pleasure and engagement were themes in their descriptions of a time in the previous two to three weeks when they were happy at work. They wrote about situations involving their connections to others, including team members, campus colleagues, students, or the broader community. For instance, one employee commented, “I am regularly happy when I am interacting with my staff. They are wonderful people and are the best thing about my work.” Another wrote, “I find my connection with students a place where work feels good and happy.” Some respondents wrote about the meaning of the work itself. “Every time I engage with students I am reminded why the work we do is critical.” Another replied that they were happy when they were “helping students find their voice in a situation and managing things in a fulfilling way.”
Respondents pointed to all three elements of a positive work habitat: pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Because this framework is a part of the work of housing and residence life too, the habitat framework could be used to evaluate and improve the work experiences for employees at all levels.
Most roles in housing and residence life departments, including graduate assistants, involve supervision or advising. Fostering positive habitats as a supervisor or an advisor begins at the conceptual level. Many supervisors default, often unintentionally, to a management approach grounded in a deficit lens. Managers, by definition, tell others what to do and how to do it. But this approach is limiting. First, the nature of campus housing work is far too complex to fully prepare staff by telling them what to do in advance. Second, it does little to nothing to support pleasure, engagement, and meaning.
A contrasting approach is to view supervising and advising as leading. Simon Sinek described leadership as “the acceptance of the awesome responsibility to create an environment in which people can work at their natural best.” Adopting this conceptual approach to leadership stirs supervisors to move beyond the organization’s list of tasks that must be managed. They can advance the conversation by discussing with their teams what brings them pleasure in their work, when they are most engaged, and what has meaning for them. Leaders can then focus on crafting an environment informed by these ongoing discussions, and the task lists will take care of themselves. Student affairs work is challenging, emotionally heavy, and complex. Whether teams view this dynamic as daunting or adventurous has a lot to do with the environment in which they work. Written responses from the SACSA/Skyfactor survey aligned with these concepts. One respondent stated, “I thoroughly enjoy when our leadership team tackles a mountain of a challenge and comes out the other side in one piece. We may have some stressful situations that come our way, but this group is seriously amazing when working together.”
Survey results also point to practical strategies that build on this leadership approach. Leaders can support their employees in finding or creating pleasure, engagement, and meaning in their roles: for example, by strategically crafting an assignment that challenges a staff member. One respondent described an assignment of this nature. “I am having the opportunity to lead a divisional priority in my area of expertise. [I am] excited to use my skills and expertise at my institution.” Using assignments that stretch staff creates a mutually beneficial opportunity by addressing a divisional priority while creating an opportunity for the employee.
Student affairs work is challenging, emotionally heavy, and complex. Whether teams view this dynamic as daunting or adventurous has a lot to do with the environment in which they work.
However, asking staff to stretch their capabilities and be engaged should not be confused with asking a staff member to do more. Workload burdens, especially related to unfilled positions, were a prominent theme in the written comments from survey respondents. Employees wrote about covering for empty positions, taking on additional responsibilities, and generally having too much work. These conditions detract from an ability to foster a healthy workplace habitat.
Leaders have two practical options in response to workload concerns and vacancies. First, pursue aggressive means to fill positions quickly (a tall task in today’s labor market and with hiring procedures that may be beyond their control). Second, acknowledge reality: A depleted staff cannot achieve the same results as a fully staffed team over an extended period. A manager might say that a depleted team will have to distribute the same number of tasks across a smaller number of employees. In contrast, a leader will ask what tasks are mission-critical, what can realistically be done well, and what tasks can be eliminated, paused, or done differently.
Within campus housing and student affairs, training is a routine, required task that, when done improperly, can almost feel like dishwashing. It is repeated frequently and often, but the process does not necessarily create enjoyment or meaning. What would it look like to foster habitat opportunities in training?
First, the training leaders must consider all three components in every activity. Classic icebreakers provide a wonderful example. Icebreakers, by nature, are intended to be pleasurable and engaging, yet they are often met with eye rolls and groans instead of excitement because everyone has participated in too many that were not meaningful. For people to find meaning and purpose in training, there must first be clarity on the why. Training, if it is conducted in rote, routine ways, becomes a task that is required instead of an effective activity that supports a positive habitat.
In content-based training sessions, on the other hand, engagement can often be the missing link. Ultimately, training is an educational space and often defaults to what Paulo Freire described as the banking method where attendees open up their brains and the presenter deposits information. Freire argued that this approach fails to support creativity and engagement, and it stifles possibilities for positive change. Housing professionals, as educators, should be able to better engage in training audiences by incorporating active learning strategies that directly link activities, learning, and meaning. It is tempting to believe that paid staff should be responsible for their engagement levels. However, that belief undermines any goals of moving beyond simple employee retention to supporting healthy habitats at work.
Similarly, supervisors can advance pleasure, engagement, and meaning in their recruitment purposes and processes. Survey results suggest that student affairs employees desire joy and meaning in their work, so one place to start is at the very beginning: recruitment. Prioritizing employees’ opportunities for engagement, pleasure, and meaning in the recruitment process is also valuable for institutions. Engaged, satisfied, and meaning-identified employees have more longevity in the workplace and experience better outcomes.
What might the three components look like in recruitment? Engagement is a two-way street. Employers must identify the qualities and skill sets that meet the needs of the supervisor, department, institution, and other stakeholders. At the same time, employees must be clear on what will make their work most meaningful and pleasing. Clearly articulating obvious requirements like salary is essential, but employees also need to move beyond the obvious. They can identify their critical intangible needs like the type of work environment, work pace, workload distribution, and employee relations. Employers, for their part, can be transparent about their work environments. Identifying non-negotiables for both the employer and the employee during the recruitment process can avoid tensions in the future.
Beyond engagement, employers can consider what it would mean to embed meaning into the recruitment process. How might supervisors make these processes meaningful experiences for both those successful in the recruitment process and those who are not? Start small by centering humanity in the process. Many professionals in higher education can recall a time when they were treated poorly during a search process; perhaps they applied for a position and never received a response or they applied and received a rejection a year later or they engaged with employees with bad attitudes. Hiring managers and search committees can be more intentional about engagement with those in a recruitment process, ensuring timely, transparent, and civil communication throughout.
It’s not often that we review recruitment processes from start to finish, particularly through the lens of the habitat we are creating. But evaluating how and where we develop pleasure, engagement, and meaning and how we could improve is valuable.
To improve housing work environments, student affairs (and campus housing in particular) still needs to address the issues in the deficit conversations, including pay, overload, burnout, and more, especially how to fill empty positions and attract new people to the profession. When conversations expand to include a habitat perspective, the field can do more than simply work to retain employees; it can create habitats around pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Then they begin to grow.
Jason Wallace, Ph.D., is an assistant professor for higher education & student affairs administration at The University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg and chair of the Research & Assessment Committee for SACSA. Thomas Bruick, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and program coordinator for college student personnel administration at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway and vice president for scholarship & research for SACSA. Matt Venaas is a senior research manager for Skyfactor. Sherry Woosley, Ph.D., is the senior director of analytics & research for Skyfactor.
