“I Felt Like We Immediately Connected”: College Student Workers Describe High-Quality Supervisors

Abstract

As the labor market has tightened and businesses have increased their part-time and hourly wages, recruiting and retaining high-quality college students to work on campus in part-time and hourly roles has remained a stubbornly problematic issue. As a result, this study provides a unique perspective into the minds of student workers by leveraging NASPA/ACPA’s professional competency areas and Tull’s synergistic supervision as conceptual and theoretical frameworks to understand how a subset of college student workers view supervisors in recruiting and retaining them, as well as providing pre-professional development opportunities. Through semi-structured qualitative focus groups with 54 college students working as peer financial mentors within student affairs units, qualitative data suggest that student workers view supervisors as critical to their recruitment if the work is positioned as flexible and career-oriented. Moreover, student workers appreciated supervisors who promised and then delivered professional development during employment, preparing them for the workforce. Additionally, student workers want and need a supervisor who builds a professional relationship with them and who empowers them to develop a sense of confidence through their work. Implications for student affairs research, policy, and practice are addressed.

1. Introduction

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, institutions of higher education in the United States (U.S.) have struggled to recruit and retain their workforce, including faculty and staff [1,2,3]. On the recruitment side, a national survey of hiring managers found that roughly 40% of institutions of higher education have reported experiencing a decrease in qualified applications, while over 30% of institutions reported a decrease in overall applications per open position since the pandemic [2]. On the retention side, journalists have dubbed this struggle as “the Great Resignation” [4] paragraph 1, as 2023 estimates suggested that over 50% of higher education employees indicated that they are actively looking to leave higher education within the next two years [3]. The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources’ (CUPA-HR) most comprehensive and recent report of higher education employees found that “voluntary turnover for higher ed staff was the highest it has been since CUPA-HR started tracking it in 2017–18” [3] paragraph 3.

However, institutions of higher education have struggled to recruit and retain student workers for perhaps far longer than professional faculty and staff [5,6], with many institutions of higher education struggling to either create student worker positions or find qualified, available applicants to fill student worker roles on campus [7]. Similar to professional counterparts, many college student workers were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent inflationary pressures, leading student workers to pursue outside employment to earn more money or work a more flexible schedule [5,6,8]. Here, many institutions may only pay the state or federal minimum wage or less than minimum wage due to legal loopholes. For example, the University of Missouri–Kansas City has paid student workers USD 11 per hour even though the Missouri state minimum wage is USD 13.75, as the state law exempts public colleges and universities from minimum wage requirements [9]. Beyond the demands of wage and schedule flexibility, hiring managers often struggle to find student workers who possess a certain set of skills or a developmental mindset to learn how to do the work on the job [8,10].

Considering the confluence of factors that have made recruiting and retaining college student workers increasingly difficult in recent years, little empirical research has emerged to understand the perspectives and experiences of student workers and how these student workers can be recruited and retained. In fact, no studies have emerged that leverage a qualitative design to allow student workers to reflect upon their supervisors within a student affairs setting. However, a wealth of empirical research has suggested that the role of a supervisor is critical for recruiting and retaining first-year professionals, as supervisors often carry out recruitment initiatives, set cultural norms, and serve as a point of contact for new employees who need personal, social, or navigational support as they begin their career [11,12,13]. Yet, upon a scan of the literature, no studies have specifically explored how student workers view the role of their supervisors and which supervisor traits and behaviors lead to increased recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction.

To address difficulties in recruiting and retaining student workers and to contribute to the literature related to the supervision of student workers, this qualitative focus group study engaged with 54 college student workers (working as peer financial mentors within student affairs) from seven institutions of higher education across the U.S. to explore their perceptions and attitudes toward their supervisor. Framed by NASPA/ACPA’s professional competency areas [14] and Tull’s synergistic supervision [15], this study answers the following research questions:

• (RQ1) How do student workers describe the role their supervisor played in their recruitment and retention?
• (RQ2) If student workers do view their supervisor as critical to their recruitment and retention, which supervisor traits and behaviors lead to increased recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction?

By answering these questions, both researchers and practitioners will better understand the role that supervisors play in the recruitment and retention of student workers. In addition, these stakeholders will learn how student workers describe their pre-professional growth under specific supervisory behaviors, actions, and styles, informing how student workers can best develop into young professionals on their way to full-time careers beyond higher education.

2. Literature Review

Although many empirical studies have addressed how institutions of higher education recruit and retain professional staff [13,16,17], very few have focused specifically on recruiting and retaining college student workers or the roles that supervisors play in these processes. Moreover, no studies have leveraged qualitative methods to allow student workers to reflect upon their supervisors within a student affairs setting. Prior work focused on supporting professional staff in institutions of higher education has found that supervisors need to develop and adopt flexible onboarding and training policies in order to differentiate information and ensure that diverse professionals are provided with what they individually need [11,12]. Once professionals are onboarded, supervisors need to aim for individualized support to ensure communication is open and relationships are established; this helps build trust and understanding necessary for productive working environments in student affairs [11,16,17]. However, these studies do not substantially delve into how supervisors manage student workers or how supervisors support the professional development and postgraduate employability of their student workers.

Encapsulating much prior research and synthesizing best practices into theory, Tull introduced the concept of synergistic supervision, which detailed a reciprocal relationship between a supervisor and student affairs employee, meant to produce greater results than individual effort [15]. For Tull, synergistic supervision relies on a cooperative effort between supervisors and staff to communicate, collaborate, and combine efforts with supervisors, adopting a developmental approach to support the professional growth and development of the professional beyond their job-related tasks [15]. Moreover, synergistic supervision requires supervisors to engage in reflective conversations with staff meant to strengthen relationships, develop reciprocal skills, and foster a supportive and open work environment [15]. Building upon Tull’s theory, Schupp and Arminio applied the theory to an examination of entry-level student affairs professionals (not student workers), and confirmed many of Tull’s tenets [13]. These confirmed tenets included ensuring supervisors are readily available to provide guidance and support, engaging in regular, meaningful interactions between supervisors and supervisees to foster a supportive relationship, and utilizing formal evaluations to focus on competence and goal-setting, helping supervisees understand their progress and areas for improvement [13]. Later, Wilson et al.’s framework for inclusive supervision of student affairs employees echoed many of Tull’s tenets, providing additional context for how supervisors may create safe learning spaces for staff to grow in ways that are culturally responsive and inclusive [17]. However, this professional-focused work has not been extended to student workers.

Among the limited empirical research on the recruitment and retention of student workers, only four studies [18,19,20,21] have directly examined how different hiring units and supervisors within higher education institutions have successfully recruited and retained student workers. None of these studies have addressed student workers within student affairs units, a gap in the literature that this study intends to fill. Kenney and Painter focused primarily on hiring and training student workers in academic libraries, highlighting the need for supervisors to use descriptive language in job postings and convey to students that their on campus work can be applicable to future careers in library sciences [19], a finding that was reinforced in subsequent research by Manley and Holley [21]. However, these studies did not engage with student workers specifically to learn from their perspectives; rather, the researchers focused on supervisor perspectives of recruitment and retention.

Outside library settings, Daprano et al. investigated how a Midwestern university formed strategic partnerships between its student recreation center and various academic departments to enhance the recruitment and retention of college student workers in campus recreation [18]. For Daprano et al., the institution successfully established these partnerships by maintaining clear communication, aligning shared goals and visions for student retention and success, and sharing resources to ensure an equitable workload among campus partners, although the authors did not elaborate on the role of supervision [18]. Moreover, this study did not engage with student workers to learn from their perspectives, necessitating the study at hand.

The most relevant prior research that frames the study at hand was a case study conducted by Lassalle and Richard that provided an overview of how Louisiana State University’s Biomedical Research Center (BRC) recruited and retained student workers [20]. Lassalle and Richard outlined the strategy in three main categories: recruiting, motivating, and retaining [20]. Within recruiting, Lassalle and Richard argued that student workers who were motivated, dedicated, and mature were the most attractive workers, yet the authors admitted that these traits may need to be further developed on the job [20]. Additionally, the authors suggested that student affairs units consider shifting their focus to hiring first and second-year students for better long-term employment outcomes, highlighting the difficulty of finding motivated, dedicated, and mature students at this stage in their development. Moreover, Lassalle and Richard argued that supervisors need to facilitate work that student workers feel is important and that integrates skills and abilities they possess, such as using technology, allowing the student worker to feel empowered and important. Moreover, Lassalle and Richard suggested that student workers should be provided the opportunities to be authority figures and knowledge holders, positioning the student worker in an elevated status to build their self-confidence and emotional connections to their work. Finally, Lassalle and Richard urged supervisors to advocate for competitive pay, suggesting that student workers be provided regular raises just like professional staff and that these raises coincide with the anniversary of their hire or another personal milestone to further bond with the student worker [20].

In addition to these empirical studies, various higher education institutions [22] and news organizations [23] have released guides on recruiting and retaining student workers. However, these guides lack data or insights from student workers and supervisors, offering unproven suggestions instead. Consequently, this study addresses a unique and timely gap in the literature by exploring how student workers perceive their supervisors regarding recruitment, retention, and pre-professional development, providing valuable insights for supervisors across different higher education units.

3. Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks

As a study that seeks to address everyday practitioner concerns when recruiting, retaining, and developing student workers and also to contribute to the scholarly body of literature on student employment, this study leveraged both a conceptual and theoretical framework to understand and interpret this study’s qualitative data. Together, these frameworks were more applicable than general leadership or developmental models, as they offered field-specific insights into how supervisors support student workers’ growth, confidence, and retention.

Conceptually, the research team reviewed NASPA’s and ACPA’s professional competency areas for student affairs educators, which includes ten professional competencies meant to be integrated within student affairs programs meant to develop professional student affairs practitioners: (1) Personal and Ethical Foundations, (2) Values, Philosophy, and History, (3) Assessment, Evaluation, and Research, (4) Law, Policy, and Governance, (5) Organizational and Human Resources, (6) Leadership, (7) Social Justice and Inclusion, (8) Student Learning and Development, (9) Technology, and (10) Advising and Supporting [14]. Although these competencies are meant to be developed by professionals or pre-professionals within student affairs programs and not pre-professional college student workers, these competencies are the closest proxy to a set of standards for supervisors to follow when supporting and developing student workers within student affairs. Moreover, the research team wanted to learn which pre-professional competencies student workers were developing as a result of work with their supervisor, and NASPA/ACPA’s professional competencies provided an ample structure from which to understand our qualitative data and explore how student workers developed under supervision within a student affairs context [14].

Theoretically, the research team leaned on Tull’s theory of synergistic supervision, an approach to student affairs supervision that emphasizes collaboration, mutual growth, and the development of both the supervisor and the supervisee [15]. Within this reciprocal relationship, Tull urged open communication between supervisors and their teams, mutual goal setting to ensure individual and collective growth and reflection, support and feedback to bolster individual achievement, and empowerment to allow staff to feel involved in critical decision-making processes and outcomes [15]. These tenets were critical in helping the research team understand whether student workers perceived their supervisors as a recruitment and retention mechanism, as research has clearly delineated the critical difference between efforts to initially recruit student workers [18,19,20,21] and then retain these workers through various mechanisms meant to enhance a student’s sense of purpose, confidence, and belonging, as well as their pre-professional development [20]. These ten main tenets of Tull’s theory [15] served as deductive codes in an initial round of data analysis, explained in greater detail later in this study.

4. Materials and Methods

To explore how student workers view their supervisors as mechanisms of recruitment and retention, this study adopted a qualitative focus group approach to explore how these student workers’ experiences with their supervisor and how they understood their recruitment and retention related to their on-campus student employment position (see Appendix A). The following sections will detail how the research team identified and recruited participants, collected and analyzed data, and addressed limitations.

4.1. IRB Approval and Recruiting Participants

The research team’s primary institution of higher education’s institutional review board approved this study. All relevant documents related to this approval can be provided upon request from the authors. Several members of the research team are members of a nationwide educational organization meant to collaborate with institutions of higher education to inform the financial wellness field, including how peer educators can be trained to discuss financial wellness with other college students. The research team networked within this organization to connect with student affairs professionals who supervise peer financial mentors, a type of student worker that may be difficult to recruit and retain given the unique skill set and knowledge required to perform financial mentoring [8]. Through this organizational network, the research team connected with student affairs supervisors at seven different institutions of higher education, collectively supervising 54 peer financial mentors, a healthy number of participants to reach data saturation. Through their supervisors, student workers were invited to focus groups via email, advertising a one-hour, semi-structured focus group held over Zoom. Ultimately, all 54 peer financial mentors participated in these focus groups. A display matrix of these peer financial educators can be found in Appendix B of this study.

4.2. Data Collection

Adhering to Saldaña and Omasta’s best practices for focus group research, qualitative framework, the research team held focus groups using open-ended questions to allow participants to provide their own responses and build upon the responses of others [24]. Focus groups were held at agreed-upon times, with each focus group having at least two peer financial mentors per group. When interviews concluded, we used Zoom to auto-transcribe the audio files, with the research team reviewing each transcription manually for accuracy. To protect privacy, we assigned participant pseudonyms and masked identifying information. All files were stored on encrypted cloud servers using password protection, per best practices [24].

4.3. Data Analysis

The research team conducted three rounds of data analysis, with deductive rounds of coding based on NASPA/APCA’s professional competencies [14] and Tull’s theory of synergistic supervision [15]. First, based on NASPA/APCA’s (2015) professional competencies, the research team generated ten deductive codes to correspond with each of the ten professional competencies, coded the data independently, and then collaborated to share results, eliminate infrequent codes, and perform inter-reliability ratings analysis per best practices [24]. After this initial round, the research team generated five deductive codes based on Tull’s synergistic supervision, including (1) mutual goals, (2) open communication, (3) professional development, (4) supportive environment, and (5) feedback and reflection [15]. Consistent with Saldaña and Omasta’s best practices, the research team again coded independently, collaborated to share results, eliminated infrequent codes, and performed inter-reliability ratings [24]. Finally, the research team conducted a final round of coding using the strongest codes from the previous two rounds of analysis to re-code the data, ensure the consistency of initial codes, and explore coding overlap and relationships to help themes emerge. Once this round was complete, the team again collaborated to discuss results, merging codes into unified themes that best answered this study’s research questions. Ultimately, these three rounds of coding, along with several rounds of collaboration and code consolidation among the research team, produced five clear themes to successfully address this study’s research questions.

4.4. Limitations

Although this study’s sample size could be considered robust for qualitative research [24], there are many units in student affairs in higher education, and this study only collected qualitative data from peer financial mentors and not their supervisors. Prior research has already explored student workers’ experiences in academic libraries [19], research settings [20], and student recreation [18]. From here, future research could address how student workers perceive their supervisors and whether these supervisors were critical to student workers’ recruitment and retention in their roles, including further engagement with supervisors in qualitative settings.

Moreover, this study conceptualized, theorized, and analyzed data through limited but intentional lenses, including the NASPA/ACPA professional competencies [14] and Tull’s synergistic supervision [15]. However, there are likely many other conceptual frameworks and theories that could be used to deeply and meaningfully engage with qualitative data and inform how student workers are recruited and retained, including any role that their supervisor plays in their recruitment, retention, or pre-professional development.

5. Findings

Through the lenses of NASPA/ACPA’s professional competencies and Tull’s synergistic supervision, data from this study reveal five distinct themes pertinent to the recruitment and retention of student workers and the perceived roles their supervisors play in these processes, categorized by recruitment and retention strategies. Specific to recruitment, (1) student workers were successfully recruited by supervisors, positioning work as flexible and career-oriented. Crossing boundaries of recruitment and retention, (2) student workers were recruited by supervisors who communicated professional development opportunities before employment and followed through on those opportunities during employment. Then, specific to retention, (3) student workers were retained because supervisors who took the time to build individual relationships with them, and (4) who empowered them to develop a sense of confidence in their work. Finally, one overarching theme touched upon the recruitment, retention, and pre-professional development of student workers: (5) the supervisor matters.

5.1. Recruitment: Supervisors Positioned Work as Flexible and Career Oriented

By a wide margin, the most important recruitment mechanism that was touched upon by every student worker in this study was that their future supervisor recruited them by positioning their work as flexible and career-oriented. Specific to flexibility, several student workers explicitly used the term flexible to describe how their future, now current, supervisor pitched the work before they started. Brian (University of Cascade) said, “It was explained as a job that could be flexible with my school schedule,” while Luna (East Plains University) claimed, “[Our supervisor] was clear with me that this job was flexible and could be done without changing my schedule.” Other student workers echoed this sentiment, with Monica (Prairie Ridge University) saying that “I wanted to work on campus out of convenience, and when [my supervisor] explained about how flexible the hours were, I knew I wanted the job.” Similarly, Zeke (University of Mountaingate) said, “I really couldn’t beat the flexible hours,” while Jasmine (Ocean Crest University) added, “I needed a flexible job and not crazy nighttime or weekend hours, and [my supervisor] let me know that we could do that.” Notably, when participants made these assertions, other participants in the focus group often nodded their heads, gave a thumbs-up, or inputted a Zoom reaction such as the heart or applause emoji to indicate their agreement with these statements. Overall, every participant in this study either mentioned how their supervisor recruited them through positioning their work as flexible or signaled agreement with a participant who vocalized the sentiment.

However, beyond flexibility, David made an interesting point that worked to segue into how supervisors also recruited student workers by positioning their work as career-oriented. When asked why he pursued on-campus student work, David replied, “It’s hard to find campus jobs that are flexible that will really look good on a resume and help you stand out.” Other student workers echoed David’s statement, explaining that, initially, their supervisor also positioned their work as career-oriented, allowing student workers to envision how their work on campus could be seen as an investment in their future. Barbara (University of Cascade) summarized many participants’ feelings when she said the following:

What really interested me about this position in particular was the opportunity to have substantive, meaningful on-campus employment. There are a lot of on-campus jobs here at the university, but not all of them help me develop or would help me develop the same competencies and professional skills that I think will be very useful when I graduate. This job in particular seemed like it’d be a great opportunity to develop some real-world experience.

When asked how Barbara determined the work was “substantive” or “meaningful,” Barbara mentioned her supervisor: “Our supervisor did a great job letting us know that this work could prepare us for our careers.” In another focus group, Carmen (River Valley University) made a similar comment:

I really am interested in helping people plan for retirement after college. So I want to get a financial advisor role somewhere. And I thought this experience would give me the opportunity to start working one-on-one with people discussing their money and helping them manage it.

Again, when probed to better understand how Carmen understood this employment “experience” before taking the job, she mentioned her supervisor. Carmen explained, “I was at a career fair and [our supervisor] said I could practice my career before I started my career, and that’s what sold me.” Akin to comments regarding flexibility, all but one student worker (Jordan, East Plains University, Physics major) shook their head after Jacob (also East Plains University, Economics and Finance major) said, “[My supervisor] let me know this was something that was aligned with my career.” When asked what he would do with his career, Jordan replied, “I’d like to do grad school for Physics, so this isn’t really career aligned per se. But I understand how everyone feels and I agree.”

Ultimately, student workers in this study nearly unanimously agreed that their supervisor’s recruitment mechanism of positioning their student work as flexible and career-oriented was critical for them to pursue their on-campus roles.

5.2. Recruitment and Retention: The Promise and Delivery of Professional Development

Building upon the last theme, many student workers in this study claimed that their supervisor not only promised high-quality and frequent professional development but also that this development was delivered upon while in the job, helping retain the student worker.

As previously mentioned, nearly all student workers recalled their supervisor recruiting them through a positioning of their work as flexible and career-oriented. However, student workers also regularly claimed that their supervisor discussed professional development during the recruitment process and delivered that professional development throughout their time as a student worker. Jared (University of Mountaingate, 7 months on the job) encapsulated much of what was expressed by student workers in this study by saying the following:

[Our supervisor] let us know that we’d learn a lot on the job but that she would really get us prepared. So that was a hook, that I’d actually be trained how to do the job. And I’m finishing my second semester, and I’ve had so much professional development, it’s been great. Some readings, some presentations we’ve attended on campus. Just a lot of extra stuff to help us do the job better.

Similarly, Michael (East Plains University), the longest tenured student worker in the study, also commented on how he appreciated his supervisor’s follow through regarding professional development. Michael said, “I remember back when I first met [my supervisor] and how she was going to provide that ongoing support and resources for us and she has. Every year I’ve worked here, there’s always been PD (professional development) opportunities.”

Other student workers made broader comments on the importance of their supervisor providing ongoing professional development as a retention mechanism, with Rachel (River Valley University) remarking, “[Our supervisor] is always providing training and constantly wants us to improve on our own knowledge of what it means to be a mentor. She makes us all better.” Samantha (Midstate University) also commented on the role of ongoing professional development, stating, “[Our supervisor] said that from the beginning, and that’s been important to me throughout, the ongoing training. Beyond the money we make, I have felt like I’ve learned a lot and really been developed as a mentor and a person.” Another student worker likened the ongoing professional development from their supervisor as part of their compensation package, with Owen (East Plains University), an older senior at 25 years of age, explaining:

I could have gotten more [money] doing something else off campus, for sure. But [my supervisor] really emphasized the professional development. I wasn’t gonna get that flipping burgers, and so I really visualized that as my compensation. Pay and development.

Overall, student workers felt both recruited and retained by the promise of and delivery of professional development by their supervisor. Moreover, student workers often weighed competing job opportunities but viewed ongoing professional development as a type of compensation, both recruiting and retaining them as student workers, specifically working in peer financial mentoring.

5.3. Retention: Supervisors Empowered Student Workers to Develop Confidence

Building upon the prior theme related to professional development, student workers also nearly unanimously agreed that the most critical attribute they developed via empowerment from their supervisor was a sense of confidence. In all, 29 of the 54 student workers in this study mentioned “confidence” at least once in their responses when asked whether their supervisor had supported their individual growth as student workers. Examples include the following:

Benjamin (River Valley University): She facilitated great professional development, so we were ready before we started, which really added to my confidence.

Laura (University of Cascade): [Our supervisor] has helped me feel more confident when I am doing the work and that’s all on her.

Richard (Prairie Ridge University): I didn’t think I had the skills, maybe, to do this job right away, but [our supervisor] built my confidence to the point where eventually, I was mentoring without supervision and felt great.

Oscar (Ocean Crest University): My confidence has really improved. It took time, but [our supervisor] kept working with us until I got there.

Eliza (University of Mountaingate): Even if my mentoring session didn’t go great, she was so encouraging and positive, and it just boosted my confidence.

Here, many student workers shared that their supervisor was able to work with them to build their confidence, ultimately leading to the student workers feeling supported and being retained in their positions. However, many student workers in this study were studying either business, finance, economics, or a related field, and peer financial mentoring was seen as ideal student work for pre-professional development in a business or finance-related field. Inversely, Jade (University of Mountaingate, Psychology major) was not planning to pursue a business or finance-related field, yet she also mentioned how her supervisor built her confidence through student work:

I’m not really pursuing a career in business. I mostly wanted to get mentoring experience because in psychology, it’s a lot of mentoring. So when I started, I knew that was the experience I wanted but I had no prior experience. And so my supervisor really helped me build that confidence and get that experience.

Here, like peers at other institutions, Jade’s supervisor improved her confidence by allowing her the opportunity to receive the pre-professional experience she needed for her major and career path. Although an earlier finding indicated that many student workers were drawn to their positions because of their career-oriented nature, Jade was an outlier in that she was not majoring in a business or finance-related field and had no plans to pursue a business career, yet her supervisor was able to similarly build Jade’s confidence to pursue her chosen career path.

5.4. Retention: The Importance of Individual Relationship Building

Once in the position, student workers claimed that they enjoyed their role and were retained because supervisors took the time to build individual relationships with them. Notably, student workers generally indicated that supervisors established strong connections with student workers on an individual basis, and once this connection was established, student workers could sense collective feelings of camaraderie and support in the workplace. Encapsulating the thoughts of many student workers in this study, Ava (East Plains University), one of the longest tenured student workers in this study, described their relationship with their supervisor as “ideal”:

Our supervisor put in the time to get to know us, and that has created really the ideal office setup here. We can joke around in the office but also learn a lot from [our supervisor] and you know, like I said, we all just have a good relationship. So it’s not like you have to come into work and be sad for your 10 h a week and there’s no fun and no happiness and no smiles. So, I appreciate that.

Ada attended a focus group with three peers, and as she spoke, all other student workers nodded in agreement, with Patrick (East Plains University) adding, “That nailed it. It was individual connections that grew into the team.” Consensus was also reached across different focus groups with student workers from the same institution. For example, David (River Valley University) asserted that, “When I met our supervisor, she made it a point to connect with me and encourage me to sharpen my skills, and now, we all seem to have that relationship with her.” Rachel (also from River Valley University, in a different focus group) echoed David, saying that when she met her supervisor, “…we clicked right away, and she just made me feel like she cared about me. And I’m only finishing my first year, but everyone just vibes with each other and it’s basically because of our supervisor.”

Other student workers shared more personal stories that these student workers eventually connected back to a collective sense of camaraderie and support, regardless of group dynamics, catalyzed by their supervisor. Noel remembered that his supervisor also worked as a lecturer in his degree plan and took an interest in his writing, leading to a much deeper connection and, ultimately, a student worker position. Noel (Prairie Ridge University) recalled:

We met in my Investment Banking class and I wanted a career in personal finance. And so I wrote my essay about how I kind of wanted to do more personal financial coaching. And my supervisor pulled me aside and said I could do that kind of work here on campus.

However, Noel went a step further and explained:

So I eventually started the job, and my supervisor never really let me fall through the cracks. She always checked in on me and made sure I felt like I was an important part of the team because I think we’re a big team. But she’s good like that with everyone. We’ve all talked, and she is excellent at maintaining relationships and creating a great work environment.

To Noel’s point, Prairie Ridge University had employed ten student workers within the financial wellness office during his employment, one of the largest student worker offices captured in this study. However, Monica (also from Prairie Ridge University) shared a personal story of meeting her supervisor and establishing a personal connection that parlayed into a supportive work environment with other student workers. Monica recalled:

I met [our supervisor] at a table event near one of the cafeterias. I needed a campus job because I bring my daughter here for daycare, and I didn’t want to leave her here. So I shared that, and [our supervisor] asked me about my daughter, how I was doing, and what [our supervisor] could do to make the position work for me. That meant everything. From then on, I knew she had my back. So when I got started in the position, it was exactly the position she said it was. Everyone feels supported like I initially did and still do. So I’m not going anywhere until graduation. I love it.

Notably, Noel was a 20-year-old queer White undergraduate student, and Monica was a 51-year-old cisgender Black graduate student. Despite their differences and the size of their student worker office, their supervisor was able to forge relationships with them, first individually and then as a team, ultimately retaining them as student workers. Ultimately, this was a sentiment shared by nearly all student workers in this study: their supervisor had built individual relationships and then fostered those individual relationships toward a collective sense of camaraderie and support, which retained student workers “until graduation.”

5.5. Recruitment and Retention: The Supervisor Matters

Finally, and perhaps the most critical recruitment and retention mechanism of student workers in this study, student workers unanimously mentioned their supervisor as a major reason why they were recruited and retained in their roles as peer financial wellness mentors. Beyond positioning work as flexible and career-oriented, promising and delivering professional development, empowering confidence, and building relationships, student workers in this study strongly asserted that their supervisor’s warm personality, passion for the work, and overall disposition made the student work position irresistible.

In a focus group with three of his peers, Adam (University of Mountaingate) remembered his interview and recalled, “When I interviewed for the job, I knew I really wanted it because of [our supervisor] her. She was just so warm and inviting.” All three peers nodded their heads, with Eliza adding, “That was my first impression, too. And she had such a passion for finance. Like, how could I not work for her [our supervisor]?” Student workers from other institutions also praised their supervisor’s warm personality, with Kevin (University of Cascade) stating, “She [our supervisor] was so welcoming from the get go. Our first conversation made me feel like yeah, this is a really passionate person I want to work for.” Both Luna and Stella (Prairie Ridge University) attended the same focus group and had been onboarded at the same time in their positions. Luna started by saying, “She [our supervisor] was so, so friendly. I felt like we immediately connected and it felt like she cared about me beyond just the work.” Stella extended Luna’s words by responding, “I aspire to be as kind and compassionate as [my supervisor]. I definitely want to be like her more. She’s just such a nice human being.”

Not only were student workers appreciative of their supervisor’s disposition, but several student workers had held other jobs on campus and expressed feelings that their former supervisors were not as supportive and passionate about their work as their current supervisor. For example, Brian (University of Cascade) was a senior only one month into his position, immediately comparing his supervisor to prior on-campus supervisors:

I’ve had other campus jobs. I worked in the kitchen serving pizza, and then I worked in the library. Those were just jobs and my supervisors were not really there. For this job, [our supervisor] has a passion for this and it’s contagious. I can tell [our supervisor] loves it and cares about us. It’s the total opposite from other supervisors.

Similarly, both Tyler and Evelyn (Ocean Crest University) were in the same focus group and reflected similarly on their supervisors, as both had worked other on-campus jobs before their current ones:

Evelyn: I really appreciate [our supervisor] actually. I think [our supervisor] may have worked in a financial field before doing this job and [our supervisor’s] passion for doing this just rubs off.

Tyler: Totally. [Our supervisor] is the most driven person I’ve been around since I started [at this institution]. Other supervisors I’ve had, it just felt like they were doing the job just to do it, you know?

Evelyn: Yep, that was my basic feeling, too. This is only my second job here, but I’m glad I changed jobs.

Interviewer: And so you both prefer your current supervisor over your other ones?

Tyler: One hundred percent.

Evelyn: Yes.

Tyler: And it’s because of what I said. [Our supervisor] is a great role model for us in terms of work ethic and passion for this field. And [our supervisor] is just a nice person.

Evelyn: Yes, I totally agree. [Our supervisor’s] so nice.

Several other student workers shared similar sentiments, suggesting that their supervisors were both passionate about the type of work they were doing and were nice, caring people who made their student workers feel valued, or at least valued enough to be retained in their roles.

6. Discussion

This study sought to understand how student workers described the role their supervisor played in their recruitment and retention, and whether these student workers could identify supervisor traits and behaviors that may lead to increased recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction. Ultimately, student workers in this study shared that their supervisors were incredibly influential in whether they were recruited to and retained in their on-campus employment positions. This influence included supervisors positioning the work as flexible and career-oriented, promising and delivering professional development, empowering student workers to develop confidence, and building individual relationships with student workers, all helping to recruit and retain the student workers in their roles.

First, student workers in this study claimed that their supervisors effectively demonstrated many of NASPA/ACPA’s Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators, primarily “Leadership” [14], p. 27, “Organizational and Human Resources” [14], p. 24, “Student Learning and Development” [14], p. 32, and “Advising and Supporting” [14], p. 36. Based on the findings in this study, student workers felt their supervisors understood and applied human resource management principles, including recruitment strategies that emphasized flexibility and career development opportunities. Moreover, their supervisors created and implemented professional development programs that supported recruitment and retention, while demonstrating soft skills through effective management, team building, and student support. Additionally, student workers believed their supervisors led by positioning roles in ways that attracted and retained talent by highlighting career growth and flexibility and ensuring that professional development opportunities were promised and delivered, which fostered a culture of continuous learning and growth and empowered student workers to develop a sense of confidence. These findings echo Lassalle and Richard’s [20] and Kenney and Painter’s [19] prior work, specifically that supervisors need to foster a sense of confidence in student workers while also positioning student work as translatable to postgraduate employment settings. Of course, supervisors also demonstrated competencies related to “Personal and Ethical Foundations” [14], p. 16, “Values, Philosophy, and History” [14], p. 18, “Assessment, Evaluation, and Research” [14], p. 20, “Social Justice and Inclusion” [14], p. 30, and “Technology” [14], p. 33, as student workers often praised their supervisors’ overall demeanor, work ethic, inclusivity, and provision of professional development, which was often described as forms of assessment that integrated technology. However, student workers prioritized other competencies.

Second, many of this study’s findings also build upon Tull’s theory of synergistic supervision [15], mainly that student workers appreciated supervisors who ensured individual and collective growth, provided support and feedback to bolster individual achievement, and empowered staff to develop a sense of confidence. Many other studies have found the same to be true of supervisors [18,19,21], with student workers also emphasizing the importance of career-oriented work [20]. However, student workers in this study did not discuss goals or goal setting, a key tenet of Tull’s theory. Instead, student workers discussed continuous growth and development without mentioning a goal or goals specifically, possibly implying that flexible and career-oriented student work would prepare them to achieve the goal of landing a job after they graduate. Yet, it is notable that in this study, student workers did not mention the term “goal” or a related synonym, possibly highlighting the importance of continuous professional development rather than one-time goal setting and achievement. Furthermore, student workers did not discuss whether their supervisor involved them in decision-making processes and outcomes, another critical tenet for Tull [15]; rather, student workers discussed the various decisions that their supervisor made, which resulted in recruitment to and retention in their on-campus positions. As a result, future research may want to address how supervisors influence the goals and career aspirations of their student workers.

Third, it is critical to note that student workers in this study were trained as peer financial mentors, working one-on-one with peers to discuss matters of personal finance, credit, student loans, and other financial issues pertinent to college students. Here, student workers were being prepared for an on-campus role that inherently required them to set goals with their mentees and make decisions on how to communicate with their mentees, which resources to provide, and when to elevate their mentees’ concerns to their supervisor or another campus authority figure. As a result, it is important to understand that the scope of this study was to explore student worker perceptions of their supervisors, not the work itself. Subsequently, supervisors may have facilitated many, if not all, of NASPA/ACPA’s competencies [14] and all tenets of Tull’s theory of synergistic supervision [15]; however, student workers were not prompted to discuss the contours of their work per the aims of this study.

Finally, student workers admired their supervisors’ positioning of their work as flexible and career-oriented, promising and delivering professional development, and empowering student workers to develop confidence. However, much of what student workers described as relationship building could be distilled down to likability: Student workers in this study strongly preferred a likable supervisor who was nice, compassionate, passionate, and made student workers feel cared about. In fact, student workers who held previous on-campus jobs often compared their current supervisor to their former supervisor, essentially suggesting that their current supervisor was more likable, and, thus, more preferable. By comparison, student workers praised their current supervisors for their “work ethic,” “compassionate” nature, and “passion” for their work, equating these terms to likability and implying that their former supervisors did not possess these characteristics. Given these major findings and connections to theory and prior literature, much can be gleaned regarding future research, theory, policy, and practice.

7. Implications

7.1. Research

Based on the findings of this study, future research could focus much more on how student workers perceive their supervisors, especially given the high turnover rates of higher education professionals [2,3] and the critical role that student employment plays within broader student development and workforce readiness [7,8,22]. This study suggests that student workers strongly preferred supervisors with certain characteristics and who facilitated flexible and career-oriented work with many professional development opportunities. However, it is critical to acknowledge that this study focused on student workers who served as peer financial mentors within student affairs units. In addition, many student workers in this study were business majors or came from similar academic backgrounds, limiting the generalizability of this study and opening further avenues for future research. From here, future research could extend beyond peer financial mentoring and examine all other forms of student work, including work that may not be seen as flexible or career-oriented, such as groundskeeping or janitorial duties. Furthermore, future studies could engage with supervisors to explore their perceptions of their own competencies and ability to recruit and retain student workers, while these studies could also employ different conceptual and theoretical frameworks that may yield different findings and implications for on-campus student employment.

7.2. Theory

This study reinforces and extends Tull’s theory of synergistic supervision [15] by demonstrating its applicability not only to professional staff but also to student workers. The findings suggest that key tenets of the theory—such as open communication, support, and empowerment—are equally valued by student workers, even if they do not explicitly articulate concepts like mutual goal setting or shared decision-making. This indicates that synergistic supervision may be more broadly relevant across hierarchical levels in student affairs than previously assumed.

Additionally, the study highlights the potential for NASPA/ACPA’s professional competencies [14] to serve as a developmental framework for student workers, not just professional staff who may be developed by student affairs programs. While these competencies were not originally designed for student employees, participants’ reflections suggest that they are developing skills aligned with these areas through their supervisory relationships. This opens the door for future theoretical work to adapt or extend these competencies to better reflect the developmental trajectories of student workers in higher education contexts. More specifically, theorists working in the fields of education and personal finance should collaborate to develop unified theories to better address student development along the lines of professional development and networking, as well as developing a sense of financial wellness [8], which—to date—have not been addressed by theory.

7.3. Policy

At the institutional level, administrators and program managers of student workers could explore drafting and implementing policies that provide initial and ongoing supervisory training, specifically emphasizing that frameworks should be in place to provide student workers with ongoing and meaningful professional development. Moreover, institutional policies could address how student workers are recruited and retained, including how job postings are written and how supervisors discuss the nature of student work, highlighting any aspect of the work that is flexible or career-oriented. Finally, institutional leaders should strive to put policies in place to screen supervisors before hire to ensure these individuals are passionate about their work and possess the soft skills necessary to recruit and retain student workers.

7.4. Practice

For supervisors, findings from this study emphasize the need for on-campus employment positions to be as flexible as possible, career-oriented, include ongoing professional development, and facilitate opportunities for students to build relationships with others and develop a sense of confidence. Here, supervisors can work together across units on campus to better understand how student work can be flexible, connected to careers, and facilitate reciprocal relationships where students build relationships with one another and with their supervisor. Partnerships could be formed between career services units and any other unit employing student workers, making connections for students between their student work and their future careers. Moreover, the supervisors of student workers could facilitate social gatherings with supervisors and student workers from different units, encouraging all stakeholders to connect with their peers and develop a sense of community, which may lead to better retention of both supervisors and student workers.

8. Conclusions

Filling a critical gap in the research related to student worker perceptions of their supervisors, this study leveraged NASPA/ACPA’s professional competency areas [14] and Tull’s synergistic supervision [15] as conceptual and theoretical frameworks to understand how college student workers view supervisors in recruiting and retaining them. Through semi-structured focus groups with 54 college student workers, the findings suggest that student workers view supervisors as critical to their recruitment if the work is positioned as flexible and career-oriented. Moreover, student workers appreciated supervisors who promised and then delivered professional development during employment, preparing them for the workforce. Additionally, student workers want and need a supervisor who builds a professional relationship with them and who empowers them to develop a sense of confidence through their work. Ultimately, higher education as a system has reached an inflection point where professionals are leaving the field at high numbers [1,2] and student workers are seeking opportunities beyond campus to earn money while enrolled [5,6]. These two forces should catalyze a wealth of future research in the area of the supervision of student workers and the recruitment and retention mechanisms of these student workers, while also highlighting how supervisors can develop themselves in their role, exemplifying Tull’s synergistic supervision [15]. Here, it is critical for student workers and their supervisors to “connect,” and it is hoped that future research and practice will continue to make and refine these connections to benefit all stakeholders involved.