By Alice A. Mitchell, Matthew Venaas, and Sherry Woosley
Imagine a campus housing department as a cruise ship. At the helm is the senior housing officer, setting the course and overseeing all that happens on the vessel. Meanwhile, the entry-level staff make up the ship’s crew, working hard to maintain the engines, keep everyone safe, address issues as they appear, and meet the passengers’ needs. And sitting between those two positions are the mid-level staff, who act as cruise directors. These are the individuals who manage the operations and ensure that crew members show up to work. They see that services are delivered, snarls are navigated, and the operation runs smoothly. You might even say they keep things ship shape.
Unfortunately, while the good ship ResLife has encountered some rough seas, it is those cruise directors who are quietly (and not so quietly) lowering the lifeboats at a startling rate. This wave feels like more than that of younger professionals testing the waters of their new careers. That leads to the question of what researchers, housing leaders, and mid-level professionals know about why these staff are jumping ship and what life preservers would help retain them.
First, it’s important to understand who mid-level staff are. For some, that position is defined by a person’s service time. For example, the ACPA Mid-Level Community of Practice defines mid-level staff as “those with more than five years of full-time experience in higher education who are not senior professionals.” This definition recognizes that within the mid-level category itself, there may be those who hold positions generally considered to be early-, mid-, or senior-level in terms of their responsibilities. In addition, some professionals may be mid-level lifers who have found an institution and position that works for them and where they have chosen to remain for the rest of their professional careers.
Another way to identify mid-level professionals is to find those who fall into what Donald Super’s career development theory characterizes as the establishment, or second stage, of their careers. These professionals have moved past the initial exploration phase, successfully navigated the transition from graduate school to professional work, and moved beyond their first or entry-level positions. In this stage, they are focused on building competence and achieving, advancing, and making a commitment to the profession. As one professional notes in an article about the attrition of student affairs staff, supervisors need to provide clear guidance for individualized development, unlike their own supervisor, who said, “‘You’re doing great, don’t change,’ but what I needed was ‘You’re great. Here’s how we level up. Here’s how we get you more skills that will help you get your next job.’”
That sort of frustration has led to restlessness. In a recent survey of student affairs professionals conducted by Benchworks and SACSA, 37% of current student affairs professionals with six to ten years of experience said they were actively job searching, and, of those, 19% were searching only outside of higher education. This is occurring alongside the traditional coming and going of younger staff and a larger-than-usual number of senior officers opting for retirement. This creates issues in the present and likely in the future as well. “We’re going to be in a real crisis in a few years,” one housing professional in the Midwest acknowledges. “We’re not going to have mid-level people to fill senior-level positions. We’re cutting off the pipeline.”
For better or worse, though, this situation is no longer news, and the focus has moved from identifying the issue to addressing it. For example, panelists at the “Stuck in the Middle with You” session during the 2023 ACUHO-I Campus Home. LIVE! conference discussed the need for more fluid, focused, and year-round training. Noting that much of the attention currently falls on new staff, those who are promoted to mid-level positions because they displayed competence at the entry-level are left to fend (or flounder) for themselves. While new professionals need training, mid-level professionals need individualized development, which is often built within a supervisory relationship. This professional development can be structured to help staff develop vertically: that is, to take the step into higher-level positions. Equally valid, though, are those who want professional development and mentoring to develop laterally into roles within different aspects of campus housing and student life.
In these situations, supervision cannot be seen as a transactional and punitive process based only on oversight and making sure that deadlines are met. Rather, supervisors must foster an environment in which mid-level professionals believe that an investment is being made in their development. A deeper investment in talented mid-level staff means cultivating them more intentionally for job openings. “We may need to become more intentional about keeping talented mid-level professionals if it’s hard to fill those positions institutionally,” notes Thomas Bruick, an assistant professor and program coordinator in the College Student Personnel and Administration program at the University of Central Arkansas.
Supervisors and senior leaders must also find ways to project confidence and support as they keep a steady hand on the wheel. “A calm, cool, steady, smart approach is what’s needed now,” even though upper-level leaders themselves are “part of a larger ecosystem of staff who are in crisis,” says Hilary Lichterman, director of housing and residence life at Seattle University. In the face of changing expectations about their positions, mid-level staff need greater clarity about the alignment of their unit’s work with institutional priorities. Leaders also need to acknowledge areas of uncertainty as well as the challenges faced by staff and must name the struggle and face the storm together. Lichterman characterizes this as “humble leadership,” which she defines as listening longer and more fully to staff, inviting their voice by asking for more information about situations they face before assuming an automatic understanding, rethinking how supervisors themselves may have approached their past positions and instead embracing how those positions may need to be performed now, getting away from fear-driven and ego-driven decisions, and moving more towards emotional intelligence.
Mentors need to function separately from supervisors and act as a source of safety, honest reflection, and exchange of ideas, as well as thoughtful, sometimes uncomfortable questions.
Beyond supervisors, panelists urged the development of mentors for mid-level professionals. Mentors need to function separately from supervisors and act as a source of safety, honest reflection, and exchange of ideas, as well as thoughtful, sometimes uncomfortable questions. Mentors for mid-level professionals establish relationships with them and help them believe they are seen and heard for their unique struggles and the contributions they bring to the work environment. Mentors (who, it should be noted, do not have to work at the same institution) are valuable resources for discussing internal politics and establishing professional development plans.
As professionals mature beyond entry-level positions, they manage questions that arise as they broaden their focus to include personal tasks such as finding a life partner, buying a home, making decisions about children, starting or deepening hobbies outside work, supporting elderly family members, and integrating into an outside-of-work community. Compensation and work/life balance become more important as living expenses and additional components of development become more prominent issues. As an example, the director of housing at a small private college in the New England region noted that, while he appreciated his employer’s support of the external consulting he did to better provide for his family, he was considering how much longer he’d be able to continue that pace, thinking of changes that were to come with his aging.
By definition, mid-level professionals are in positions of leading from the middle and have always felt the pressure of being between two worlds. They are caught between the expectations of leaders above them and the needs of the staff they supervise. They are asked to be a buffer but without the power to enact change when needed. This has only been aggravated by currently chaotic staffing circumstances that all but demand that staff face long hours and significant challenges but persist nevertheless. “Being a martyr was celebrated in the field,” notes one housing professional, adding that now there is a more vocal demand for “balance, boundaries, regular hours, and the ability to have a life outside of work.”
To navigate these choppy waters, Nicky Damania, dean of students at Bakersfield College, notes that mid-level professionals “must be fluent in all levels of the organization.” That means being able to understand the campus culture, priorities, and directives of supervisors and leaders at upper levels, as well as implementing leadership vision by being understanding, conversational, and motivating with entry-level staff and administrative peers. Mallory Sidarous, director of university housing at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, says that this is the challenge of leading “up, down, and around.” Essentially, she clarifies, “You’re supporting your staff, supporting your boss, and communicating leadership expectations.” Some strategies to allow mid-level staff to achieve this include restructuring positions in terms of supervisory ratios, responsibilities, and expectations for on-site duty and responses. “Not every person is the same,” Sidarous explains. “How are we creating space for people to grow in different areas so that if they want to do something different, they are equipped while balancing these varying needs with the needs of the department?”
Unfortunately, achieving this becomes more challenging as the mid-level staff who remain are asked to assume responsibilities formerly held by those who have left. In some cases, this can feel like a battlefield promotion for which not every staff member is ready and for which position descriptions and compensation are not necessarily adjusted. This, in turn, can have a trickle-down effect. Bruick says that he is starting to see more entry-level positions advertised as “bachelor's required; master's preferred,” suggesting that strains in entry-level recruitment require that a broader net be cast.
Sidarous agrees, observing that those with bachelor’s degrees in other fields, such as marketing, are also in demand for entry-level positions. It is tempting to suggest that the emphasis in recruiting may shift away from documented degrees and more towards documented experience in areas relevant to the open positions. Even with that adjustment, though, it’s still taking longer than before to fill positions, and in cases where replacements with less experience are hired, the supervisory burden on mid-level professionals increases. It’s hardly an ideal situation.
The mid-level staffing dilemma within campus housing is multifaceted and complex. Housing departments need to find ways to continue serving students despite being understaffed while also discovering and implementing structural changes to stem continued losses. Those changes may look different depending on the needs of the campus or the career path of the individual, but what is certain is that those improved approaches for mid-level staff will require high-level commitments. These staff are seeking supervisory investment in their success, continued professional development, an intentional approach to progress, and the opportunity to be involved in work that matters. To do anything less is merely an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs aboard the ship.
Alice A. Mitchell is an affiliate assistant professor of student affairs at the University of Maryland in College Park. Matthew Venaas is a manager of analytics and research and Sherry Woosley is a director of analytics and research, both at Benchworks by Elentra.
