1. Adapting Your Advising Style to Your SG’s Developmental Stage
Suzette Walden, M.Ed.©

2. “There is no point in having individuals advise organizations unless the advise and counsel provided by these individuals is of high quality.”
Dunkel & Schuh (1998, p209)

3. Git-R-Done or Develop
Getting the job done & being developmental are not mutually exclusive
You can have both if you act intentionally in the “forming” stage of an organization
Tuckman’s Model of Group Development

4. Tuckman’s Model of Group Development
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Adjourning

5. Forming Students demonstrate: An Advisor might:
Members are determining their role in the organization
Go through an orientation or trial process
Members are independent but flexible
Typically a transition time of new officers
An Advisor might:
Demonstrate High levels of direction
When conduct issues and conflict arises, the advisor is more involved in settling of disputes
Often officers in the organization understand that there’s a process to follow, but have a difficult time following it
It may be necessary to educate the members on institutional policies and procedures

6. Storming Students demonstrate:
Members may react negatively to the demands of the tasks needing to be accomplished
Conflicts are typical
High levels of emotion
An Advisor might:
Demonstrate Moderate levels of direction
When conduct issues and conflict arises, the advisor may need to find a neutral third party to mediate the resolution
Often officers in the organization understand that there’s a process to follow, but may be unwilling to make the first move
It may be necessary to educate the members on confrontation and communication skills

7. Norming Students demonstrate: Team cohesiveness begins to
Members accept the rules of behavior
Members discover new ways to work together
An Advisor might:
Demonstrate Low levels of direction
Assist officers in understanding of the importance of increasing expectations
Concentrate on working with officers to shift to an increased self-governance approach

8. Performing Students demonstrate:
Functional group – performing tasks and responsibilities
High degree of competency in program planning, implementation, and evaluation
Good understanding of group dynamics; Membership and roles are determined
Focus their efforts and achieve goals; willingness to accept responsibility for actions
An Advisor might:
Focus on a purely facilitative approach
Challenge the SO leadership to create systems for addressing conduct issues where they do not exist

9. Adjourning Students demonstrate:
Members are preparing for a change in relationship
Group prepares to dissolve
May demonstrate indifferent to the future of the organization
An Advisor might:
Demonstrate Moderate levels of direction
It may be necessary to follow up with students to ensure that they complete tasks before leaving

10. Allens’s Model of SO Development
Infancy
Adolescence
Young Adulthood
Maturity

11. The Role Student Organization Development Plays in Determining How we Advise. . .
Infancy
Students demonstrate:
Low levels of commitment to the organization
Poor program planning skills
Overall lack of responsibility for their actions
An Advisor might:
Demonstrate High levels of direction
When conduct issues and conflict arises, the advisor is more involved in settling of disputes
Often officers in the organization understand that there’s a process to follow, but have a difficult time following it

12. The Role Student Organization Development Plays in Determining How we Advise. . .
Adolescence
Students demonstrate:
Medium levels of commitment to the organization
Basic understanding of program planning & implementation
Higher level of interest in the organization
Some degree of responsibility for their own actions
An Advisor might:
Demonstrate moderate levels of direction
When conduct issues and conflict arises, takes a more facilitative approach in settling of disputes
Officers may feel its hypocritical to hold others accountable for actions they may have committed

13. The Role Student Organization Development Plays in Determining How we Advise. . .
Young Adulthood
Students demonstrate:
Overall competency in program planning & implementation
Higher level of commitment to organization
Fully responsible for their own actions
An Advisor might:
Demonstrate Low levels of direction
Assist officers in understanding of the importance of increasing expectations
Concentrate on working with officers to shift to an increased self-governance approach

14. The Role Student Organization Development Plays in Determining How we Advise. . .
Maturity
Students demonstrate:
High degree of competency in program planning, implementation, and evaluation
Good understanding of group dynamics
Strong commitment to the goals and objectives of the organization
Willingness to take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of their organization
An Advisor might:
Focus on a purely facilitative approach
Assist SG leadership in creating statements of understanding and/or a code of ethics
Challenge the SG leadership to create systems for addressing conduct issues where they do not exist

15. Recommendations for Adjustment
Forming/Infancy
Develop ice breakers to help members to become acquainted
Coordinate a retreat or workshop for the executive officers or the groups as a whole
Review the organization’s mission and purpose with the membership
Identify the expectations of members and execs
Work with the execs to share organizational history and tradition
Provide an initial “to do” list for execs to assist them as they begin their duties

16. Storming/Adolescence
Provide mediation resources when conflicts become difficult for the group to manage
Teach confrontation and communication skills to the executive officers and members
Hold a roundtable discussion on issues with which the organization and membership are involved
Review the mission statement, purpose, and expectations in order to redefine the organization’s action plans
Conduct a group decision-making activity
Discuss and review the executive officer roles
Develop a “rebuilding” team activity
Remind everyone that the storming stage is a natural part of the formation of a group

17. Norming/Maturity
Schedule a more in-depth team-building activity that includes greater self-disclosure
Have the members design t-shirts, pins, or some other emblem with which to identify themselves and the group
Assist the group in starting a new program that will create a tradition
Review and possibly establish new goals for the organization
Maintain executive board and member relationships so as to avoid reverting back to the storming stage

18. Performing/Young Adulthood
Ensure that the organization and membership have a task
Support the members and execs by giving feedback about what is going well and what can be improved upon for the next year
Step back and allow the organization to perform

19. Adjourning/Cycling Back
Develop a closure activity to help members determine what they learned and benefited from during the year
Conduct an assessment or evaluation of the year
Develop transition reports for new executives
Ensure that a plan of recognition is in place for the close of the year
Encourage the execs and members to assist the group for next year in training, orientation, or other responsibilities
Identify how the organization contributed to the history or tradition of the organization

20. Other Theories Consulted
Persuasion Theory (From: Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Kasmer, J. A., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (1987). )

21. Other Theories Consulted
Systems Theory (From Organizational Communication, 2nd edition – Gary Kreps,

22. Help vs. preserve autonomy
A little history lesson
Motivate students so they get the work done
Proactively prepare

23. Things Change Let the organization thrive or decline on its own merits
Understand things change each semester
Be patient
Change stimulated development

24. When to Help or Step In
There is an institutional expectation that it occur
Something is illegal or against University policy
Students ask for help (assist, not do)
Risk Management Concern (health or safety)
Huge financial deficit
Would negatively affect outside groups

25. Putting You to the Test. . .
What are the issues involved in the scenario?
In what stage is this SG developmentally?
What course of action do you take?

26. References
Allen, K.E. (1983). Choosing the effective advising style. Student Activities Programming,
Dunkel, N. W. & Schuh, J. H. (1998). Advising student groups and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Napier, R. W. & Gerschenfeld, M. K. (1989). Groups theory and experience. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Tuckman, B. & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2,
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.
Evans, N. J. (1987). A framework for assisting student affairs staff in fostering moral development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66,
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickoma (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues (p ). New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
Cosgrove, T. J. (1987). Understanding how college students think. Campus Activities Programming, 20 (3), 56 – 60.
Perry, W. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

27. References
Saidla, D. D. (1990). Cognitive development and group stages. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15 (1),
Chickering, A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Griffin, E. (2003). A First Look at Communication Theory (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Miller, K. (1999). Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54,
Perloff, R. M. (1993). The Dynamics of Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Kasmer, J. A., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (1987). A reply to Stiff and Boster. Communication Monographs, 54,
Ross, R. S. (1994). Understanding Persuasion (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
From Maloney, G. (1998). Disciplining student organizations. In B. Paterson & W. Kibler (Eds.), The administration of campus discipline: Student, organizational and community issues (pp ). Asheville, NC: College Administrative Publications, Inc.

28. Questions. . .