Dr. Wm. A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 28, NUMBER 2, 2010-2011
TRANSISTIONS TO POWER:
LEADERSHIP AND COLLEGE STUDENT
GOVERNMENT PRESIDENTS
Jennifer Miles
University of Arkansas
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study explored the transitions students experience when
they assume the position of student government president. Five student
government presidents were asked to describe their experiences. The
findings revealed four themes, including transitioning to a leadership
role, working with advisors, learning to serve as a leader, and balancing
multiple roles. The information presented could be of interest to faculty,
staff, administrators, and others charged with working with student
governments.
Introduction
S
tudent self-governance units, often referred to as student government
associations, associated student governments, and student senates, give
students a formal structure for participating in the governance of their
institutions. Involvement in these types of organizations gives students
experiences in a variety of areas and contributes to a variety of skill sets,
including budgeting, public speaking, and conflict mediation (Kuh & Lund,
1994).
Students can participate in student governance by voting in elections,
serving as a member of the organization, or serving as an officer. Student
governance organizations conduct annual elections in which students run for
51

52 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
office. Offices in self-governance bodies can include executive positions
such as president, vice-president, and comptroller, as well as committee and
board positions. Students serving in executive positions must fulfill the
position descriptions, as well as appoint students to positions, represent the
student body to faculty and administrators, and represent the student bodies
to the university community and greater community. Additionally, student
government officers often work with state, local, and federal governments to
represent the needs of students (Jaeger, 1999).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the transitions students
experience when they become presidents of student governance bodies. The
students must undergo the transition from being a member of the general
student body to serving as a leader in a high-profile position. Student
government presidents must serve in multiple roles (May, 2009) and fulfill
numerous responsibilities. These responsibilities can come from many
individuals and areas, including fellow students, university presidents, deans,
chancellors, and officials charged with advising student governments. A
student government's responsibilities can be mandated by the student
government's constitution and by the university's governing body (Torok,
1999). However, student government presidents must make decisions
regarding how they will lead. Student government presidents must learn
what is required of them and also fulfill the agendas laid out in their
campaign platforms. The current study examined what students experienced
as they began to serve as president of their institution's formal student
governance body.
Background of the Study
In shared governance, both authority and responsibility are shared.
Shared governance can include students, faculty, and staff (Morris, Miller,
Nadler, & Miles, 2008). All have a formal governance body and all have a
voice in how decisions are made. Partnerships involving students, faculty,
and administrators can give institutions information regarding students'
thoughts and perceptions about the institution.Partnerships can be established

Jennifer Miles 53
at the state-level in order to enforce policies throughout the state and system
(Smith, 1980).
Student involvement in governance is customarily accepted at most
US institutions of higher education. Student governance bodies can help
students become engaged outside of academics, as well as assist with their
personal development (Kuh & Lund, 1994). The primary reason students
choose to attend college is to prepare for careers (Albrecht, Carpenter, &
Sivo, 1994; Boyer, 1987); students involved with campus organizations such
as student governments have a strong understanding of themselves as
workers (Williams & Winston, 1985). Experiences gained from involvement
with a student governance body can vary widely, from serving on university
committees to administering the student activity fee to lobbying the
legislature for allocations.
Student involvement in governance benefits the institution as a
whole, as well as the individual student. Decisions can be put into practice
more easily when all parties affected are involved in making the decisions
(Lee, 1987). An institution's climate may also be positively affected by
student involvement in governance. When students are involved, open
communication and trust are established (Wood, 1993). Students serving in
student government leadership roles are charged with bringing students'
concerns to administrators. Through interactions with student government
members, administrators can receive students' opinions and feedback
regarding institutional decision-making (Bambenek & Sifton, 2003).
The negative aspects of governance can include the fact that student
have limited knowledge of the issues being discussed, are at the institution
for too short a time to make effective decisions, and may not possess the
maturity level needed to make the decisions they are asked to make
(Hodgkinson, 1971; Hodgkinson & Meeth, 1971; Miller & Nadler, 2006). In
order to represent the general student population, student government leaders
must determine what areas to explore. Student government presidents may
simply push forward the issues identified through their campaign platforms,
or they may continually look for ways to determine issues of concern to
students.
When students have earned the position of student government
president, they are viewed by administrators, faculty, and students as leaders.

New student government presidents must learn what their responsibilities are
and must decide how to run their administrations. They may look to
administrators and advisors to understand their roles. Creating relationships
with all members of the university community is integral to the success of a
student government (Sandeen, 2000). Students may choose to use the
administrations of former presidents as a template; conversely, they may
decide to break ties with the past and to make their terms in office uniquely
their own.
Methodology
In this qualitative study, five current student government presidents
were interviewed. The study included a convenience sample of institutions
in the Southern and Midwestern regions of the United States. The student
government presidents were contacted and asked to participate in the study.
In each of the five semi-structured interviews, the student
government presidents were asked to share, and reflect upon, how they
prepared to assume office. The questions were designed to reveal all
preparations that occurred between the day the students learned they had won
the office of student government president and the student's first official day
in office, as well as the transitions they continued to experience their first
semester in office.
Interviews were conducted in the fall of 2009 using a validated
survey reported by Miles (in press). The students selected the location of
each of the interviews. Locations ranged from student government offices to
student unions and libraries. The institutions included one community
college, one research institution, one faith-based institution and two regional
comprehensive institutions. The students included three females and two
males. The students' academic majors included the following: finance,
political science/pre-law, journalism, architecture, and human resources. All
students became president in spring of 2009 and began office in fall of 2009.
The student government organizations included in the study had
different organizational structures. One organization was a representative-
based student government which included three branches of government with
students representing each college. Elections were considered competitive.

Jennifer Miles 55
Another organization included an interview-based appointment. Individuals
applied for, and interviewed for, membership in the organization. Three of
the student governments included elected officers and representatives, based
on academic major.
The interviews were conducted in person, each interview lasting
approximately one hour. Field notes were taken. Participant responses were
verbally verified during and following the interviews to ensure data validity.
Data were analyzed manually using the constant comparison method to
identify dominant themes and patterns.
Findings
Overall, the students were very positive about their roles. All
expressed excitement at the opportunity to serve their fellow students. For
the most part, they were positive about their interactions with faculty, staff,
and administrators. The four themes that emerged involved the transition to
the position, the role of the advisors, learning to lead, and balancing multiple
roles.
The first theme that emerged involved the transition to a leadership
role. Each student moved from being a general member of the student body
to being the president. The students had to learn what their responsibilities
were, how to delegate responsibilities to other student government members,
and how to fulfill their campaign platforms.
All five students were serving as president for the first time. The
students' preparation varied widely. One student served in the student
government for four years, moving from senator to campus affairs director to
vice president to president. Another student had never served on student
government before.
When describing the dramatic shift from being one of many students
at his institution to being the student government president, one student said
"The next day, when I walked on campus, everything had changed. I wasn't
just a student anymore; I walked into class and everyone said 'that's the guy
who won.'" The student was confronted with questions regarding what he
was going to do next. He realized how public his position was when the
student newspaper ran a full front page story on his inauguration.

Many students attended retreats after winning the office. Most
retreats were attended by incoming student government officers and at least
one student government advisor. Retreats ranged from two-hour meetings in
the student union to overnight meetings off campus. The students went over
goals and initiatives for the year. Retreats were coordinated by a student
government officer, such as the vice president, or the advisors.
One institution's retreat was held in the fall at the home of a faculty
member. The retreat included the student government president, vice
presidents, advisor, and fourteen senators. The students got to know each
other and went over the student government constitution. According to the
student government president at that institution, the retreat ". . . gave
everybody a good understanding of what we're doing and why we're here."
Another student government president expressed that no retreat or
training was conducted for the student government. However, a lunch
meeting was held with the advisor, the vice president, the treasurer, and the
secretary. The student government president stated that the student
government officers "don't have a great deal of autonomy right now."
The retreats appeared to provide training for officers besides the
president and serve as opportunity to build cohesiveness and make a plan for
the year. The retreats did not appear, however, to provide training or
information to the presidents themselves. One president did indicate that she
attended a president's training session that was designed for all student
organization presidents.
The second theme involved advising. Specifically, advising
comprises the role of the institution in preparing the students to serve as
president. The amount of advising can be related to the amount of support a
student feels is being offered. Advising can reflect how the institution as a
whole perceives the importance of the student governance body.
The five students interviewed all had very different advising
experiences. While all had at least one advisor, some had advising teams.
One advising team included a director from a student affairs functional area,
an assistant director, an office manager, and a graduate assistant. The main
advisor was usually a staff member, such as a director or assistant director in

Jennifer Miles 57
a student activities office. Some student governments were advised by both
a student affairs staff member and the dean of students.
One president began interacting with senior university leadership the
night he won the office. That evening, the Chancellor and Provost both
congratulated him. The student also received a call from university's Athletic
Director. The next day, he received a congratulatory call from Interim Vice
Chancellor for Student Life.
At another institution, the new student government president went to
the SGA advisor the day after the election. She received no communication
from other administrators (university president, dean of students, or faculty):
"No hoopla. That would have been nice though." A month after the election,
the outgoing and incoming student government presidents and vice
presidents met with the university president. When describing her meeting
with the university president, the student said "It's really encouraging for us
to get that positive reinforcement."
One student indicated that she meets with the student government
advisor once every two weeks. The day after election, she met with advisor,
laid out the calendar, and started delegating responsibilities. Another
president meets with the student government advisor once a week and other
administrators bi-weekly. The advisor ". . . cares about my well-being and
that I'm doing well."
The third theme that emerged is related to self-learning. The
students taught themselves how to serve as leaders. They gathered resources
and determined what they needed to do in order to fulfill their
responsibilities. Through this process, they determined the types of leaders
they wanted to be and how they wanted to represent the office of president.
Three of the students shared using the student government
constitution as a way to learn what was expected of them. Many of the
presidents mentioned that the student government constitutions outlined the
responsibilities of the president, as well as the responsibilities of other
officers. One president indicated using a student government manual, in
addition to the student government constitution, to learn about her office.
The manual outlined the president's responsibilities. Although she
appreciated having those two resources available, not all current

responsibilities were included. When describing the lack of information, she
said "Expectations change; that's how you grow."
All presidents mentioned the expectation that they would serve on
university committees and that they would appoint students to committees.
The university committees the students were expected to serve on included
the following: critical incident and crisis response committee; athletic fee
council; general fee council; diversity and multicultural affairs committee;
and the educational opportunity fund. Two of the presidents also served on
Faculty Senate.
Student government presidents were also responsible for appointing
individuals to committees. One president appointed students to 80
committees. He expressed that the process was not organized. When he first
assumed office, he did not know about the responsibility. He received angry
phone calls and emails when students were not appointed to committees.
Another president learned that she needed to appoint individuals to
committees from the student government's administrative assistant.
Students had very different expectations in terms of transition
documentation. At one institution, the outgoing president sent the new
student government president an eleven page document outlining
responsibilities. The president also met with two outgoing vice presidents to
learn what could be done better. Another president did not receive any
transition report, but relied on his past experience as vice president.
One president expressed that he was disappointed with the transition
materials he received from the outgoing president by indicating "They were
useless." The new president accepted the absence of pertinent information
because he wanted a new start and did not want advice from the former
president. In order to make a smoother transition for next student
government president, the current president has changed processes. Officers
now give weekly updates and have strategic plans in place. The president
felt a need to bring back documentation. He has decided "If I can make it
easier for the next SGA, great."
Another president also expressed that she had to make her own way
in the position by saying "A lot of it has been make it up as you go; go with
the flow" and "There was no script; no 'this is what you need to do the first

Jennifer Miles 59
week.'" In terms of leadership style, the students expressed a desire to
communicate effectively to their fellow students. One president found that
many students' concerns are connected to not knowing the processes in
place; in the position of president, she found she was able to research issues,
learn steps to address them, and get accurate information to students. The
students also expressed their desire to lead by example. One president
explained the importance of role modeling by saying "If they see how I'm
working on projects, they'll see how they can work on projects."
The fourth theme involved balancing responsibilities. All of the
student government presidents interviewed are full-time students and
members of other organizations. Several of the students have jobs and are
involved in community service. All presidents expressed a need to balance
and prioritize responsibilities. Achieving that balance was described by one
individual as ". . . the hardest thing to learn."
All of the students mentioned involvement in activities outside the
student government association. One president shared that several nights a
week she has three or four conflicting commitments, including student
government and sorority and "You can't always pick the fun one." Some of
her sorority sisters understood the responsibility of the student government
association, but not all members did. According to the student, however, her
student government exposure brings a positive name to her sorority.
Another student expressed the challenge involved with balancing his
student government presidency and personal life. He wants to put students'
needs first, but he also ". . . wants to be able to go out at night." He wants to
balance fraternity, family, and academics. Grades are his priority and he
wants to graduate with a degree, but he has found that his position ". . . can
definitely start to take a toll if you let it." Also struggling with balance,
another president shared "Personally, I always want to do everything.
Sometimes it's a challenge to say no."
Implications for Leadership
According to Bishop, Walker, and Franklin (2008), in order to serve
as a leader, individuals need to make a difference in others' lives. The student

leaders interviewed in this study expressed a desire to improve their fellow
students' experiences and to strengthen their institutions as a whole.
The students reported positive experiences overall. One student said
"When I got on student government, I thought this would be awesome. I
could help others. Being in the position has helped me more." The
confusion that students experienced came out of not knowing what was
expected of them. Administrators can work with student leaders to let them
know what resources are available on campus, as well as what
responsibilities the institutions will ask the students to fulfill.
Understanding the transitions students experience when preparing
for student government leadership can affect the resources administrators
provide to student governments and to student government advisors.
Decisions have to be made, however, regarding how much guidance students
should receive. If students are expected to carry out specific responsibilities,
mechanisms must be in place to ensure students receive that information. If,
however, administrators would like students to determine what they will do
on their own, the student leaders must truly be given that freedom.
The research protocol and the findings provide an excellent
foundation for further study. Before generalizing this information to all
institutions and to all student government leaders, however, institutional
differences must be recognized. The findings, as presented, are limited in
that only five institutions participated. The experiences of others in student
leadership roles may be different than the experiences described in this
study. Research of this nature, including qualitative and quantitative
research, should be expanded to include additional institutions.
This study focused specifically on the transitions students experience
when they initially assume leadership roles. Because the current study
examined students' experiences when they began to serve as presidents, the
strategies, lessons, and concerns identified in the current study may or may
not be applicable to student leaders at other times of their involvement.
The information revealed in this study can be applied to many
organizations. Whether a student leader, employee, or community leader, an
individual placed in a position for the first time will experience a transition
period. During that time, the individual must learn the responsibilities of the

Jennifer Miles 61
position, interact with advisors or supervisors, make decisions regarding
their personal leadership style, and balance multiple roles. Individuals will
be in a better position to excel in their positions when responsibilities are
outlined and resources are shared.

REFERENCES
Albrecht, D., Carpenter, S., & Sivo, S. (1994). The effect of college
activities and grades on job placement potential. NASPA Journal,
31(4), 290-297.
Bambenek, J. J., & Sifton, S. (2003). Student government development and
use of comprehensive university planning documents. College
Student Journal, 37(1), 63-68.
Bishop, C. H., Walker, R., & Franklin, J. (2008). From defining reality to
saying 'thank you,' the true leader ultimately becomes a servant. The
John Ben Shepperd Journal of Practical Leadership, 3(1), 142-143.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1971). College governance: The amazing thing is that
it works at all (ERIC Report 11). Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education and the George Washington
University.
Hodgkinson, H. L., & Meeth, R. (1971). Power and authority:
Transformation of campus governance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Jaeger, A. J. (1999). The role of student government in local, state, and
national government structures. In T. N. Torok (Ed.), Advising
student governments: Models for practice and strategies for
success. Columbia, SC: National Association for Campus
Activities Educational Foundation.
Kuh, G. D., & Lund, J. P. (1994). What students gain from participating in
student government. In M. C. Terrell & M. J. Cuyjet (Eds.), New
directions for student services: No. 66. Developing student
government leadership (pp. 5-17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Lee, H. (1987). The nature and scope of student participation in policy-
making in academic government. Proceedings of the 6th
International Seminar Current Issues in University Education of
Korea and Japan. Seoul: Korean Council for University Education.
May, W. P. (2009). Student governance: A qualitative study of leadership
in a student government association (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Miles, J. M. (in press). Experiences of community college student leaders.
The Community College Enterprise.

Jennifer Miles 63
Miller, M. T., & Nadler, D. P. (2006). Student involvement in governance:
Rationale, problems, and opportunities. In M. Miller & D. Nadler
(Eds.), Student governance and institutional policy: Formation and
implementation (pp.9-18). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Morris, A., Miller, M., Nadler, D., & Miles, J. M. (2008). Practical
empowerment strategies for cultivating leadership among staff.
The John Ben Shepperd Journal of Practical Leadership, 3(1), 77-
84.
Sandeen, C. A. (2000). Developing effective campus and community
relationships. In M. J. Barr & M. K. Desler (Eds.), The handbook of
student affairs administration (pp. 377-392). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Smith, G.P., II. (1980). Student rites of passage: A full or limited
partnership in university governance? Journal of Law and
Education, 9, 65-79.
Torok, T. N. (1999). Advising student governments: Models for practice
and strategies for success. Columbia, SC: National Association for
Campus Activities Educational Foundation.
Williams, M., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (1985). Participation in organized
student activities and work: Differences in developmental
task achievement of traditional aged college students. NASPA
Journal, 22(3), 52-59.
Wood, D. (1993). Faculty, student, and support staff participation in
college governance: An evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AUTHOR
Jennifer M. Miles serves as Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the
University of Arkansas. Miles' teaching and research focus broadly on
student affairs administration, including student governance and student
development. She has held administrative positions in student affairs and
academic affairs at Albion College, Curry College, and Nova Southeastern
University.

Dr. Wm. A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Dr. Wm. A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com

Similar to Dr. Wm. A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dr. Wm. A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com