 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  |
|||||
 |
 |
Student Affairs Recruitment through a Human Resource Lens
By Luke LaCroix, Community Development Educator, New York University
The spring semester is an exciting time on college and university campuses for varied reasons. In housing and residence life spring witnesses the culmination of the community we build over the year and the proud graduation of students - but it also a busy time of preparation for selecting and forming a team of professionals for the upcoming academic year. Professional staff selection is an exciting component of the spring semester, but to look at this student affairs’ function from a human resources administration perspective is a yearlong project. During the past two years I spent a considerable amount of time facilitating the recruitment process as co-chairperson for professional staff recruitment within my department, which offered me an amazing opportunity as a young professional to make an impact within my department and facilitate a process with significant administrative responsibility, while broadening my interest in higher education beyond my entry-level position.
At the time of my appointment the department was in a period of transition, with considerable turnover and many new professional staff members. Moreover, the department was re-organizing from a concentric system of housing and residence life into a dual-house system, with one department focused on community and academic development and one focused on housing services. My recruitment co-chair and I created a recruitment process we coined ‘the machine.’ We wanted to design a quality process that operated systematically, justly, and could be recreated annually with continual improvement. I worked with a talented committee and had the opportunity to initiate a reconstruction of how the department presented itself at conferences when interacting with candidates, and colleagues at other colleges and universities. I had a great deal of support from my co-chair in designing the recruitment process, as well as the assistance of my peers and colleagues in implementing our strategy.
Our professional selection team aimed to accomplish multiple goals. We wanted to recruit quality candidates from graduate preparation programs with a passion for the department’s academic and community development mission; to educate graduate preparation programs and housing and residence life colleagues at other institutions about the reorganization at the University; and to build momentum within professional organizations as a student-centered department. The tasks ahead were considerable, but we took a step-back to look at what was done in years past and decided to implement a comprehensive recruitment model with measurable outcomes.
Our design for the recruitment model centered on two components: the student affairs mission of the department and a constant and organized human resource management system. The recruitment model consisted of a thorough resume review, a preliminarily screening interview, a second candidate conference interview, and the on-campus day with varied components. Questions throughout the entire process were predominately experience-based or situation-based (i.e. questions that began with ‘Please explain how you responded to X situation’ or ‘How would you respond to X?’). Resumes were screened based on a pre-determined set of criteria to assess if the candidate’s experience and interests met the mission of the department. Resumes moved forward based on the screening process, with some candidates being contacted for a screening interview over the phone or at a conference.
We designed the preliminary screening interview to assess the candidate’s thoughts and abilities regarding basic competencies for an entry-level position in residence education and to provide a snapshot of the candidate for the committee. Questions sought to assess interest in the position, department, and University, supervision of student staff, advising student groups, crisis response, working at an urban institution, career goals, etc. The interview took 20-25 minutes, with time for the candidate to ask questions and learn more about the department. Committee members assessed candidates and either passed-on, held, or cut them from the process. Candidates passed-on would meet a longer interview with a broader set of questions. The second candidate conference interview took 45-50 minutes. The interview focused on discerning the candidate’s internal motivations, thoughts or experiences regarding learning communities, the candidate’s potential as an educator, and the candidate’s competency with diversity and social justice, etc. The second interview questions focused mainly on the guiding principles of the department and situations specific to our entry-level positions as opposed as to field at-large.
Candidates who did well in the second interview and the conference socials had the potential to receive an invitation to campus. The committee made it a priority to schedule a meeting with the recruitment leadership team very shortly after returning from the conferences to discuss the candidates. Invitations were extended and accommodations for the campus visit were scheduled. The campus-interview was designed with a series of content areas related to the job position and the department’s ‘guiding principles.’ The content areas were designed so that questions of the same topic were asked based on the subject area, but the same questions were asked over and over throughout the day. Candidates were also asked to prepare a presentation of interest in order to learn about the candidate’s professional interests, their presentation skills, and ability to conduct research as a means of contributing to the field. An information session regarding compensation and the University’s benefits package was also added in anticipation of the candidate’s questions. The benefits package presentation also provided the candidate an opportunity to ask difficult questions without feeling awkward or evaluated.
The recruitment campaign also demanded image-control and creating a presence at many conferences. An in-house graphic designer created a professional glossy advertisement to showcase the anticipated positions and the good work of the department, and the department’s website was enhanced with a specific area with information for prospective candidates. New position descriptions were developed for the conferences with exciting wordage, yet a little short of flamboyant to better describe the enthusiastic candidates we wished to recruit. Letters were drafted and sent to faculty at graduate preparation programs and to chief housing officers highlighting our anticipated positions and explaining our reorganized department and our new mission. A concerted effort was also made to attend not only the national conferences with placement services, but also regional placement centers in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest as well. Although the department received a high level of interest from potential candidates, I also searched the candidates’ profiles posted on the placement databases to engage as many individuals as possible whose resumes met our desired goals based on the pre-determined set of criteria.
The recruitment season is most successful when the entire department is invested and involved. In addition to the committee’s service, we involved the entire department in all parts of the recruitment process. The committee and I designed a 45-minute presentation for the department explaining the recruitment strategy and the department’s role in it. We involved staff with publications materials, identifying individuals for referrals, serving as campus-hosts, and staffing interviews. The staff’s eager involvement provided candidates with a broad view of the department and it provided the staff a great opportunity to interact with a potential new colleague.
The recruitment
process with its very busy season was an enthralling experience for
me as a professional. I learned a considerable amount about human resources
administration from this significant managerial process and it provided
me with many tools that will only be to my betterment. I had the opportunity
to serve my department and University in a unique way and I am very
grateful to all those who served with me over the past two years. Working
and Interacting with my new colleagues to whom I spend a considerable
amount of time recruiting has been a pleasure. The recruitment process
is cyclical. We are all interviews and we are all being interviewed,
but it is somewhat humbling to participate in the experience with so
many
good people doing such good work in the field.
About the Author
Luke LaCroix works as a Community Development Educator within the Department of Residential Education at New York University. Luke earned a B.A. in Communications and Peace & Justice Studies at Fordham University, a M.A. in Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration at The Ohio State University, and is currently enrolled part-time in the M.S. in Human Resource Management and Development program at NYU with a focus in management and coaching. You can reach Luke at LL56@nyu.edu or 212.995.3936.