"Professional is not a label you give yourself – it’s a description you hope others will apply to you. "
-Unknown
But what must you do to acquire that description, anonymous quote maker? RIDDLE ME THAT.
I should probably start this blog post with an honest admission regarding my identity: I grew up working class that I think that's awesome. I have pride in it. It taught me a work ethic and approach to life that is rooted in a simple premise: work hard, but seriously, never let it phase you and always do your best for those around you. That shaped me me in a big way. I was (well, maybe still am...) a bit of a class warrior. Recognizing this bias has helped me quite a bit and allowed me to (almost) objectively tackle this topic. Now, that doesn't mean someone who is of a different SES didn't work hard but the KIND of work is VERY different.
Disclaimer: this doesn't mean I don't recognize the identity intersectionality inherent in concepts of professionalism. I have chosen to focus on class, though I could probably make longer (and stronger) arguments related to gender, race, and ability.
Who decides what's professional? Who the hell came up with that? Who decided what standards by which we judge people? And I mean JUDGE people. Yes, I know all major SA organizations have their professional standards and ethical conduct statements. I agree with those. They're awesome. But I'm not talking about those. Those are fantastic ideals to strive towards and you should do more than just post them in an office - you should live by them and evaluate your progress towards them. I'm talking about the social capital you need to be successful. The capital you earn through SES identity and status. The things we just think people should inherently know.
I'm talking about the RA candidate you judged for not dressing up. I'm talking about the grad candidate you docked points from for lacking interview etiquette (read: unspoken norms). I'm talking about the Hall Director candidate you have "questions" (which is really just thinly veiled skepticism and judgment) about because they weren't "polished" enough for your institution. Yeah, let's just talk about it. Stop making excuses and admit that there is inherent judgement. And that the judgement is classist. REALLY classist. Or, as I'm going to say throughout this post, socioeconomicallynormative or, SEN.
Socioecomonicallynormative behavior (SEN) is that behavior which is learned by having early access to economic resources, education, and environments that promote and shape practices and understanding reflective of the assumed economic majority. Hey, SA Grads, I made that up. Be careful. There are obvious flaws but it's a start. It's also just kind of a jumbled definition of social capital.
Perhaps the easiest way to start this conversation is to breakdown the ultimate in professional norming experiences for many SA Pros: a placement conference.
A lot of us have been there. Many of us groomed and prepped as candidates and employers. Asked the same questions and levying the same judgement. What are you wearing? What do your thank you cards look like? Did you remember to pack extra clothing just in case? Have you thought about what you'll wear at the social and how you'll talk to schools you're interested in? What about notes? What will you keep them in? Does it match? What's the right thank you message to show you're not interested? How do you manage saying no? What do you do and who do you talk to while waiting with other candidates?
All of these things, all of the preparation, and all of the expectations around these standards creates a very distinct environment of SEN. And we judge people by these standards not for a second thinking that many candidates may not have had access to this kind of preparation. As first generation college students continue to rise we will see more SA pros coming into the field who may or may not get this. And then how do we judge them and decide what's important?
Research shows that students who are first generation and/or coming from a lower SES are much less likely to be successful than those who come privileged backgrounds. These students report lower levels of satisfaction on campus. Fewer connections socially. An inability to navigate the systems in place designed for student success. And then we wonder why they don't want to go to the career services office no matter how many times we refer them.
Many of the behaviors we look for and qualify as "professional" are learned by virtue of social capital and access to professional environments. Access to these environments is typically reserved for those that have been previously educated or come from a culture of education. Put simply, it's reserved for those who have the resources to experience it. When we translate this to our field through our undergraduate, graduate, and professional search experiences we unknowingly create an environment that is truly exclusive and SEN.
I think we as a field hope that our mentorship and preparation going into the profession will solve for this and help prepare successful candidates. Because let's be real - when we send a candidate out we know that someone will judge us based on how they judge them. This makes it personal. What many forget is that learning some of this SEN behavior is an incredibly self conscious experience for those that don't know. When someone presents a professional behavior as "normal" or "expected" it says to everyone who doesn't do it that they are neither normal or fulfilling expectations.
When we teach this stuff we're not just teaching someone how to be professional - we're teaching them new cultural norms and expecting it to become a value by which they judge themselves and others. We would never, at any point, ask a candidate to disassociate any part of their identities. In fact, we search towards diversifying our departmental identities. So why is it we propagate standards that have no respect for many of those differences?
What does this mean practically? Well, here's what seems to make sense to consider:
1. How do your employment processes control for SEN behavior and expectations?
2. How do you structure interviews to look for and speak to professional ethics and values, not to social capital?
3. How do you train those interviewing all candidates on what to look for?
4. Is your interview experience objective and reflective of the skills a candidate may have to do the job?
5. Are you being honest and making the unspoken, spoken?
6. Does your interview team represent a diverse set of socioeconomic experiences?
Many of the HR practices designed to create objectivity and level the playing field don't speak towards SES and SEN. We can rely on scores as an objective measure but we still have human beings with social norms creating that score. A strong interview tool and metric based on experiences and proficiency, that is transparent and easy to understand, solves for much of this.
I'm not trying to dig on our field. I love what we do and think it's infinitely important. I also think that we're reflective enough to have the tough conversations and ensure individual identity matters. If that's the case, let's talk. Let it be messy. Let it be real. And, most importantly, let it shape the ways we seek to include all identities in the conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment