1

Pamela Cortes-Ortiz

EDU 803B Helping Skills for Student Affairs Professional II

Supervision Assessment Paper

 2

The role of a supervisor is one not meant for all student affairs professionals, in my

opinion. There are times when even the strongest at administrative tasks lack connection with

students or employees, but even the most interpersonal supervisors can fail administratively on

their duties. It is important to find a balance within all types of supervision and mold them

effectively to the ones people supervise, in addition to dissecting one's professional and personal

progression through the lens of a developmental theory.

This paper will focus on the skills I have gained in my role as a supervisor, as described

in three parts. The first section describes my past experiences that led to my current approach as

a supervisor to students through the lens of Chickening’s vectors. This section goes deep into the

interpersonal communication style and conflict resolution approaches I exhibit. Following this

section, I address the relationship I have with my past and current supervisors. I will discuss

mine and my current supervisor’s strengths and weaknesses, emphasizing how we manage our

team together aware of these strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, I will go over specific skills I

want to develop in the future based on Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership matrix.

There are clear differences between being a leader and being a supervisor. In my

transition from undergraduate student leader to professional supervising students, the distinction

was only made clear after I plunged into the role. As someone who identifies as an extrovert,

relationship building had always been a strength of mine, which is why I dedicated my student

leadership experience in bonding with staff members, residents and developing meaningful

connections. This was a skill I brought to my role as a Graduate Resident Director at the

University of Nevada-Reno, and it wasn’t a hidden skill to my peers and students.

At this point, my intrapersonal conflict management skills revolved around

compromising when handling issues. I avoided conflict by giving in to what other people wanted
 3

in order to avoid adverse relationships between people. I was stuck in the second vector, dealing

with management of emotions. I consumed everyone’s emotions to make them happy,

meanwhile my own emotions were compromised and neglected. I could not identify the

difference between being hurt by my supervisor’s comments, or taking them as feedback for my

growth. I was willing to let go of my personal identities and values at the time in order to make

sure that everyone was happy and content, but this only resulted in disaster when it came to

keeping my students accountable and on track to success in their roles.

After the experiencing initially hardship in my role as a supervisor at this institution, my

conflict style management drastically changed to the confrontation model. My mentality was still

aiming to please people and make sure everyone was happy, but my efforts were geared towards

establishing parallel goals that all parties could achieve and be content with. Transitioning into

this confrontational style surged from reframing identity, recognizing that my role had changed

altogether, and focusing on my competence level.

In relationship to Checkering & Reisser’s (Patton, Renn, Guido & Quaye, 2016) first

vector, I had to intellectually understand my position and responsibilities. After reaching these

simple tasks, I could progress and learn about the students I was supervising, and learn the

culture to the institution. Moving forward, I concentrated on accomplishing the long lists of tasks

of the Graduate Resident Director role. Only then was I able to delve into the relationships I had

with my supervisees, establishing the identity I was flourishing into as a supervisor.

Part of being confrontational during conflict meant that I was working towards an

assertive identity. My first year at Salem State University truly was different than my previous

institution, as the students were a lot more challenging and questioning of my motives. This is

where my communication skills were put to the test and I learned that I needed to mold to the
 4

students, as we needed to be on the same page to work in the residence halls. Hence, my

strongest assets in communication became sending clear messages and listening.

During this period, which last about 5 months, I was jumping between the third and

fourth vectors (Patton, Renn, Guido & Quaye, 2016), moving through autonomy toward

interdependence and developing mature relationships. It was very easy to have my supervisees

twist the instructions I gave them initially, or overlook any assignments given to them, so I had

to find a way that they could understand that we were all a team working together. Part of this

behavior from student staff was from past supervisors, but another part was from the lack of

attention given to these students that are struggling academically, personally, financially, etc.

Once I made them understand that I cared for all the issues going on in their lives, and connected

all the work they were doing to the department’s goals, we were able to find a comfortable spot

and mutual understanding.

Sending clear messages and listening are my strongest skills, however this is not always

translated to all my supervisees. This relates to the supervision assessments I conducted, in

which I filled out ratings for my supervisor and what my subordinates would rate me as their

supervisor. I got out of my comfort zone and sent my subordinates the same rating sheet as an

option, but unfortunately only received two.

In my staff member’s rating, I placed high scores in the majority of the options, except

one in which I received a ‘sometimes.’ This was, “my supervisor willingly listens to whatever is

on my mind, whether it is personal or professional.” In thinking of this assessment feedback, I

realize that I have to take a step back and evaluate whether or not I truly listen. I think that there

is a possibility that my strength in sending clear messages overshadows my intentions to listen to

 5

my student staff. Moreover, my supervision style began very similar with my returning staff

members compared to how I supervised my new resident assistants.

It was my assumption that my inherited returning staff members would be highly skilled

in their RA roles, as a lot mentioned they did not like to be micromanaged. Therefore, ti was my

assumption that the best way to supervise them was similar to Hersey and Blanchard’s (Segal

Block, 2015) “Delegating” supervision style, whereas my new staff members needed a

“Coaching” supervision style since they had high motivation for the role and needed some help

gaining the skills. In the first two weeks of training, I realized that my returners were in different

levels based on their past supervisors, so I needed to provide them with more defined goals, and

be assertive communicatively. Due to the fact that I forced a “Directing” supervision style (Segal

Block, 2015) at the beginning, I can understand that some of the personable qualities I naturally

hold were hidden, such as listening, in order to make sure that my staff was on track to success.

In contrast to my style, I would identify my current supervisor as a “Supporting”

supervisor, where he involves me in the process of identifying and setting goals and is an active

listener (Segal Block, 2015). This is a style that usually works well with individuals who are

highly skilled and have low motivation for the role, which truly does not depict myself as a

supervisee. As someone that went through a long period within the establishing identity and

developing vectors (Patton, Renn, Guido & Quaye, 2016), I was able to imagine my trajectory in

the field, having a strong outlook on my professional life and instilling a lot of meaning within

the work I do. I am thus a highly motivated individual that lacks a lot of skills in administrative

tasks, therefore, I believe that a “Coaching” supervisory style fits best with myself (Segal Block,

2015).
 6

In the assessment I conducted of my supervisor, I praised highly his support, but singled

out that “my supervisor and I develop yearly professional development plans that address

differing points of view.” I believe that I need to be honest with my supervisor that a lot of my

skills need to be reworked in order to be an efficient student affairs professional, because my

struggles in the field lays in executing tasks and staying organized. Moreover, I develop integrity

within the final vector currently, I prefer a supervisor that is more on top of me with work so that

there is more free time to affirming my values as a professional.

After learning to combine student development theory with supervisory situational

leadership approach, I’ve been able to witness the large scope of how to create a well-

functioning, supervised team. In the future, I hope to provide my supervisees with Hersey and

Blanchard’s matrix and allow them to assess where their strengths lie, and this will guide me to

be a more equitable supervisor from the beginning of our time together. Not only will it be

beneficial for my team, but this is also something I can come prepared to provide to my future

supervisor in order to avoid any patterns I usually find myself in while trying to execute tasks.
 7

References

Segal Block, M. (2015, April 20). A New Supervisor's Toolkit. Retrieved from

https://www.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=650

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in

college theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand.