Enrollment Management at Work: Effective Staffing Practices for the Future of Higher Education

Enrollment Management at Work 1
Copyright 1999 J. Todd Bennett
Running head: ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT AT WORK
Enrollment Management at Work: Effective Staffing Practices for the Future of
Higher Education
J. Todd Bennett
University of Miami
December, 1999

Enrollment Management at Work: Effective Staffing Practices for the Future of
Higher Education
The Evolution of Administration
Since the charter of Harvard College in 1636, higher education in the United
States has experienced periods of great growth and decline (Rudolph, 1962). These
periods not only saw changes in the number and size of colleges and universities, but also
in the scope and composition of their programs and curriculum. As the nature of the
relationship between students and colleges changed, so did the administration and
governance of these institutions. During the period between 1636 and 1900, the president
and faculty played a large role in the administration of the university and in the lives of
students. However, the dramatic growth of colleges and universities called for more
organization and the professional administrator began to appear. Deans of men and
women, registrars, and admissions officers appeared on campus. Along with the dramatic
expansion of the higher education system in the mid-1900’s came increased
specialization and a larger administration (Thelin, 1996). But in recent decades, higher
education has begun to undergo yet another transformation. Dramatic shifts in
demographics, declining economic conditions, and increased calls for public
accountability have lead to downsizing and reorganization in many institutions (Nuss,
1996).

Winston and Creamer (1997) note that the operating costs in higher education
have risen dramatically. They cite that between 1977 and 1992, expenditures per student
in private universities rose 46%. Administrators have been forced to reduce costs and find
new ways to perform with fewer people and smaller budgets. All areas of the academy
are feeling the pressure. Recent years have seen increased turnover at the top of many
institutions as college presidents find themselves unprepared to deal with “an
increasingly hostile campus environment” (Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1998). The
hardest hit at many colleges are the campus support units and it appears this trend will
persist.
The Introduction of Enrollment Management
To maintain vitality despite the dismal outlook for higher education, the concept
of enrollment management was introduced in the early 1980s. What began as a focus on
the recruitment of new students has evolved into a broader definition. Orehovec (1999)
states that “true enrollment management is both concept and process. Offices and
divisions work synergistically to improve services and allow for the strategic
management of enrollments—a ‘cradle to grave’ process” (Enrollment Management
Program [EMP], 1999). Today’s enrollment managers are concerned not only with
student recruitment, but with the retention and success of their current students. This
holistic effort helps to maintain consistency in light of a rapidly changing environment.
Enrollment management activities are wide in scope and require a campus-wide effort
(EMP, 1999; Hossler, 1990). Successful enrollment management requires teamwork,
leadership, strategic planning, comprehensive programming, knowledge of the

competition, accurate data, and the necessary resources and support services (Orehovec
& Ingold, 1999). While components of enrollment management may exist in many
departments within an institution, the most important part of the process is collaboration
across division lines. According to Komives (1999), “some of the most promising
initiatives are around the shared agenda of retention, the first-year student experience,
assessment, and service learning.”
Colleges and universities have fairly flat organizational charts (Sagaria &
Johnsrud, 1988). Despite this notion, the American college or university is a relatively
change resistant, bureaucratic organization—a drain rather than facilitator of energy and
creativity (Sinnot & Johnson, 1996). These institutions employ a myriad of
departmentalized constituents, from faculty to student support personnel, each with a
different theoretical and practical purpose. Enrollment management is challenged with
bringing all of these players together for a common purpose: the recruitment, retention,
and success of students. On many campuses, enrollment management is still seen by
many as the sole responsibility of the admissions office. While the many buzzwords of
enrollment management are used and titles are adopted, many of these institutions have
failed to change their organizational culture to fully embrace an enrollment management
system (Hossler & Bean, 1990).
Kuh and Hall define institutional culture as the “collective, mutually shaping
patterns of institutional history, mission, physical settings, norms, traditions, values,
practices, beliefs and assumptions which guide the behavior of individuals and groups”(in
Winston & Creamer, 1997). The culture, ultimately, facilitates or inhibits effective

enrollment management processes. Winston & Creamer (1997) identify 6 components of
institutional culture at successful institutions. Employees in these organizations have a
strong sense of institutional identity: they know, respect, and take pride in their
institutions. Staff understand the larger purpose of their work to the institution—the big
picture. They share an ongoing commitment and tradition to excellence in all that they
do. Employees exhibit a high degree of professionalism and possess a hard-work ethic.
Finally, there is a sense of family among faculty, staff, and students on campus.
Developing such a culture takes time and is dependent upon the people who make up the
organization.
Communication of the culture, mission, and their changes is the responsibility of
campus leadership. Information about a university’s culture should be shared with all
new staff in orientation (Winston & Creamer, 1997). Changes to the institution’s mission
or culture should involve staff at all levels of the organization and should be
communicated effectively through written communication plans, workshops, meetings,
and face-to-face discussions (Nordvall, 1982). London (1995) recommends that
universities inform their employees of the implications of such change and help prepare
them for new skill requirements or disciplines that will be in high demand. Good
communication programs and employee involvement help to keep rumors at bay and
reduce problems with employee morale and institutional loyalty.
Staffing Practices for Tomorrow’s Enrollment Managers
For enrollment management to be successful, it is vital that managers hire people
who value what the institution values (Bean, 1990). The staffing practices of a university

can play a large role in the implementation of enrollment management and the
development of its culture. Winston & Creamer (1997) define staffing practices as “the
way an organization structures itself and the nature of the interactions among the people
who compose it” (p.163). In light of an increasingly diverse student body, universities
must rethink the way they structure themselves. They need to adjust to the student body
rather than expect the student body to adjust to them. Universities need to reflect this
diversity in their policies, procedures, and staffing practices (Jacoby, 1993; Barr 1990).
The new administration in higher education will be more adaptable and creative in the
face of constant change (EMP, 1999; Komives, 1999). Rowley, et al. (1998) propose that
the new administrator will be one who has the patience and wisdom to work with a
changing, diverse student body while exhibiting business sense to work with an
increasing number of business oriented resource providers.
The focus on student and staff services is shifting along with the student
demographic. As colleges see more and more non-traditional students, students working
full-time and attending school in the evenings, the nature of the relationship between
student services and the students will change. Students, as consumers, will demand
services that are accessible and available. Students will need services and offices to be
available and open during evening and weekend hours. These demands will ultimately
affect the staff in those offices as well. Advisors, needing to be available when students
are on campus, may be required to work flextime schedules. Four-day work weeks, nine-
month appointments, overlapping jobs, and job sharing will be more prevalent as
universities try to meet the changing needs of its students in spite of diminishing financial

resources (Jacoby, 1993; Ern, 1993). Changing family structures will bring about a focus
of attention on the needs of parents, both as students and employees of the institutions.
Domestic partner benefits, childcare, and flexible schedules are all the concerns of the
new administrator (Kolodny, 1998).
In addition to demographic changes, rapid advancements in new technology pose
a number of opportunities and threats to tomorrow’s enrollment manager. Mills (1990)
warns that while technology may be freeing, allowing personnel the time to tackle
problems not previously addressed, it may also stimulate bureaucracy by standardizing
responses to individual problems. As students needs become more diverse, individualized
attention to problem solving is even more important. New technology will also have an
impact on staff as older employees may resist or have difficulty adapting to new
electronic processes (Komives, 1999). Enrollment managers will be challenged if their
institutions are not able to keep up with the latest technology as their younger, more adept
employees become frustrated or dissatisfied. These young employees, “computer babies”,
will value specialization and more autonomy and ability to direct their own work
(Woodard & Komives, 1990, p.23). This may create obstacles to the broader, generalist
objectives of an enrollment management system. Green & McDade (1991) argue that
high degrees of specialization could lead to feelings of isolation. It is important that
employees in these highly specialized roles have an opportunity to utilize their expertise
on projects across division lines to diminish barriers and reduce isolation. The more they
share tasks with other offices, the more they see the relevance of what they do to the
larger organizational mission. Preston (1993) supports this notion and states that task

related technical training should not focus only on the technical aspects, but also on how
it relates to the broader mission of the department or university. Staff should see new
technology as something that can assist them in more effectively serving their students.
Used properly, enrollment management systems and databases can provide a wealth of
data to assist employees. For example, admissions counselors can track marketing efforts
and enrolled students in order to receive feedback on the success of their efforts.
Technology allows them to see whether what they are doing really makes a difference
(Noblitt, 1990).
The Structure of the Organization
As aforementioned, changing an organization’s culture is a time consuming
process. Preparing a university for a successful, stable future through the implementation
of enrollment management is not always an easy task. In fact, many colleges and
universities try to quickly implement an enrollment management process by instantly
putting an enrollment management division into place. Often on campuses where this is
the practice, staff turnover has been high and employee morale among remaining
employees has suffered (Hossler, 1990). Some institutions are quick to talk about the
importance of collaboration, but never modify their processes to provide the requisite
reward and budget support to transform their work to be more collaborative (Komives,
1999). On other campuses, problems are alleviated through immediate hiring and
spending freezes or budget cuts. Rush (1995) considers these to be short-term solutions
that are harmful to morale. He indicates that most organizations never really rethink their

current positions and make long-lasting corrections. They simply place a bandage on the
immediate problem and in better times, things return to the status quo.
Long-lasting change is not driven by internal or external forces. Change happens
through people (London, 1995). The people of the organization, the employees, need to
understand the culture and mission that drive the institution. However, Ruben (1995a)
indicates that structure can play a role in facilitating interaction. He claims that vertical
structures do facilitate interaction within functional divisions, but may form obstacles to
between division interaction. These bureaucratic hurdles act as blocks to creative activity
and dialog-- an “it’s not my job” mentality (Sinnot & Johnson, 1996).
Flatter and simpler organizations, which facilitate cross-divisional collaboration
and teamwork, also address customer expectations, help align employees and divisions
with the institutional mission, and improve the quality of products and services (Ruben,
1995a). Nordvall (1982) describes an innovative organization as one with an informal
structure and decentralized decision making—an “open-collaboration” decision making
model. There is a lateral rather than vertical communication system and expertise can be
found at all levels of the organization. Furthermore, employees in an innovative
organization exhibit a commitment to quality and to the organization as a whole.
Many enrollment managers are more concerned with finding the right
administrative structure than insuring that the people with the necessary knowledge and
skills are in key positions (Hossler, 1990). With the right people in the right positions,
structure may be of little importance. In many cases, enrollment managers have little
control over the structure of the organization. In these situations, they must seek other

ways to break down the barriers between departments and increase participation in the
collaborative process. Kuh (1996) describes two views of the organization. The
“conventional” organization, what we find in many universities, is a hierarchical
organization focused on clearly delineated communication through a central authority
figure. The authority is determined by one’s position in the hierarchy. Conversely, the
“postconventional” organization is not inhibited by structure. In this model, any person at
any level can influence decision-making. The organization is amorphous and constantly
evolving. Processes and structures change as the nature of cross-functional interaction
changes.
Kuh also describes the “learning organization”, perhaps an ideal context for an
enrollment management system. The learning organization is described as three
metaphors: the hologram, the brain, and the thermostat. As a hologram, each staff
member in the organization reflects the mission of the entire organization. If one part of
the organization breaks, the other parts come together to recreate the entire image. As the
brain, the organization receives, processes, stores, and retrieves information in a flexible
or integrated way. The organization is resilient and elastic. As a thermostat, the
organization constantly monitors its environment and as change occurs-- it reorganizes.
Kuh refers to this as “self-organizing” (1996, pp. 285-287). Massy (1992) takes the
metaphor of the thermostat a step further and stresses that an organization must also take
the pulse of its internal environment on a regular basis. Constantly paying attention to
feedback is a key to effective management.

Turnover
Once an enrollment management culture has been established at a university, it is
important for those values to be sustained for the life of the organization. Institutions
invest a great deal of time and money to make enrollment management work.
Collaborative decision making requires the establishment of strong relationships between
departments. As employees leave the organization and new hires enter, those
relationships often have to be rebuilt. In some departments, turnover may be so high that
it actually defines the culture. Rather than fostering a culture of collaboration and
teamwork, management spends more time looking to fill key positions while employees
try to keep up with the workload. Thus the organization never moves forward.
Johnsrud and Rosser define turnover as “the movement of employees into and out
of positions”(1999b). Turnover has been a consistent problem in higher education and
can be a major obstacle to successful enrollment management. Expertise becomes rare in
a profession with high turnover (Noblitt, 1990). Sagaria and Johnsrud (1988) found
average 2-year turnover rates among higher education administrators of 26%. Many of
the losses of personnel are due to attrition—employees leave the field altogether to
pursue other opportunities (Dollarhide & Butler, 1997; Evans, 1988; Hancock, 1988;
Lorden, 1998; Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1988). A study of mid-level administrative staff
turnover found that the younger the employees and the fewer service years, the more
likely they intend to leave the institution (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1999b). The same study
also found that mid-level administrators in student affairs, including positions in

admission and financial aid, intend to leave their current positions more often than their
colleagues in academic, business, and external affairs.
Turnover has its costs. Robbins (1993) estimated that replacing a mid-level staff
member earning $36,000 could cost $58,100. This is due to factors including the lost
efficiency of the employee in the months before departure, lost productivity while the job
was vacant, recruiting and training costs, and the inefficiencies of the new employee
while learning a new job. The ratio of these turnover costs to annual salary was found to
be 1.5 for positions at all levels. Sinnot & Johnson (1996) indicate that it can take months
of training for a new employee to acclimatize, learn the organization’s culture, and
establish collaborative working relationships. While recent hires cost the organization
less in salary (Robbins, 1993), the cost of having to learn the culture and establish
relationships is extremely high in an enrollment management system. However, one
benefit of turnover is that the organization can get an influx of fresh ideas and new talent.
The difficulty lies in keeping those people long enough to truly make a difference.
Enrollment managers must be prepared to recruit and supervise a staff of people
who may have chosen higher education as a second choice career option. Ironically,
many employees of higher education institutions may have had an intention to leave from
the first day on the job. Hancock (1988) found that 10% of graduate students in student
personnel master’s degree programs intended to get jobs in business immediately after
graduation. Some undergraduate students who have not yet decided on a career enter
these master’s degree programs to buy time while they make important life decisions.
Many students end up in programs as a result of positive experiences as an undergraduate

R.A. or student employee. Entering a master’s program in a similar role allows them to
temporarily extend their positive college experience. Unfortunately for many, the reality
sets in when they enter the first years of their career and experience long hours and more
responsibility.
Graduate students need more information about the field of higher education and
its available career paths prior to graduation. More informed students are able to decide
on an appropriate entry level given their education and experience and will be less likely
to experience dissonance and role ambiguity and leave the field (Dollarhide & Butler,
1997). Ill-prepared graduate students entering higher education as a career often leave as
a result of excessive person-environment incongruence (Hancock, 1988). Holland
described this as “personality-job fit” (in Robbins, 1993). To ensure congruence between
their personality types and their chosen vocation, people need to be certain that they have
the right talents and abilities to be successful in their jobs. As enrollment managers seek
to generalize and broaden the scope of what employees do, it becomes increasingly
difficult for entering professionals to determine the requisite skills to perform a job.
Should job descriptions be more specific? Cornesky, McCool, Byrnes, and Weber
(1991) would say no. They claim that job descriptions tie people down and narrow their
functions. Job descriptions increase barriers between departments by centralizing
authority, information, and planning. Job descriptions should still be descriptive however.
Enrollment managers, rather than search for a specialist—a registrar, an admissions
counselor, or a financial aid advisor—should instead focus their search on individuals
with the traits necessary for enrollment management. Job descriptions in enrollment

management may describe the culture and the need for collaboration, teamwork, and
flexibility, rather than the day to day tasks. Job satisfaction is the highest when there is
congruence between employee needs and the organizational culture (Robbins, 1993). It
will be a challenge for enrollment managers to find the appropriate balance that will
reduce person-environment incongruence while ensuring flexibility in their positions.
Why Employees Leave
In their study of mid-level administrators at ten universities, Johnsrud and Rosser
(1999b) found that the best predictors of intention to leave were perceptual variables,
including employee perceptions of morale, working conditions, recognition, and
opportunity for advancement. They claim that turnover decisions reflect an employee’s
perceptions of the current work situation, but not necessarily reality. Interestingly, their
study revealed that the smaller the institution, the more positive the work experiences and
the more likely the employee is to stay. This finding bodes well with an institution
practicing enrollment management. Large institutions that are able to bring people
together across divisions, increasing interaction with other employees, can decrease the
psychological size of the institution to the employee. A large university thus has the
double benefit of feeling small to the employee while providing the career opportunities
of a larger institution. Robbins (1993) also discusses the power of employee perception.
He claims that dissatisfaction with working conditions or perceived lack of promotion
opportunity are judgements based on the employee’s attempt to make some meaning out
of his/her job. Failure to deal with the differences between perception and reality lead to
absenteeism and turnover.

There are a number of other factors that have been found to lead to job
dissatisfaction and turnover. One such factor is stress. Walter Gmelch defines stress as
“any characteristic of the environment that poses a threat to the individual, either
excessive demands or insufficient resources” (in Harris, 1999). Not all stress is bad
however. Harris (1999) distinguishes between two types of stress. Eustress, or good
stress, is what motivates us to achieve. Eustress challenges employees and pushes them to
higher levels of performance. The other type of stress, distress, is dysfunctional,
distracting, and debilitating (Harris, 1999; Wolverton, Gmelch, Wolverton, & Sarros,
1999). Distress can have harmful physical side effects and can produce potentially
negative consequences to the institutions fiscal survival, the enrollment of new students,
retention, and graduation rates (Harris, 1999). A person suffering from stress affects
everyone he/she comes in contact with. Enrollment managers, particularly those in fast-
paced, high student contact offices, are particularly vulnerable to distress. Harris (1999)
notes that the complexities of working in a comprehensive enrollment management
environment can be overwhelming to some. Wolverton, et al. found that administrative
tasks, human relations, and role ambiguity are all stressors (1999).
Overworked and isolated admissions officers on extended travel schedules,
financial aid officers working long days at the start of a semester, and residence hall staff
on-call 24 hours a day all make initial contact with students and generate first
impressions. These impressions may be negative when stress levels are high. When times
are very busy and stress is high, managers often overlook the essentials: the importance
of recognition and support. Duvall (1999) suggests that enrollment managers constantly

remind staff of the “big picture” to help reduce stress. Staff should be reminded of the
importance of what they do as it relates to the institutional mission in order to give them a
more gratifying perspective on their work.
Another factor that contributes to employee turnover, ironically, is the
performance appraisal. What is intended to provide feedback and improve employee
performance often does just the opposite. Of all of the staffing practices in student affairs,
the performance appraisal is the least well-conducted (Winston & Creamer, 1997;
Creamer & Winston, 1999). It is widespread practice that the form itself is thought to be
the whole of the performance evaluation. It is often ignored by everyone, except when a
manager wants to make a statement about unsatisfactory performance (Creamer &
Winston, 1999). Performance appraisals are carried out routinely and are not often used
for staff improvement. In fact, Winston & Creamer (1997) discovered that in many cases,
the performance appraisal never even happens. In their comprehensive national study of
staffing practices, they found that of the administrators they surveyed, 33% of deans,
37% of directors, 27% of coordinators, and 26% of support staff had no formal
performance appraisal in the past 12 months. They also discovered that 25% of deans,
45% of directors, 38% of coordinators, and 35% of the support staff who had no formal
review also did not have an informal review in the previous 12 months.
To be effective, the performance appraisal must be used with consistency. It
should also be used as a development tool (Green & McDade, 1991). Stimpson (1993)
stipulates that there should be strong relationship between performance evaluation and
training. Not only should it be used to identify areas for improvement, but also training

opportunities that could give the employee potential to pursue advancement. He suggests
that development is not only the supervisor’s professional duty, but it helps motivate the
employee to pursue additional responsibilities. The performance appraisal should also be
flexible and fit in with the changing institutional culture (Creamer & Winston, 1999).
Ongoing feedback is also necessary, in addition to the formal performance
review. One form of feedback, “synergistic supervision”, has a dual focus on the
accomplishment of institutional goals as well as individual goals. It relies on a joint-
effort, two-way communication system, is growth oriented, goal based, ongoing, and
holistic (Winston & Creamer, 1997). Another type of feedback, “360 degree feedback”, is
also ongoing and allows the employee to “recalibrate” his/her behavior and feel
recognized (London, 1995). The unique aspect of 360 degree feedback is that it allows
subordinates, peers, customers, and supervisors to rate the employee on behavior that is
important to the university. Regardless of the feedback system used, it is important that
feedback occurs on a regular basis, is constructive, and allows for growth and improved
productivity.
Employee perceptions of low morale in an organization can also lead to turnover.
Johnsrud and Rosser (1999a) define morale as “a state of mind regarding one’s job,
including satisfaction, commitment, loyalty, and sense of common purpose with respect
to one’s work.” In a 1999 study of mid-level administrators, salary was sited as the
single most important issue to their morale (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1999a). However, the
same study revealed that salary was not a predictor of morale. The researchers suggest
that actual pay is not as important to morale as is the perception of equity in salary

relative to others. They found that the most significant factors contributing to low morale
are being a member of an underrepresented minority, feeling stuck, and intending to
leave. Conversely, they reported that feelings of recognition and external relations among
faculty, students, and the public are positive predictors of morale. They also note that
institutional type was a good predictor of morale, with highest morale levels in the
community college and lowest in research universities. The findings indicate that
managers in an enrollment management system should constantly monitor the morale of
their employees and provide the appropriate feedback to ensure that good works are
recognized. The study also supports the notion of reducing the psychological size of the
university through collaboration and relationship building.
The perception of a lack of career advancement is perhaps one of the strongest
predictors of an employee’s intention to leave (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1999b). Promotional
ladders and career paths are not clearly delineated in higher education administration.
Staff often determine career paths and advancement potential based on the movement of
others within the organization. However, in higher education, multiple career paths seem
to be the norm (Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1988). Master’s graduates usually have little
difficulty getting entry-level positions, but advancement in the field is much more
difficult (Evans, 1988). Because of the relatively flat organizational structure, movement
in an organization is often lateral. People often view lateral moves as negative, for
success has been traditionally defined by upward mobility. Mills (1993) states that lateral
moves should be seen as positive, providing necessary experience for later opportunities.
Sagaria and Johnsrud agree, indicating that most changes advance a career, even lateral

moves (1988). For those who desire upward mobility, movement to another institution is
often required resulting in turnover of many of talented individuals.
Improving Job Satisfaction and Employee Retention
As previously mentioned, enrollment managers spend a great deal of time and
capital in the development of collaborative relationships. Employees who understand and
appreciate the culture of the institution are costly to replace. Because upward
advancement is not always possible, enrollment managers need to help their staff rethink
the traditional models of success (Lorden, 1998). Traditionally, advancement within an
organization usually occurs in one of three ways: (a) a vacancy at a position above one’s
present level occurs and the person is promoted, (b) the employee has assumed more
responsibility and performed better than expected resulting in a newly created position to
promote that person to, or (c) the employee may move to other responsibilities that bring
new opportunities and challenges (Mills, 1993). Broader definitions of success should be
encouraged. Rather than view mobility as a career ladder, it could be thought of as a
career web where movement of staff throughout the organization is more fluid.
Compensation and titles are determined not by one’s position on a ladder, but by his/her
value to the university. Someone with great movement throughout the web will have
gained a number of valuable experiences and cross-functional expertise. This knowledge
is valuable to an enrollment management system and should be rewarded.
Employees should be encouraged to create development opportunities within their
current positions (Green & McDade, 1991). Current employees should be used as a talent

pool: futuristic managers are always on the lookout for people with talents that can
enhance their team (Spanbauer, 1992). Managers should take advantage of their
employees’ strengths and develop their weaknesses. Employees can be given new
assignments that stretch their capacities. In a study of job satisfaction among student
affairs and academic administrators, job satisfaction was associated with a people taking
greater responsibility for their behavior and assuming more personal control over their
lives—a strong internal locus of control (Tarver, Canada, & Lim, 1999).
Mills (1993) identifies extrinsic and intrinsic elements that create the most
satisfaction. Among the extrinsic elements are the support of one’s supervisor, the ability
to influence policy, the degree of authority in one’s position, staff development
opportunities, support from colleagues, and salary. Intrinsic elements leading to high
degrees of satisfaction include having a variety of responsibilities, flexibility in one’s
daily routine, respect from superiors and colleagues, and opportunities to influence
student development. Robbins (1993) indicates that job involvement, the degree to which
employees identify with and care about the work they do, accounts for about 16% of the
variance in turnover. Empowered employees, those who have more control over their
success and development within an organization, may experience higher levels of job
satisfaction.
Staff who perceive opportunities for growth within their current organization are
also more likely to develop institutional loyalty. Administrators who perceive that they
will have to leave their institutions in order to advance to the next level have been found
to have the lowest levels of organizational commitment (Blackhurst, Brandt, &

Kalinowski, 1998). Organizational commitment is defined as an individual’s orientation
toward an institution in terms of involvement, identification, and loyalty (Robbins, 1993).
Entry-level staff often have low levels of organizational commitment. Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991) site a link between overeducation and job dissatisfaction. Recent college
graduates are more aware of other work options and unattained possibilities in their jobs,
resulting in lower levels of job satisfaction. The problem is compounded when graduates
from master’s degree programs fill front line positions that they feel they are
overqualified for. These employees are thinking about their next career move from the
first day on the job and never have an opportunity to become committed to their
positions. Enrollment managers must provide ample opportunities for their employees’
professional growth and development. Employees at all levels, including entry level and
support staff, should be actively involved in the enrollment management process. Early
development of an identity within the organization is likely to increase levels of
organizational commitment and reduce the likelihood of departure.
The Effect of Staffing Practices on Students
The goal of any comprehensive enrollment management system is to attract,
retain, and graduate students. Higher education is a service, just like any other business.
Quality of service is directly related to the staff who provide it (Hyman, 1999; Ruben,
1995a; Spanbauer, 1992). The way staff are treated and the way they work together will
determine how they treat students (Spanbauer, 1992). A study of the relationship between
resident directors’ (RDs) perceptions of their work environment and student experiences
revealed a positive correlation between work climate and student satisfaction (Pratt,

Shambarger, Johnson, & Anchors, 1999). The study also revealed that residents benefit
when RDs maintain strong relationships and a sense of community among themselves.
Tinto has suggested that student interaction with staff contributes to integration and
ultimately retention (in Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). When staff members make a
decision to leave an institution, they affect everyone they come in contact with. Ruben
(1995a) states that judgements by parents, students, and alumni about the quality of
services, or lack of, translate directly into institutional reputation, which forms the basis
for constituent decision making: to attend, remain, support, recommend, or not. Ruben
(1995b) also found that the most memorable undergraduate experiences of students
surveyed were negative—59%. Of those experiences, most were related to interpersonal
communication. Students remember their contact with staff, particularly if it is negative.
A university’s staffing practices can spell success or failure for an institution.
Conclusion
In an era of rising costs, diminishing resources, and a rapidly shifting student
demographic, successful enrollment management is a key to the life of an institution.
Implementation of enrollment management concepts requires flexibility and innovation.
Changing the culture of an organization to embrace concepts such as collaboration,
teamwork, and strategic planning can be a daunting task. Change takes time and is
dependent upon the people who make up the university. The recruitment and retention of
talented people is paramount, given the investment of time, money, and human resources
necessary for the development of an enrollment management culture. Tomorrow’s
colleges and universities will be faced with the challenge of redefining their staffing

practices to meet the changing needs of their employees and students. A greater focus on
leadership, the work environment, alternate career paths, staff development, and
employee satisfaction are critical to the success of enrollment management and the
university. It is the people of the university who will recruit, retain, and graduate
tomorrow’s students. The people of the university will determine the vitality of higher
education in the 21st
century.

References
Barr, M. J. (1990). Growing staff diversity and changing career paths. In M. J.
Barr, M. L. Upcraft, and Associates (Eds. ), New futures for student affairs: Building a
vision for leadership and practice (pp. 160-177). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. ,
Publishers.
Bean, J. P. (1990). Strategic planning and enrollment management. In D. Hossler,
J. P. Bean, and Associates. The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. (pp. 21-
43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
Blackhurst, A. E. , Brandt, J. E. , & Kalinowski, J. (1998). Effects of career
development on the organizational commitment and life satisfaction of women student
affairs administrators. NASPA Journal, 36(1), 19-34.
Cornesky, R. , McCool, S. , Byrnes, L. , & Weber, R. (1991). Implementing total
quality management in higher education. Madison, WI: Magna Publications, Inc.
Creamer, D. G. , & Winston, R. B. , Jr. (1999). The peformance appraisal
paradox: An essential but neglected student affairs staffing function. NASPA Journal,
36(4), 248-263.

Dollarhide, C. T. & Butler, E. R. (1997) Patterns in advertising for student affairs
positions: What new professionals should know. Student Affairs Journal- Online [On-
line]. Available Internet: http://www.apu.edu/~sajo/dollarhide070897.html
Duvall, H. C. (1999). Charge! How to lead a diverse staff in a fast-paced, high-
pressure office. College Board Online [On-line]. Available Internet:
http://www.collegeboard.org/aes/ontarget/ontarg3/html/ontarg3.html
Enrollment Management Program (1999). Out in front as an enrollment manager
[Brochure]. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami.
Ern, E. H. (1993). Managing resources strategically. In M. J. Barr, and Associates
(Eds. ), The handbook of student affairs administration. (pp. 439-454). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
Evans, N, J. (1988). Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the
literature. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 19-24.
Green, M. F. , McDade, S. A. (1991). Investigating in higher education: A
handbook of leadership development. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Hancock, J. E. (1988). Needs and reinforcers in student affairs: Implications for
attrition. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 25-29.
Harris, T. (1999). Admission and enrollment management: A stressful encounter?.
College Board Online [On-line]. Available Internet:
http://www.collegeboard.org/aes/ontarg/ontarg9/html/ontarg9.htm

Hossler, D. (1990). Organizational approaches. In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean, and
Associates. The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. (pp. 44-54). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
Hossler, D. & Bean, J. P. (1990). Principles and objectives. In D. Hossler, J. P.
Bean, and Associates. The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. (pp. 3-20). San
Hyman, R. (1999). Book Review [Review of the book Improving staffing
practices in student affairs]. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 147-151.
Jacoby, B. (1993). Service delivery for a changing student constituency. In M. J.
Barr, and Associates (Eds. ), The handbook of student affairs administration. (pp. 468-
Johnsrud, L. K. & Rosser, V. J. (1999a). College and university midlevel
administrators: Explaining and improving their morale. The Review of Higher Education,
22(2), 121-141.
Johnsrud, L. K. & Rosser, V. J. (1999b). Predicting and reducing mid-level
administrative staff turnover. CUPA Journal, Spring/Summer [On-line]. Available
Internet: http://www.cupa.org/CJ3/01.html
Kolodny, K. (1998). Failing the future: A dean looks at higher education in the
twenty-first century. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Komives, S. R. (1999). The changing nature of work in higher education. In
ACPA—Higher education trends for the next century [On-line]. Available Internet:
http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorscholars/trends/trends6.htm

Kuh, G. D. (1996). Organizational theory. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr. ,
and Associates (Eds. ), Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd
ed. ) (pp.
269-294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
London, M. (1995). Achieving performance excellence in university
administration: A team approach to organizational change and employee development.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal,
35(3), 207-216.
Massy, W. F. (1992). Improvement strategies for administration and support
services. In Anderson, R. E. & Meyerson, J. W. (Eds. ). Productivity and higher
education: Improving the effectiveness on faculty, facilities, and financial resources. (pp.
49-83). Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s Guides, Inc.
Mills, D. M. (1990). The technological transformation of student services. In M.
J. Barr, M. L. Upcraft, and Associates (Eds. ), New futures for student affairs: Building a
Publishers.
Mills, D. B. (1993). The role of the middle manager. In M. J. Barr, and Associates
(Eds. ), The handbook of student affairs administration. (pp. 121-134). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
Noblitt, M. T. (1990). Case study: How information systems support enrollment
management. In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean, and Associates. The Strategic Management of
College Enrollments. (pp. 243-262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.

Nordvall. R. C. (1982). The process of change in higher education institutions
(AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Rep. No. 7). Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Nuss, E. M. (1996). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B.
Woodard, Jr. , and Associates (Eds. ), Student services: A handbook for the profession
(3rd
ed. ) (pp. 22-42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
Orehovec, P. M. & Ingold, S. (1999). Enrollment management: A working
philosophy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Miami.
Pascarella, E. T. , & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students:
Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. ,
Publishers.
Pratt, P. A. , Shambarger, G. S. , Johnson, D. P. , & Anchors, W. S. (1999). The
relationship between resident directors’ perceptions of their work environment and
residents’ perceptions of their residence hall experience. Journal of College and
University Student Housing, 28(1), 31-35.
Preston, F. R. (1993). Creating effective staff development programs. In M. J.
Barr, and Associates (Eds. ), The handbook of student affairs administration. (pp. 351-
Robbins, S. P. (1993). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and
applications (6th
ed. ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Rowley, D. J. , Lujan, H. D. , & Dolence, M. G. (1998). Strategic choices for the
academy: How demand for lifelong learning will recreate higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ruben, B. D. (1995a). The quality approach in higher education: Context and
concepts for change. In B. D. Ruben (Ed. ), Quality in higher education (pp. 1-34). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Ruben, B. D. (1995b). What students remember: Teaching, learning, and human
communication. In B. D. Ruben (Ed. ), Quality in higher education (pp. 189-199). New
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history (Rev. ed.).
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Rush, S. C. (1995). Productivity or quality?: In search of higher education’s
yellow brick road. In B. D. Ruben (Ed. ), Quality in higher education (pp. 109-119). New
Sagaria, M. D. & Johnsrud, L. K. (1988). Mobility within the student affairs
profession: Career advancement through position change. Journal of College Student
Development, 29, 30-40.
Spanbauer, S. J. (1992). A quality system for education: Using quality and
productivity techniques to save our schools. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Sinnott, J. , & Johnson, L. (1996). Reinventing the university: A radical proposal
for a problem-focused university. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Stimpson, R. F. (1993). Selecting and training competent staff. In M. J. Barr, and
Associates (Eds. ), The handbook of student affairs administration. (pp. 135-151). San
Tarver, D. , Canada, R. , & Lim, M. (1999). The relationship between job
satisfaction and locus of control among college student affairs administrators and
academic administrators. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 96-105.
Thelin, J. R. (1996). Historical overview of American higher education. In S. R.
Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr. , and Associates (Eds. ), Student services: A handbook for
the profession (3rd
ed. ) (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
Winston, R. B. , Jr. , & Creamer, D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in
student affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers.
Wolverton, M. , Gmelch, W. H. , Wolverton, M. L. & Sarros. J. C. (1999). Stress
in academic leadership: U. S. and Australian department chairs/heads. The Review of
Higher Education, 22(2), 165-185.
Woodard, D. B. , Jr. , Komives, S. R. (1990). Ensuring staff competence. In M. J.
Barr, M. L. Upcraft, and Associates (Eds. ), New futures for student affairs: Building a
Publishers.

Enrollment Management at Work: Effective Staffing Practices for the Future of Higher Education

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to Enrollment Management at Work: Effective Staffing Practices for the Future of Higher Education

Similar to Enrollment Management at Work: Effective Staffing Practices for the Future of Higher Education (20)

More from J. Todd Bennett

More from J. Todd Bennett (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (13)

Enrollment Management at Work: Effective Staffing Practices for the Future of Higher Education