LDRS 5544 Applied Learning Reflection 1

  • This post is an exercise for a class I am enrolled in this (Spring 2014) semester, Leading Teams Through Change. | Prompt: For each unit of study, you will complete an applied learning reflection in the form of an article review or blog entry. (These applied learning reflections may build upon the original examples you have offered in the discussion forum posts.) For this unit of study, everyone in the class will do an article review. (These articles must be different from assigned readings; this is an opportunity to personalize the content to your interests.) Appropriate journals include all those indexed in Google Scholar. Articles selected should have publication dates within the last ten years. Article reviews will include components that connect the article to the unit being studied at the time it is due. They should also include a discussion of how you plan to use the concepts from this article.

The article used for this review can be found here and is cited, in APA format, below, followed by a citation of the course text.

Janosik, S. M. (2007). Common issues in professional behavior. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 285–306. Also found at http://www.soe.vt.edu/highered/faculty/janosik/CommonProblems.pdf

Franz, T. M. (2012). Group dynamics and team interventions: Understanding and improving team performance. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-4051-8670-4


Purpose & Context

In an attempt to personalize the course content, and particularly some of the concepts related by my classmates in the Unit 1 forum, to my interests I am reviewing Dr. Steve Janosik’s article, Common Issues in Professional Behavior from a 2007 NASPA journal.  This author’s scope is within student affairs and higher education with regard to ethics and professionalism in the field.  This article relates to a prominent social issue and is particularly relevant as I enter a career in that field in the next four months. It also relates to classmate C.B.’s post about titled “To Consult or not Consult – Intervention.”

Fundamental & Powerful Concepts

Dr. Janosik’s article begins by exploring the issues that almost all career fields face regarding professional behavior.  In higher education expectations regarding professional behavior can mirror ethical issues within the larger society.  The level to which an individual on a team prescribes to the expectations for professional behavior and other group norms may have an impact on the entiativity (the level of “groupness,” as referenced in the Franz reading) of the group.  For example, one of the most pressing issues that we see in the news media as we begin the year 2014 deals with gender differences, sexual harassment and sometimes even sexual misconduct (Janosik, 2007).  This issue becomes even more contentious when we look at how students and others in the collegial environment may be affected by these issues.

A highlight/key concept from the article discuses the notion that due to a routinely high level of interaction with individuals in many different roles (i.e., students, superivsors, and colleagues at the same level), student affairs professionals must have a particularly clear understanding of the ethics and the role of the profession in relation to professional practices.  Janosik’s article specifically analyzes the notion of gender differences from the perspective that “women, as opposed to men, [are] much more likely to report experiences with inappropriate social interactions that involved socializing between staff, faculty, or students that involved violations of rules or laws” (Janosik, 2007, p. 299).  This could contribute to why there has been a greater number of reported instances of sexual misconduct on college and university campuses across the country.

Connection to Course Concepts

I thought Dr. Janosik’s article was particularly interesting because the defined change (referencing back to the context of the course, leading teams through change) can be explicitly defined within the social issue itself.  We, as a society, continue to deal with issues of social justice as they relate to gender, specifically, and Dr. Janosik’s article analyzes this argument as somewhat of a microcosm on a college or university campus.

The primary question at hand, though, is when (and HOW) do you potentially intervene? In this scenario, it is unclear if the onus would be placed on the university leader or on government officials to implement policies and regulations that would help curb the number incidents that involve gender differences and/or sexual misconduct. This debate continues to be played out societally, especially in the news media. Undoubtedly, the expectation of reporting has been and is changing, but the type of intervention or the designated intervener has yet to be clearly defined.

I hypothesize this will be decided by the end of this calendar year, as new expectations are defined by national leaders.  ”All interventions require some type of organizational research,” (Franz, 2012, p. 19) and this proposed task force has set a goal of doing just that at the onset.  In fact, the impetus for using Janosik’s article and the related issue was due because I saw great overlap in the plan outlined by our national leaders to remedy this grown issue with the consultive approach (Franz, 2007) that C.B. referenced in her blog post, also.  In response to C.B.’s question, I believe it’d be difficult to assess what kind of intervention to deliver without having actually followed through with the process.

Plan for Application

As I move forward as professional in this field, I expect to maintain a particularly clear understanding of the ethics and expectations of myself as a professional that is in direct, consistent contact in a professional manner with all of those around me.  As an entry-level employee I would not be likely to exist as an intervening authority, but that would not dissuade me from being an advocate wherever possible on behalf of any individual who may feel as if they have been negatively affected my gender differences or sexual misconduct in a team environment.

Word Count: 738

Edit (2/11/14 @ 11:00 a.m.): Dr. Kaufman, this morning this article came across my inbox, as a part of the The Chronicle of Higher Education.  How appropriate, right?


Article Review Scoring Rubric


Points Possible

Qualities of an A-Level Article Review Submission[1]

Purpose & Context


  • Offers a brief introduction to the purpose and context of the article being reviewed.
  • Suggests relative scope of the research and/or author’s perspective.
Fundamental & Powerful Concepts


  • Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
  • Summarizes and paraphrases key concepts from the article in ways that are true to the original context.
Connection to Course Concepts


  • Thoroughly analyzes ideas and assumptions in light of other course readings and resources.
  • Incorporates appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to illustrate mastery of the subject matter.
Plan for Application


  • States a conclusion that is a logical extrapolation from the inquiry findings.
  • Includes a practical, specific plan for personal change in light of key concepts from the article.
Organization & Writing


  • Organization allows for easy recognition of sections and key ideas.
  • Succinct narrative; no more than 750 words in length.
  • Submission is free from structural, grammatical, and spelling errors that might otherwise distract the reader.



[1] Portions adapted from Association of American Colleges and Universities’ VALUE rubrics, www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *