Meeting with an academic advisor may be one of the few, if not the only, one-on-one interactions an undergraduate student has with faculty or staff outside of classroom matters. This interaction connects students to the curriculum of their selected major and campus resources but, most importantly, the academic advisor provides a direct connection to the institution (Nutt, 2003) and fosters the further holistic development within the student. As such, academic advising is often connected to increased retention and persistence (Bryant, 2016; Drake, 2011; Nutt, 2003). Despite this important role, institutions do not engage in critical reflection on how they are supporting and/or impeding the development of those advisors new to this crucial position. To address how organizational culture supports and impedes the development of a new advisor, this study employed qualitative research methods in a descriptive, embedded, single-case case study at a southeastern research university. Using the NACADA academic advising core competencies and organizational socialization, twenty-eight individuals – new advisors, seasoned advisors, advisor trainers, and advising center directors – were interviewed, four new advisors participated in a focus group, and hundreds of pages of documents were analyzed. This study found that the culture of different colleges was varied, but each reflected a similar desire for students to develop and succeed despite there not being an overarching university advising mission. Additionally, the boundaries, responses, and tactics were similar across each college. The informational and relational core competencies were the most often discussed by advisors and highly valued in practice, with a few advisors articulating the value of the conceptual component. The advisors also expressed various levels of perceived support at the university level. Overall, the institution supported new advisors through college-level advisor training and professional development, creating an advisor job family and a campus-based advising organization, and developing an advising initiative. Conversely, new advisor development was impeded by the lack of a central advising mission and centralized office or administrator, lack of upper administration understanding the value of advising, no university-based training, and increased enrollment that outpaced advisor hires. As such, this study recommends that institutions develop a centralized advising mission and training program to provide support to new advisors.