(No AI Was Used to Compose This Post)
Early in my career, I used to love making up theories. Former RAs and residence life colleagues might recall my famous Step Back Model of Big-Picture Leadership, the Shaw Mediation Funnel, or the Weenie, Weasel, Barracuda Type Sorter. I won't bore you with the details, although I'm secretly hoping you ask. In any case, none of them were studied or validated, but at the time, they seemed to help provide simple structures for turning concepts into practice.
In real life, I loved the actual theories that scholars dedicated their lives to studying. I still idolize Marcia Baxter-Magolda, Lawrence Kohlberg, and many others, and I want to believe my little models helped the knowledge they created come to life. Perhaps the most famous (or at least easy to remember) student development theory is Nevitt Sanford's Challenge & Support model. In essence, we need to make sure we provide both to students in equal measure. If you challenge someone too much, they won't succeed. If you provide too much support, they'll never learn or thrive.
In a recent Ms. Behavior episode, with guest Brian Norcross, Kurt and I explained Sanford's model and asked Dr. Norcross, a renowned music conductor, how he knew how far was too far to push an artist or ensemble. As Dr. Norcross reflected on the importance of deeply knowing students, Kurt recognized right away that empathy was a key element of the Challenge/Support practice.
Then, something amazing happened. We started talking about positionality. Would it be fair to suggest that a student scheduled to meet with the dean of students might be more nervous than a student meeting with a hall director? Does a college executive who doesn't frequently interact with students have a greater responsibility to recognize that they don't know what they don't know about students' lives? As we talked about Challenge & Support, a new theory took shape (see Figure 1).
| Figure 1 |



