The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1 - 52

Maureen E. Wilson * Amy S. Hirschy * John M. Braxton

2015). Three items had mean scores below 3.0
and thus did not meet the normative criteria.
We performed principal components factor
analysis using varimax rotation to determine
how patterns of responses to items (i.e., behaviors) group together to form norms. Varimax
rotation assumes the factors are uncorrelated.
This resulted in ﬁve factors for the admonitory norms, described below, that explain 49%
of the variance of the respective exploratory
factor analysis models. Because these patterns or factors were found, we conclude that
a normative structure does exist for HRLPs.
When people engage in proscribed behaviors,
they violate the norms of HRL professionals.

Admonitory Norms
The ﬁve admonitory norms are displayed in
Table 2. The speciﬁc proscribed behaviors
comprising each norm are listed along with
the factor loading for each behavior, and the
Cronbach's alpha, mean, and standard deviation for each admonitory norm. The norms
are listed in descending order of the percent of
variance explained.
Inattentive Administration. This norm involves failing to exercise strong planning,
oversight, or management. The objectionable
behaviors of this normative pattern engaged
in by HRLPs impede the unit's ability to
improve practices that serve residents' needs.
Examples of behaviors include collecting evaluations of educational programs but not using
them for future improvement and not incorporating residents' feedback to shape the RA's
performance evaluation. The well-being of
HRL as an organizational unit and students as
clients suffer because programs and services
are not systematically improved.

Developmental Disregard. Not fostering
growth of the department or its employees is
emblematic of this norm. Accordingly, this
normative orientation involves the administrative role of HRLPs in general and more
speciﬁcally such tasks as selecting, training,
and supervising staff. Directors who engage
in proscribed behaviors of this norm, such
as not discussing the department's mission
and goals with staff, weaken their ability to
achieve espoused goals; HRL as a client incurs
damage from transgressions like this. Not providing honest performance feedback impedes
employees' career development and students,
colleagues, and other clients may be negatively affected by their unchecked actions.
Wielding Unfair Advantage. Prioritizing
the needs of the privileged, self, or institution
over others is wielding unfair advantage. Acts
of favoritism, such as a staff member prioritizing a wealthy donor's child over others higher
on the waitlist for a room, promote a climate of
distrust toward residence hall staff members
and the entire department. This climate may
lead to student behaviors such as violating residence halls rules and not seeking assistance
to address inequities.
Misleading Marketing. Promotion of an
inaccurate departmental picture exempliﬁes
this norm. If HRLPs violate this normative
pattern, then residents may mistrust the
HRL department. For example, if marketing
materials do not accurately reﬂect facilities or
the make-up of the student body, then students may be suspicious of all communications from HRL. This skepticism may lead to
student dissatisfaction and departure from
the residence halls.

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1