Running head: EXPRESS II 1

Express II: Residence Life Case Study

Chelsea B. Metivier

Loyola University Chicago

12/13/2016

Residence Life Case Study

EXPRESS II 2

Institutional Context

You are currently a second -year graduate student in Loyola University Chicagos Higher

Education Student Affairs (HESA) Masters of Education program. In addition to being a student

you hold two graduate assistantships; the primary assistantship is with Loyolas Department of

Residence Life and the secondary assistantship is in Loyolas Student Diversity and Multicultural

Affairs office. Your primary role is as an Assistant Resident Director for a building that houses

approximately 450 first-year students. In addition to yourself, your building is managed by a

Resident Director (RD) and another Assistant Resident Director (ARD), who is a first-year in

your Masters program.

Collectively, you supervise 14 resident assistants (RAs) and a staff of 13 desk

receptionists. Your RA team is composed of five returning RAs and nine first-year RAs. All the

first-year RAs are sophomores, two of the returning RAs are seniors, and the remaining three are

juniors. Five of your team members identify as male and the remaining nine identify as female.

Three of the 14 identify as students of color and the remaining identify as white. You identify as

a white female, while the resident director and other assistant resident director identify as white

men. Loyola is a predominantly white institution (PWI) with approximately 39% of

undergraduate students identifying as students of color (At A Glance, December 12, 2016).

Loyola is a Jesuit Catholic Chicago research university with a total student population of

approximately 10,000 students. As a mission-driven institution, it espouses the values of its

Jesuit heritage and tradition; subsequently it is committed to educating students to become

change agents creating a more socially just world (Mission & Identity, December 12, 2016).

There is an expectation among all students, faculty, and staff that social justice education is

incorporated at all levels and through all departments. This extends to your graduate program,
EXPRESS II 3

which is known nationally for its emphasis on social justice and for developing student affairs

professionals with a critical perspective and lens that is unparalleled.

Though the Department of Residence Life is considered one of the more mission driven

departments on campus, you have recognized the educational privilege attached to your Masters

programs in contrast to the programs from which many of your Residence Life colleagues

graduated. As such your critical lens and input is not always appreciated or respected. This is

compounded by your age and position in the department. You and the other twelve assistant

resident directors (all also students in the HESA program) are in their twenties and have a

maximum of two years of professional experience between completing their undergraduate

degree and starting graduate school. Your age, limited professional experience, and position as a

student steeped in deconstructing and reconstructing theory means, like in any role, you must

exercise great discretion when determining when you want to rock the boat to create the

greatest change and maintain the professional respect from your colleagues.

Conflict

You recently received an email from your co-ARD asking to chat with you about a

conflict between one of your direct supervisees, who identifies as a Black female, and one of

their direct supervisees, who identifies as a White female. Both of them are first-year RAs. On

Friday afternoon, you speak with your co-ARD about the situation, and are told that your

supervisee was inflexible and hostile when responding to a request from the other RA, who was

seeking some relief from holding the duty phone because they were sick. As your co-ARD

described how your direct supervisee responded (as shared by the other RA), you were surprised

by the indignation described and lack of flexibility and grace your supervisee apparently

provided to their teammate. It was not the response you would expect from your RA, since she
EXPRESS II 4

had previously demonstrated an impressive level of professional maturity and sincere spirit of

teamwork to you through her work and interactions with peers. You acknowledge that your

supervisee has a direct demeanor that may not always be well received, but even in light of their

directness, the situation described seems incongruent with what you know about your supervisee.

Additionally, you are even more surprised as you believe you know this RA better than any of

your other supervisees or any other RAs on the team.

Your co-ARD shares that his supervisee was hurt and irritated by the situation. He also

noted that the two women had spoken about the situation since it happened and that it seemed

that they had acknowledged one anothers feelings and how the situation had unnecessarily

escalated, and that they went on to complete duty together, like nothing had happened. Finally,

he shares with you that despite working through this, his supervisee said that in general, your

supervisees response was congruent with other interactions many on the team have had with her

in team meetings and other settings. This information was not accompanied by any examples.

Regardless, this RA wanted their supervisor to know and felt that something should be said to

your supervisee. Your co-ARD shared that belief and asked you to follow-up with your RA.

You agree to follow-up with your RA, although note that it will not happen for about 10 days

because of the upcoming Thanksgiving break.

Towards the end of your Thanksgiving break, the supervisee at the center of the previous

incident emails you asking to meet with you to discuss something when you return to work on

Monday. Her desire to schedule a meeting, instead of just popping into your office, leads you to

believe what she wants to discuss is important. You let her know that you will not be back in the

office until Tuesday, but are happy to speak with her over the phone on Monday or set a time
EXPRESS II 5

first thing Tuesday morning. She elects to call you Monday afternoon, stating that she did not

want to wait until Tuesday.

When she calls on Monday afternoon, she shares that one of the other team members

facilitated the logistics and made some changes to the holiday gift exchange activity she was

planning for the team. She noted that the activity was a group idea as part of the team building

collateral committee on which they both sit, but that for this particular activity the group

determined it would be her responsibility to organize and facilitate. Therefore, when her team

member approached her with his idea, she said she appreciated the support and idea but that she

had something else in mind. Therefore, when he went ahead with his idea a few days later, she

felt her position was undermined and was hurt by it. She responded by texting him and sharing

her feelings, in what she described as an emotional response that was definitely passive

aggressive. She proceeded to read their exchange, which was undoubtedly heated. Again, she

acknowledged her passive aggressiveness and that she should have waited to discuss it in person,

and that should would apologize for it when she saw him in person.

While she was upset about his actions, she continued by explaining what was most

hurtful was his last text to her noted that she will not be an effective professional if she

continues to use such passive aggressive language and that he could barely get passed the

language to understand the true purpose of her texts. He then ended the text stating that others

on staff would agree with him that her attitude creates a hostile work environment, and that

was the part that hurt her the most (RA G, personal communication, November 27, 2016).

After validating her frustration and helping her process her emotions, you tell her you

will consult your resident director about how to move forward. In that consultation, you share

that you were surprised to hear how their conversation evolved and that it did not align with what
EXPRESS II 6

you knew about the other RA. As a returning RA, he has demonstrated his commitment to the

role, the ability to mentor first year RAs, and an overall team-player attitude. You did previously

have a conversation with him and another returner about what it means to be a mentor to new

RAs and how that is different from forcing their returner experience and perspective onto the

new team members. Nevertheless, the language he used seemed especially tough and

uncharacteristic. Before moving forward, you determine that you would like to speak to the

other team member to gain his perspective.

In your meeting with him you hear a slightly different chain of events and you conclude,

based on both perspectives, it was likely a miscommunication. Nevertheless, you address the

condescending tone and what you perceive to be hypocrisy in his comments and subsequent

action regarding passive aggressive texts. He acknowledges that he sees your point, but does not

appear to fully adopt your perspective. You continue by revisiting the conversation about what it

means to be a mentor and how part of that includes letting first years take their own approach to

the role. He states that he is task focused and just wanted to get the job done, so you discuss that

a bit further and consider other ways he could have approached completing the task. As you

continue your conversation, you both agree that a mediation may be helpful as it sounds a though

there was a great deal of miscommunication.

When the mediation occurs the following week, you assume that they will share their

perspectives, acknowledge each others feelings, and talk through how they could have acted to

create a different outcome. Unfortunately, that is not at all how it evolves. Your supervisee

begins by apologizing for her passive aggressive texts and for not taking a few breaths before

reaching out to him, noting it was a very emotional response. She then continues by sharing how

she was hurt by the texts and certainly hopes that she does not create a hostile environment. She
EXPRESS II 7

finishes by stating that she harbors no ill feelings, and just hopes they can work better together

next time. As the other team member shares his perspective, he validates her account of the

events and then maintains his initial approach, stating her tone was simply unacceptable. He

defends his last text message by stating that he was simply trying to reach her at her level and

meet her where she is at (RA B, personal communication, December 3, 2017). Furthermore, he

seems incapable of validating her feelings and/or apologizing for how she was impacted by his

text. You are taken aback by the conversation and attempt to restate what you hear them saying

and try to prompt them to engage a bit further. Your attempt to do so does not seem to be helpful

and as the conversation continues she appears to shut down. Believing that space would

probably be most helpful, you conclude the conversation.

You sense that the mediation did more harm than good for the RA you supervise, but

that the other RA believes the issue was solved. Based on the information shared about each

situation, you believe power dynamics, especially race, gender, and positional seniority, are at the

forefront of these conflicts. As a supervisor, it is your responsibility to address conflicts and

provide constructive and positive feedback to both parties. Currently, your leadership

philosophywhich informs your supervisory approachis focused on two themes: positionality

to disrupt the dominant narrative; and ability to influence others to create positive change. You

believe providing feedback would be the next step. You hope that providing feedback to both

parties will help influence positive change; but before you do so, you consider your positionality

and ability to inspire and create change.

EXPRESS II 8

Relating Leadership Theory to Practice

Inspiring change requires an understanding of how we are understood by others and how

our lived experiences and social identities influence how we view, interpret, and experience the

world (Dugan, in press, Ch. 2 p. 3). In other words, it requires understanding ones

positionality. As a supervisor on the team, you know that your age, gender, race, and position

power will impact how you and your feedback may be perceived (Dugan, in press, Ch. 2).

Leader-Member Exchange

In addition to your social identities and your position of power, you are also aware of

how the team members view you and your relationships with each of them. Position power is

defined as the power a person derives from a particular office or rank in a formal organizational

system (Northouse, 2016, p. 11). As an ARD you have general supervisory obligations to the

entire team, but you directly supervise only a fraction of the team. The other team members see

the close relationship you have with your supervisee. It is well known by the professional staff

and other RAs that she looks up to you, as more than a supervisor. This connection happened

almost immediately, as she gravitated toward you, seeking your affirmation, and validation from

the very beginning of training. Despite the close relationship, you two have, she has always

respected your position as her supervisor, and you have been intentional about ensuring she does

not receive special attention or privileges. This dynamic reminds you of the leader-member

exchange (LMX) leadership approach. The LMX approach is built on the assumption that

leaders treat their supervisees distinctly, ultimately leaving some supervisees included while

others are not (Ayman & Korabik, 2010; Northouse, 2016). Those who experience high LMX

believe they are part of the in-group and believe their supervisor to be trustworthy and able to

provide transformational leadership (Ayman & Korabik, 2010). Furthermore, those in the in-
EXPRESS II 9

group receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders than

those who experience low LMX (the out-group) (Northouse, 2016, p. 138).

You believe there is a human element to every relationship, meaning you are naturally

going to have different relationships, supervisory approaches, and experiences with different

supervisees (Northouse, 2016). Nevertheless, you know it is important to develop high-quality

exchanges with all your supervisees, not simply those in the in-group (Northouse, 2016, p. 142).

If the effort to develop high quality exchanges with all supervisees is not successful and

supervisees in the out-group do not believe they are receiving high quality interactions, it avoids

inequities and negative implications of being in the out-group (Northouse, 2016). Therefore, you

are weary of how any constructive feedback may be perceived as taking sides. But beyond the

potential impact of any perception that you are taking sides, is that your feedback would be

less likely to be received and valued; which is already challenging considering your positionality

on the team.

Team Leadership

Another layer of complexity is the dynamic created by shared supervision. The situation

involves students whom you do and do not directly supervise. While you provided indirect

supervision throughout the semester, that does not negate the reality that you do not have the

same relationship, trust, and understanding of them as you do for those whom you directly

supervise. Team leadership theory acknowledges the challenges and benefits of shared

leadership; while very important, [shared leadership] does involve risk and takes some courage

for the member who steps forward to provide leadership outside their formal role (Northouse,

2016, p. 365). The risk you took may negatively impact your relationship with either team

member. Furthermore, it may diminish your influence to create change as those whom you do
EXPRESS II 10

not directly supervise have limited exposure to your leadership style and approach to addressing

challenges.

In addition to your position as a supervisor, your coursework, and your anti-racist work

through your second assistantship implore that as a white person, it is your responsibility to

engage your white peers in conversation about white privilege and implicit biases. From a

critical perspective, you have learned that the world is marked by enormous suffering and

oppression (Tierney, 1989, p. 162). Oppression and suffering are not only the result of physical

violence, and certainly not how oppression is generally experienced at the workplace or on a

college campus. Instead, oppression is implicit within organizational and social structures and

systems (Tierney, 1989). You do not believe the other members on your team to be explicitly

racist, but believe that implicit biases are at play based in how they describe the actions and

behaviors of your supervisee. Utilizing words such as hostile and describing her as having an

inability or unwillingness to compromise and believing someone needs to talk to her about her

attitude problem are all laden in coded language that reflects stereotypes of Black women

(Houston, 2000).

The current conflict also demonstrates the importance of creating a culture of cultural

competency dialogue. Because the department lacks a culture of discussing and continuing to

develop cultural competencies, your approach to addressing this challenge is complicated.

Clearly, there is a need for further dialogue for all team members, but immediately jumping into

conversations about power, systems of oppression, coded language, and implicit biases will not

create an environment that fosters growth. You want to be intentional about creating an

environment that will allow for growth. The optimal environment for growth is called a

holding environment; a setting that both challenges and supports ones meaning making
EXPRESS II 11

systems, fostering reflection of deeply held assumptions, and presenting the need to consider

new perspectives or ways of being (Komives, Dugan, Own, Slack, Wagner, & Assoc., 2011, p.

87). Thankfully, it is the end of the semester, so you plan to implement some form of regular

cultural competency activity in next semesters weekly team meetings.

The conflict at hand presents a specific leadership challenge. You want to engage in

dialogue and learn from the experiences of others. You also want to push yourself and your team

to have a more critical perspective on interactions and call into question what each of us has been

socialized implicitly and explicitly about what we believe to be normal and how the world is

supposed to work (Dugan, in press, Ch. 2, p. 1). Your philosophy of leadership is more

focused on creating and expanding a sphere of influence than simply exercising authority

(Ospina & Foldy, 2009, p. 882). You hope to lean on your universitys explicit endorsement of

Jesuit values of promoting social justice and creating a more socially just world. Additionally,

you hope to frame the dialogues in the Social Change Model (SCM) of leadership development

because as college students and resident assistants at a social justice focused, mission driven

institution, this is something that they are likely to espouseeven if they do not have the

language or academic understanding of SCM.

The Social Change Model of Leadership Development approaches leadership

development as a purposeful, collaborative, values-based process that results in positive social

change (Komives et al., 2011, p. 45). The model emphasizes two core principles. First, that

leadership is inherently tied to social responsibility and enacted by creating change for the

common good. Second, the model is predicated on increasing individuals levels of self-

knowledge and capacity to work collaboratively with others (Komives et al., 2011, p. 45).

Resident assistants are viewed as campus leaders and they embrace the title and seek to fulfill the
 EXPRESS II 12

role (Arminio, Carter, Jones, Kruger, Lucas, et al., 2000). You hope to elicit that desire to be

leaders by framing future dialogues as a part of your collective leadership development,

grounded in the SCM. You recognize that your desire to engage in critical reflection and

leadership development through the SCM framework may not be well received, or it may not be

understood as a desire to learn with and from your team. Instead they may believe that you are

forcing it onto them instead of inviting them to engage with you, which would likely prevent any

progress.

With the fall semester ending in just a few days, you are grateful for the time away. Over

the break, you will reflect and consider how to follow up with both students and check in on how

they will continue to work on the same team. Additionally, you must address and determine how

you and your team will approach facilitating dialogue about social norms, cultural competency,

and systems of oppression throughout the spring semester.

Your Task

Analyze this case based on the leadership theories presented in the case and consider any
additional theories covered in class. Then create a brief that:
1) Summarizes the case
2) Calls attention to any challenges not already noticed
3) Outlines your recommendations for next steps
Your recommendation for next steps must address items a) & b) listed below.
However, addressing them does not mean you must endorse them. If you believe
these not to be the appropriate next steps, that is okay. Address them by stating
your argument against them and then outline two actions that you believe to be
the appropriate next steps.
a) Providing feedback to all parties involved
b) Creating a staff cultural/expectation of engaging in cultural competency

Be sure to ground your response in course content and cite appropriately.

Your brief should follow APA guidelines, be 6-8 pages in length, typed with 12-point Times New
Roman font, double spacing between lines, and use 1 inch margins on all sides.
 EXPRESS II 13

Assignment Response

1) How would you describe your evolving philosophy of leadership? What influences this
understanding? To what extent has it changed over the course of the semester?

Before entering the class, I understood that my actions had influence and that as a

supervisor, I am inherently a leader. I would moderate my words and actions to set an

example, to be a positive role model, to provide a guidepost for the students with whom I

worked. Prior to this class, I did not have the language, knowledge of theory, or

conceptualization of and for the intentionality of studying of leadership.

Because of our classwork, I understand empirically tested theories of leadership

and possess language to articulate my philosophy and practice of leadership. The

theoretical foundations and the ability to articulate that theory has reframed my view of

myself as a leader. By reframed, I mean to say that I have a greater understanding of the

complexity in leadership and subsequently my role as a leader. Beyond being a decision

maker, I understand my positionality as a leader constantly shifting based on the context

at any given moment and the multiple perspectives and contexts that can be at play

simultaneously at any given moment. Additionally, the course content and dialogue has

increased the perspectives and theoretical grounding on which I can draw when I

encounter leadership challenges.

2) How do you envision your philosophy will translate to practice?

I wrote a case study because it allowed me to share an unresolved conflict on my

staff. The case study goes through many (although not all) of the reflection and

processing I have done up to this point. I also found that I processed new aspects of the

situation while writing the case study; meaning it was far longer than I anticipated but an
 EXPRESS II 14

incredibly important reflection exercise. The case study also allowed me to be authentic

to the current situation and leave it as it is: unresolved. Creating the tasks allowed me to

consider precisely what I think should be next steps, without knowing just yet how they

will be enacted. It also gave space for to include a call for suggestions and pushback on

what I believe should be the next steps. I acknowledge that I have no idea whether the

steps I outlined are the appropriate next steps and/or that there are no right or wrong next

steps.

Writing it as a case study also allowed me to apply course content to a current

leadership challenge. The theories have informed the conversations I have had so far,

how I understand my positionality as a leader, and helped me in thinking about how to

move forward. They also helped me clarify my philosophy of leadership, which implores

me to live-out my theory of leadership by taking action.

3) As you consider your approach to leadership what role does social justice/ ethics play?
My approach to leadership focuses on a desire to create positive social change.

Therefore, social justice and ethical considerations are at the core of my philosophy.

Social justice cannot simply a lens or an add-on it must be an expectation and at the

center of everything we do. This does not mean I believe it to be easy, nor do I believe

that I have a command on how to do so. I believe it is a continuous exercise and that this

case study is a perfect example of my current understanding of how to incorporate social

justice and ethical considerations into my practice of leadership. I know that without this

program and without the leadership theories and application discussed during our class, I

would have addressed the conflict at hand without considering how our lived experiences

and socialization may be influencing the conflict. Furthermore, I would likely not have
EXPRESS II 15

stopped to consider my responsibility to not only address the conflict but to wrangle with

the underlying concerns. Northouse (2016) notes that the influence aspect of leadership

means that leaders have an impact on the lives of those around them. Therefore, leaders

have an enormous ethical burden and responsibility to be sensitive to how their

leadership impacts others (p. 336). In this situation, I noticed what I believed to be

undertones of bias influencing the conflict. As someone with positional power and who

hopes to lead by influencing positive social change, it is necessary that I reflect on how I

am present to the team and what I can do to support each person on our team as we work

toward creating positive change.

References
EXPRESS II 16

Arminio, J. L., Carter, S., Jones, S. E., Kruger, K., Lucas, N., Washington, J., et al. (2000).

Leadership experiences of students of color. NASPA Journal, 37, 496-510.

At a glance. December 12, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.luc.edu/undergrad/about/colleges-

and-universities.html).

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65,

157-170.

Dugan, J. P. (in press). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Houston, M. (2000). Multiple perspectives: African American women conceive their

talk. Women and Language, 23(1), 11-17. Retrieved from
http://flagship.luc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198812037?
account

id= 12163

Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Wagner, W., Slack, C., & Associates. (2011).

Handbook for student leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mission & Identity. December 12, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.luc.edu/mission/index.shtml

th
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature:

Surfacing context, power, and the collective dimensions of leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 20, 876-896

RA B, personal communication, December 3, 2017

RA G, personal communication, November 27, 2016

Tierney, W. G. (1989). Advancing democracy: A critical interpretation of leadership. Peabody

EXPRESS II 17

Journal of Education, 66, 157-175.