40 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

CAMPUS NOTES David B. Johnson, Senior Associate Editor

How Using a Common Language 
Helped Define Staff Selection
Gabe Wical and Erica Lezan

The office of New Student Orientation at North Carolina State University is 
responsible for the collective efforts of planning and organizing nine 2-day and three 
1-day orientation sessions each summer. One of the most important functions of our job
every year is to recruit and select a new student staff to make this happen. The amount 
of time and energy spent on this task may be small compared to the actual planning of
Orientation, but the success of the programs largely depends on the qualities and traits 
of the student staff that represents us each summer. We take great pride in the high
expectations and professional standards that we set for our staff, which makes the 
selection process all the more critical.  

Our selection model is much like those at other colleges and universities and like 
other departments on our campus seeking to employ student leaders in mentoring 
positions. We begin with a large-scale recruitment campaign throughout campus with
flyers, posters, banners, and e-mails to listservs. We rely heavily on word of mouth, 
particularly from campus partners who work with and depend on our staff during
Orientation. Interested students are sent to a Web site and are asked to fill out an online
application. After completing the application, every candidate goes through a 30-minute
individual interview with two professional staff members as well as a group interview 
in which professional staff members and former student staff members rate their 
performance in group activities. Each year, around 75 to 85 students go through the
process and ultimately around 30 are selected to serve as Orientation Counselors (OCs).

One of the most challenging aspects of selecting staff members is distinguishing
among a large pool of highly qualified candidates. Often, there seems to be only minor
variations when comparing one candidate to another—most have excellent interpersonal
skills, a strong academic record, and a solid work ethic, among other very desirable 
qualities. We often found it difficult to verbalize why we would select one candidate
over another, even though we were fairly certain the students we selected would be able
to do the job well (and for various reasons those we did not select would not).

Our process worked well until we began to include more former staff members in 
our group interview process. After each interview, the interviewers would meet to 
discuss our thoughts on each candidate. We found that we were often looking for 
similar qualities, but we each assigned different value to various attributes or skills that

Gabe Wical (jgwical@gw.fis.ncsu.edu) is the Interim Director of New Student Orientation, and Erica Lezan
(elezan@gw.fis.ncsu.edu) is the Assistant Director of New Student Orientation, both at North Carolina State
University.



41Spring 2007  •  Volume 14, Number 2

the students possessed. We realized we needed to create a standard language or rubric so
we could compare each student based on the same criteria. 

Creating a rubric also helped to address the difficulty of explaining to campus partners
why a student they recommended was not offered a position on the staff. We seek a wide
range of skills and qualities in our staff; our partners, not understanding all that we
require, would sometimes recommend students with only a subset of the attributes 
necessary to be selected. This situation has at times caused stress in relationships and
threatened to reduce the number of referrals we get from the people who have interaction
with a large number of potential candidates. We believed that creating and sharing our
selection rubric would address this concern with our partners. 

The Rubric

Over time, a rubric for what exactly we were looking for in potential staff members
was developed (see Appendix). As a staff, we decided that OCs were successful because
of their ability to perform in three different capacities: in front of a group, within the
team, and in their representation of New Student Orientation. This is not to say that we
only hired students highly developed in all three components; often it was the potential
for development that we were evaluating. Having a common rubric for evaluating staff
allowed for easier and more productive selection meetings; we were able to select based
on the rubric criteria, knowing from the beginning which aspects we would have to work
on most during training for each staff member.  

The first component of the rubric, the ability to lead a group, was an obvious 
component in staff selection. The professional staff plans Orientation, but it is the OCs
who carry out each session. OCs meet with students in small groups throughout the 
sessions, take them on campus tours, and help them through the registration process.
Students coming to Orientation need to be reassured that they made the right decision to
attend our institution and that they will be happy in their new home. OCs are influential
in achieving this goal, and therefore must be comfortable and confident in front of
incoming students.

Before Orientation begins, OCs go through more than 100 hours of group training.
The students work up to 16-hour days during the orientation season and live together on
one floor of a residence hall for 6 weeks during the summer. Their ability to work in a
team, to depend on one another, and to reach out to one another when they most need it
is essential for the success of the program. Moreover, when working with a group of
highly regarded leaders on campus, it is sometimes difficult for students to ask their
peers for help and to see themselves both as leaders and equal members of the team.
During the interviewing process, therefore, determining whether students are able to
switch between being the leader and being a group member is an important task.  

We pride ourselves on being among the most professional, helpful, and friendly staffs
on our campus and we continuously tell our staff that as a program we have very high
standards. As the first interaction that students have with the university after being 
officially admitted, Orientation should make them confident they made the correct



42 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

choice. The orientation staff represents the entire university, so we expect that they will
always be on time, follow a fairly strict dress code, remain attentive at all times, not
carry cell phones, and always be available to assist incoming students and their parents.
These qualities do not always come naturally to students, so we must work hard during
training to clearly define our expectations. While not many students will apply to be an
Orientation Counselor with these skills, we seek candidates that demonstrate they 
understand what it takes to appropriately represent something greater than they are.

Lessons Learned

The recruitment and selection process for our student staff has been one of continual
development and learning for our office. We certainly do not claim to have all of the
answers to how to choose a perfect staff, nor are we attempting to build the perfect staff
before any of our training begins, but we believe we are getting closer to where we need
to be in this process. We used to begin each recruitment e-mail or letter we sent to the
campus community with a generic statement about looking for campus leaders, a phrase
that can be and was interpreted in a multitude of ways. Having created a rubric of the
specific aspects for which we are looking, we can now share this information with 
campus partners who help us to recruit their students, and to candidates going through
our process. Most importantly, this rubric helps us with the actual selection of our staff
by helping us focus on the key components of the position and helping us realize that
potential staff members need not be perfect, but instead must portray the potential to 
fit our staff, the position, and our program.  



43Spring 2007  •  Volume 14, Number 2

A
P
P
EN

D
IX

N
or

th
C
ar

ol
in

a
S
ta

te
U

ni
ve

rs
it
y

N
ew

S
tu

de
nt

O
ri

en
ta

ti
on

S
ta

ff
S
el

ec
ti
on

R
ub

ri
c

D
es

cr
ip

ti
on

E
xc

el
le

n
t

G
oo

d
F

ai
r

P
oo

r

L
ea

d
in

g
a

G
ro

u
p

A
lw

ay
s

or
O

ft
en

S
om

et
im

es
S

el
d

om
N

ev
er

•
Is

ar
ti

cu
la

te
an

d
co

nc
is

e
•

U
nd

er
st

an
ds

au
di

en
ce

an
d

en
ga

ge
s

th
em

•
D

is
pl

ay
s

ap
pr

op
ri

at
e

bo
dy

la
ng

ua
ge

P
ub

li
c

S
pe

ak
in

g
•

C
on

ve
ys

po
si

ti
ve

no
nv

er
ba

l
co

m
m

un
ic

at
io

n
•

M
ai

nt
ai

ns
ey

e
co

nt
ac

t
•

E
ng

ag
es

in
op

po
rt

un
it

ie
s

to
sp

ea
k

in
pu

bl
ic

w
he

n
av

ai
la

bl
e

•
Is

w
el

co
m

in
g

an
d

m
ak

es
ot

he
rs

fe
el

co
m

fo
rt

ab
le

•
D

em
on

st
ra

te
s

m
at

ur
it

y
In

te
ra

ct
io

ns
•

E
xh

ib
it

s
ch

ar
is

m
a

w
it

h
O

th
er

s
•

E
nc

ou
ra

ge
s

an
d

in
cl

ud
es

ot
he

rs
•

Is
w

el
l-

li
ke

d

•
E

ng
ag

es
in

le
ad

er
sh

ip
op

po
rt

un
it

ie
s

w
he

n
av

ai
la

bl
e

E
xp

er
ie

nc
e

•
D

em
on

st
ra

te
s

ab
il

it
y

to
re

fl
ec

t
w

ha
t

ha
s

be
en

le
ar

ne
d

fr
om

pa
st

ex
pe

ri
en

ce
s

P
ar

t
of

a
G

ro
u

p

•
Is

w
il

li
ng

to
gi

ve
up

co
nt

ro
l

F
ol

lo
w

er
sh

ip
•

S
up

po
rt

iv
e

of
ot

he
rs

•
P

os
it

iv
el

y
co

nt
ri

bu
te

s
•

L
is

te
ns

to
an

d
fo

ll
ow

s
di

re
ct

io
ns



44 The Journal of College Orientation and Transition

A
P
P
EN

D
IX

(C
O
N

T.
)

P
ar

t
of

a
G

ro
u

p
(C

on
t.

)

D
es

cr
ip

ti
on

E
xc

el
le

n
t

G
oo

d
F

ai
r

P
oo

r

•
M

ai
nt

ai
ns

po
si

ti
ve

at
ti

tu
de

In
te

ra
ct

io
ns

•
U

se
s

hu
m

or
ap

pr
op

ri
at

el
y

w
it

h
O

th
er

s
•

In
cl

ud
es

ot
he

rs
in

co
nv

er
sa

ti
on

s,
de

ci
si

on
s,

an
d

ac
ti

vi
ti

es
•

D
em

on
st

ra
te

s
hu

m
il

it
y

•
R

es
pe

ct
s

ot
he

rs

R
ep

re
se

n
ts

th
e

U
n

iv
er

si
ty

an
d

P
ro

gr
am

W
el

l

•
U

se
s

la
ng

ua
ge

ap
pr

op
ri

at
e

to
si

tu
at

io
n

an
d

au
di

en
ce

P
ro

fe
ss

io
na

li
sm

•
Is

pu
nc

tu
al

•
D

re
ss

es
ap

pr
op

ri
at

el
y

•
D

em
on

st
ra

te
s

re
sp

ec
t

fo
r

se
lf

an
d

ot
he

rs

Ju
dg

m
en

t
•

A
bl

e
to

as
se

ss
si

tu
at

io
n

an
d

re
sp

on
d/

ac
t

ac
co

rd
in

gl
y

•
Is

se
lf

-c
en

so
ri

ng

G
en

ui
ne

•
Is

ap
pr

oa
ch

ab
le

,w
el

co
m

in
g,

an
d

op
en

to
ot

he
rs

•
E

xh
ib

it
s

ho
ne

st
y

an
d

si
nc

er
it

y

•
P

ro
vi

de
s

ac
cu

ra
te

in
fo

rm
at

io
n

In
fo

rm
at

io
n

•
S

ta
ys

on
m

es
sa

ge
D

el
iv

er
y

•
Is

co
nc

is
e

w
he

n
sp

ea
ki

ng
•

C
om

m
un

ic
at

es
po

si
ti

ve
m

es
sa

ge
s