Expanding the Leadership Pipeline in Community Colleges: Fostering Racial Equity

Diversity in the presidential ranks of community colleges with respect to women and leaders of color has improved over time, but attention to equity in leadership development is still lacking. Here, I address the need to provide opportunities for historically underrepresented groups regarding preparing for top leadership positions, but also with respect to mid-level leadership. To explore this issue of equity further, this article first outlines a portrait of the diversity in public community colleges over time. This review includes a look at the positions of the president, chief academic officer, and faculty. Next, exploration of definitions of leadership occurs to understand how conceptions of ideal leaders are based on masculine norms, which historically emerge from the experiences of White men, and how these perspectives limit conceptions of who can lead. Finally, I offer suggestions of ways to broaden the leadership pipeline to achieve opportunities for racial equity in leadership.

LEADERSHIP PORTRAIT

Community colleges have long been hailed as “democracy’s colleges” (Diekhoff, 1950) and “good places to work” (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2017, p. 46). This veneer of openness, however, masks differential experiences for racial minorities in higher education in student persistence and completion (Carter, 2006; Moore & Shulock, 2010), which harkens back to Clark’s (1960) assertion of the cooling out effect of community colleges on higher education aspirations for students. It is especially important for leaders to understand this potential effect on minority students as community colleges enroll the largest percentage of students of color (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). Further, this cooling out effect influences the culture and climate of inclusivity on campus (Garvey, Taylor, & Rankin, 2015). Ward and Wolf-Wendel argue this cooling out effect also impacts mid-level women leaders as many women opt out of moving up the career ladder.

Despite the open access mission of 2-year colleges, diversity in leadership positions, in particular for college presidents has been elusive for those who are not White or men. A quick look at the numbers paints a portrait of leadership that is not broadly representative. For example, the most recent American Council on Education (ACE) survey of presidents (Gagliardi, Espinosa, Turk, & Taylor, 2017) shows that 80% of community college presidents are White, and 36% are women. These numbers represent the first large move in racial diversity in the community college sector since the inception of the survey in 1986 and a slight increase in the number of women. And, when race and gender are intersected, it becomes apparent that the majority of non-White leaders are men of color (12.9% men compared to 7.4% women of color; Gagliardi et al., 2017) (see Table 1 below), resulting in women of color having the least equity of opportunity in securing presidencies of community colleges.

Yet, it is important to note that the most recent survey data show for the first time a real movement in racial diversification of the presidential ranks in community colleges. Pointedly, only a slight majority of presidents at public community colleges are now White men—51.2%; however, when also accounting for White women, Whites still hold the vast majority of presidential positions (79.8%) and the vast majority of community college presidents are still men (64%) (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Table 1 highlights the changes in demographics in public community college leadership over time.

Table 1. Comparison of Changes in Gender and Race/Ethnicity Over Time at Public Community Colleges

(Cook & Kim, 2012; Gagliardi et al., 2017)

The stepping stone position of chief academic officer (CAO) indicates some promise for more women ascending into community college presidencies, as women hold half of CAO slots in 2-year colleges (Eckel, Cook, & King, 2009). However, the potential is not the same with respect to diversifying the presidency in terms of minorities as only 15% of CAOs are not White (Eckel et al., 2009). The pipeline needs to show diversification well before reaching positions in the leadership cabinet to achieve racial equity. Pointedly, in the most recent ACE presidential survey, none of the respondents identified as other than male or female in gender (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Thus, missing from current portraits of community college presidents are transgender individuals. Furthermore, current data indicate 5% of sitting 2-year college presidents are not heterosexual (Gagliardi et al., 2017).

Critically, the leadership at community colleges does not represent those served by the institution. For example, the majority of community college students are women (56.6%), and community colleges serve the largest percentages of students of color in postsecondary education (48.7%; 23.9% Hispanic; 14.4% Black; 6.2% Asian/Pacific Islander; 3.3% two or more races; 1% American Indian; NCES, 2016). Important as well is the fact that 19% of sitting presidents have an associate’s degree (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Thus, planting the seeds of interest in future leadership opportunities when students are currently attending community colleges could have a large impact down the road with respect to racial diversity.

As the majority of community college presidents get their start as faculty members (79.6%; Gagliardi et al., 2017), it is also important to understand the racial makeup of this cohort of community college staff when contemplating what is needed to broaden the leadership pipeline. In the faculty ranks, women are more represented than faculty of color. Women hold 49.5% of full-time faculty positions at public community colleges and 49.3% of part-time positions (NCES, 2016). Like representation in the leadership ranks, however, Whites comprise the bulk of faculty positions (81% of full-time faculty and 84% of part-time faculty; NCES, 2016). These figures mirror the current minority leader percentages (20.2%) and highlight how consideration of broadening the leadership pipeline must begin earlier and move beyond merely looking at dean or vice-presidential positions when contemplating succession planning. Given that the vast majority of sitting leaders got their start in the community college classroom, it is imperative to address diversification of the faculty ranks to begin opening up the pipeline for racial equity in community college leadership. Concurrently, increasing diverse representation of leaders can also begin by focusing on the 20% of presidential hires that come from nonfaculty lines, such as other offices within the community college (17.4%) or from outside of higher education (11.4%; Gagliardi et al., 2017).

It is important to consider the leadership of community colleges and who occupies these positions for several reasons. Recently, community colleges have been the focus of national attention as an avenue to help address the needs of business and industry in filling mid-skills positions (Yarnall, 2014), as a mechanism to achieve prominence in the number of its citizens with postsecondary education (McPhail, 2011), and as a linchpin for workforce development (Van Noy, Jacobs, Korey, Bailey, & Hughes, 2008). Yet, these institutions are also at a crossroads as public funding has declined, which makes it impossible to continue to be all things to all people (Vaughan, 2004). The paradoxes facing community colleges require skilled leaders at the helm (Sydow & Alfred, 2012). Managing today’s complex community colleges also requires rethinking leadership development (Eddy, Sydow, Alfred, & Garza Mitchell, 2015).

It is imperative to have strong leaders working for community colleges. To achieve this goal, it is essential to examine how leadership is defined and how this definition may impose limitations on whom we tap to become leaders. Understanding better how institutional structures and processes can support more racial equity in the community college leadership pipeline is the focus of this article. It is not enough to point out that racial inequity exists in the community college sector; rather, solutions for change must be offered.

DEFINING LEADERSHIP

To begin expanding the leadership pipeline in community colleges, it is important to consider how leadership is defined. Typically, leadership refers to positional leaders versus informal leaders (Kezar & Lester, 2011). And as evident in the review of the leadership portrait above, those receiving the bulk of attention are top-level leaders (Gagliardi et al., 2017) versus those in the middle (Garza Mitchell & Eddy, 2008). It is only recently that middle level leadership began to receive more notice (Amey & Eddy, in press; Eddy, Garza Mitchell, & Amey, 2016). Complicating definitions of leadership are historical conceptions of community college leadership based on Great Man theories, which relied on norms based on White men in particular (Amey & Twombly, 1992). When aspiring leaders do not meet these norms, they may not even contemplate higher level positions. These expectations of leaders must be recast and become more inclusive as historical definitions provide a narrow band of who can lead and reinforce ideals of norms based on White men (Eddy & Lester, 2008).

Developing tomorrow’s leaders in community colleges relies on moving from conceptions of singular autocratic leaders to networked leadership. Ideally, “the work of leadership will be based on relationships rather than command and control models of the past and on networked processes and practices throughout the organization” (Hempsall, 2014, p. 383). Yet, influential organizations such as the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC; 2013) continue to reify the importance of singular conceptions of leadership through their listing of leadership competencies. On the one hand, the AACC argues the benefit of lifelong learning for leaders and reinforces the notion of different leadership needs based on career and position location. On the other hand, for the competency of collaboration, the AACC states, “An effective community college leader develops and maintains responsive, cooperative, mutually beneficial, and ethical internal and external relationships that nurture diversity, promotes the success of all students, and sustains the community college mission” (p. 10), which assumes a singular leadership approach versus a team-based approach to learning (Bensimon & Neumann, 2003). The discourse of writing on community college leadership is important as it reinforces understanding of leadership practices (Amey & Twombly, 1992).

When conceptions of leadership are expanded beyond the corner office, more individuals are included, and as a result, more innovation and change is possible (Kezar, 2013). In terms of racial equity in community colleges, much remains to be done even when definitions of leadership are expanded to include those in the middle (Garza Mitchell & Eddy, 2008) and faculty leaders (Townsend & Twombly, 2007). The following section reviews how current leaders and individuals can act as change agents to achieve greater racial equity in community college leadership.

CREATING RACIAL EQUITY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Highlighting the disparities in racial diversity in community college leadership positions addresses only part of the issue. Now, it is necessary to problematize and identify ways in which change can occur to address barriers and challenges within leadership development programs (Allan, Iverson, & Ropers-Huilman, 2009; Rusch, 2004) and to conceptualize new ways to support equity within the leadership pipeline to take advantage of all talent within community colleges (Eddy et al., 2015). The framework for expanding the leadership pipeline requires attention at several critical junctures. First, broadening the entry point with diverse faculty hires creates a wider base for advancement. Second, investing in and leveraging mid-level leaders builds a testing stage for top-level leadership positions of chief academic officer or president. Finally, restructuring how leadership development occurs will broaden who is prepared for leadership openings and how they are prepared. Attention to creating a tipping point for racial diversity and creating racial equity in community college leadership requires commitment from top leaders, addressing underlying assumptions, and resources to support the changes required (Shapiro, 2016).

BUILDING THE BASE

Getting buy-in for change to promote racial equity in community colleges requires bringing a diverse set of voices to the table to identify what will help in opening the pipeline. Critical to this effort are the voices of faculty members (Townsend & Twombly, 2007), especially because the vast majority of current presidents got their start in the classroom. In 2009, Perrakis, Campbell, and Antonaros argued that “without a pipeline of racially and ethnically diverse faculty who view the ranks as ascendable, the culture as supportive, community college will be left without a pool of candidates to consider when hiring senior administrators” (p. 10). A decade later, these arguments persist. At the crux of a change culture is dismantling the legacy of a racist society and its influence on the campus climate (Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003), no small task.

Change within the community college can occur in two ways to support hiring of more diverse faculty members. First, community college hiring committees can target doctoral students at nearby universities (Eddy, 2010), develop minority faculty mentoring programs (Vega, Yglesias, & Murray, 2010), and support faculty development programming (Twombly & Townsend, 2008). Many community college faculty members did not start out with the intention of teaching in 2-year colleges and often discovered this professional option by accident (Fugate & Amey, 2000). Understanding more about the hiring process provides insight. Fujii (2010) used critical race theory (CRT) to uncover when inclusive practices are espoused in faculty searches but not applied in practice. It is important to move beyond merely espousing a desire for more equity and actually creating the structures, policies, and processes to achieve greater diversity in leadership. When asked, one in four sitting presidents indicated having initiatives in place to attract more minority faculty and 36% indicated they had programs to attract both female and minority faculty (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Being more intentional in recruitment efforts can help broaden the base of faculty working at community colleges.

Second, community colleges can work to build a culture that supports racial equity (Oakes, Welner, Yonezawa, & Allen, 2005; Perna, 2003). Changing culture is difficult, often requiring third-order change (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). Third-order change first requires awareness of organizational members regarding underlying schemes built on racist ideals and, second, attention to changing these schemes to become more equity minded (Oakes et al., 2005). This change in culture would build more welcoming campus environments for diverse community college faculty members and also support a climate of inclusion.

EXPANDING THE MIDDLE

Mid-level leadership positions, such as department chair, program director, or associate dean, often provide a key training ground for acquiring leadership skills. A role change from a teaching faculty member to an administrator requires learning new skills. Amey (2013) argued that individually oriented leadership theories include cognitive theory, sense-making, emotional intelligence, and intercultural competence. How individuals think about leading and how they make sense of leadership contributes to their conceptions of their own leadership and how they perceive this view fitting in with institutional norms and expectations. Being able to understand how others may perceive experiences and what motivates others contributes to intercultural competence and helps in code switching for aspiring leaders (Sadao, 2003).

Taking on expanded responsibilities when in mid-level positions can help prepare for future higher level leadership positions. Consider how Turner (2007) described the presidency of Juliet Villarreal Garcia, who in 1986 when assuming the presidency of Texas Southmost College, a 2-year college in Brownsville, TX, became the first Mexican-American woman president of a U.S. college. Turner reported how Garcia tired of her teaching duties in her late 20s and at that time decided to apply for the presidency of Texas Southmost College, despite the foregone conclusion of not being selected to lead as a 20-something-year-old. Indeed, Garcia was not selected on her first try to become president, but by putting her name in the ring, other opportunities came her way. As Garcia reflected on what happened next, she commented on her experience in leading the college’s reaffirmation of accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, “It was the…most fertile learning that I had ever done about how colleges work” (as cited in Turner, 2007, p. 10). As this example highlights, taking advantage of learning opportunities contributes to increased agency and provides individuals with opportunities to adapt, reconcile, or resist as a way to exert their own power when in positions in the middle (Tedrow & Rhoads, 1999).

Because mid-level leaders are most often selected from within the college, it is important to provide supports for the role transition. Iowa State University, for example, created a leadership institute with an intentional component to prepare minorities and women for leadership roles (Ebbers, Gallisath, Rockel, & Coyan, 2000). Yet, mentoring opportunities such as the one at Iowa State’s leadership institute are often lacking for minority leaders around the country (Gonzalez, 2007; Gutierrez, Castañeda, & Katsinas, 2002). Building more robust support structures, increasing the numbers of trusted allies, and providing more mentoring opportunities could help support mid-level minority leaders and allow for more equity in advancing along the pipeline.

RESTRUCTURING LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Despite espousing a focus on diversity as a major institutional goal, community colleges have come up short in achieving diverse representation in their leadership ranks and creating cultures of equity. “In order to foster leadership development for those who may not represent the majority, institutional attention to cultivating environments holistically and promoting the whole person is key” (Amey, 2013, p. 143). Clearly, there is a push and a pull process at play when individuals contemplate becoming a leader in a community college. On the one hand, factors that push individuals are being tapped to lead, a desire to affect change, and an appeal to helping others (Waggoner, 2016). On the other hand, age and family work-life concerns act to dissuade individuals from seeking top-level positions (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2017). Institutional culture (Tipton, 2016) and organizational structure (Bortz, 2014) can help support, or hinder, interest in seeking leadership positions.

One way to remove barriers in terms of leadership development calls for opening up how aspiring leaders are identified. The AACC has several councils targeting leadership development to expand the pipeline, for example, the National Community College Hispanic Council, the American Association of Women in Community Colleges, and the National Council on Black American Affairs. These programs all help provide some support for leadership development for minority leaders. Providing support to access these training programs, however, is borne both by individuals and by their colleges. Not all aspiring leaders can afford to attend these national leadership development programs, nor do all campuses have the resources to send those desiring to attend. Only 17.4% of sitting presidents attended the AACC’s Future President Institute for leadership development, whereas 47% attended some non-ACE leadership program (Gagliardi et al., 2017).

Given the expense of these national programs, Grow-Your-Own (GYO) leadership programs are another way to address providing training locally for those unable to attend programs elsewhere (Jeandron, 2006). Yet, it is important in looking at GYO programs to question who gets to participate, as a program intending to remove barriers to achieve racial equity can in fact reify barriers depending on the participant selection process. Institutionalizing change in the college culture regarding who is approached to leadership development requires frame-breaking behaviors that question typical forms of operation (Sydow & Alfred, 2012). This type of questioning of norms must occur at multiple levels.

Building an equity framework for leadership development requires questioning underlying assumptions about who can lead and what leadership should look like, which requires fundamental organizational change (Oakes et al., 2005). Central to supporting aspiring leaders of color is elimination of deficit thinking that questions their ability to succeed (Burciaga, 2015). Stachowiak (2015) argued that changing from a discourse based on a framework of diversity to a framework of social justice requires moving from merely understanding diversity based on a number count of individuals of color to taking action to change institutions. A key to this form of change is critical examination of existing structures and rhetoric about equity in leadership development.

Because doctoral degrees serve as a main sorting element in selecting community college leaders, it is important to examine how graduate programs may be contributing to challenges for aspiring leaders of color (Burciaga, 2015). When sitting leaders were queried about their doctoral preparation, shortcomings were noted, including a need for the curriculum to align more strongly to practice (Brown, Martinez, & Daniel, 2002). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED; see http://www.cpedinitiative.org/) offers a radical approach to rethinking leadership preparation relative to historical doctoral programs. Programs like that at North Carolina State University (NCSU) have taken up the challenge outlined by CPED and retooled their doctoral programs (Smith, 2017). Anticipated in the retooling at NCSU, for example, is an increased focus on equity. These steps in changing preparation of tomorrow’s leaders are important, but these changes point to the need to question how we think of diversity and equity.

For example, Chochezi (2013) found that in the California community college system senior leaders lacked shared meaning about diversity priorities, and their individual backgrounds and schemas influenced how they viewed diversity. These findings highlight the need for an overarching institutional plan to support diversity in community college leadership and a fundamental change to building an equity culture versus merely thinking it will happen on its own.

Creating supportive communities for leadership development can help change expectations about who considers her- or himself as a leader and who receives support. Who is tapped for leadership development is a first point of change. Casting a broader net for leading provides a critical first step. Aiding in the building of a cadre of leaders of color willing to step into leadership roles requires creating a culture of equity that recognizes the need for a safe climate, a space for learning and unlearning, and valuing alternative approaches to leadership (Kezar, 2008). Because succession planning is not a typical focus in higher education (Long, Johnson, Faught, & Stret, 2013), leadership development programs have not been intentionally linked to preparing the next generation of community college presidents. This lack of connection often results in a gap between what is part of training programs and what is required on the job for leaders (Brown et al., 2002).

The type of change required to create racial equity in community college leadership development calls for a change in culture regarding approaches to recruitment, development, and succession planning. The level of urgency regarding the leadership pipeline is reaching a critical point with more leader retirements (Strom, Sanchez, & Downey-Schilling, 2011) and the desire to align the diversity of leadership ranks with their diverse student population (Cook & Kim, 2012). This level of urgency is not new (Bowen & Muller, 1996; Foote, 1996), but it is important in the change process to continue to argue the urgent need for change. Changing racial equity in community college leadership requires both ongoing individual learning and institutional cultural change. On an individual level, agency can contribute to feeling of control and micro-emancipation (Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). Whereas on an institutional level, culture influences how change occurs and requires intentional actions (Kezar & Eckel, 2002).

ACHIEVING A TIPPING POINT

Considering what supports a tipping point for change can provide specific areas for action. For example, Burkinsaw (2015) reviewed how a tipping point of approximately 30% of a particular group can signal change with a critical mass of leaders providing new approaches and instituting changes to programs, policies, and culture. Her work focused on gender versus racial diversity in leadership ranks, but the same principle applies. Likewise, Martin and O’Meara (2017) found that women led community colleges in Maryland at rates substantially higher than national averages (63% compared to 36%) and on par for leaders of color (19% in Maryland relative to 20% nationally) (see http://mdacc.org/; Gagliardi et al., 2017). Snowden (2012) found that the trustees in Maryland had favorable attitudes toward succession planning and that their recruitment practices supported their goals to increase diversity in community college leadership through questioning existing policies and processes that had hindered achieving an equity agenda.

Critically, board members provide a central role in building an equity culture for leadership development within the community college (Gillett-Karam, 2017; Snowden, 2012). When boards of trustees become more representative by race, ethnicity, and gender, change begins to occur. A Cornell study (Ehrenberg, Jakubson, Martin, Main, & Eisenberg, 2009) found that a critical number of women on boards of trustees must be met before changes begin in terms of gender hiring. But the authors also noted that colleges with women at the helm as presidents and provosts and those with boards of trustees with larger numbers of women, had a trickle-down effect occur with the hiring of more women faculty members. This tipping point for hiring of women can also apply to hiring leaders of color.

Quinn (1996) argued that individuals can help bring about deep change within themselves and in turn within organizations. Deep change or third-order change is often the focus of the type of cultural change advocated here (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Kezar, 2013). In order to achieve this type of change, the type required to increase racial equity in community colleges, it is necessary to question existing assumptions and beliefs about who can lead. This type of double-loop learning (Argyris, 2004) requires changes to value systems and operations. As noted in the example found in Maryland, it was just this type of questioning that occurred that began to change the way boards of trustees sought to develop more women community college leaders in the state.

The ability to reach a tipping point for change requires a fundamental examination of underlying assumptions and beliefs (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). Kim and Mauborgne (2003) highlighted how tipping point leadership can support the change in beliefs of a critical mass of individuals in an organization, and that these change agents are leaders who “make unforgettable and unarguable calls for change, who concentrate their resources on what really matters, who mobilize the commitment of the organization’s key players, and who succeed in silencing the most vocal naysayers” (para. 7). Leaders who are able to achieve a tipping point in an organization circumvent four particular hurdles: resources, political, motivational, and cognitive. Key to overcoming these areas of resistance is attention to levers of change (Kezar, 2013; Shapiro, 2010).

To help navigate these challenges, Kotter (2014) argues that particular steps are required to achieve change. His eight-step model can serve as a guideline for building a change initiative for racial equity in community college leadership and development. I submit in Table 2 a summary of the various steps that can be applied to build a model for change in equity in community college leadership development.

Table 2. Model of Change to Achieve Racial Equity in Community College Leadership

The change steps outlined in Table 2 can provide a roadmap for campuses and stakeholders to begin to address leadership equity within community colleges. Also important in Kotter’s (2014) model for change is the existence of a dual operating system. This dual system is set up like a network and is dynamic, which allows for more freedom to explore opportunities. Five principles guide this dual system: (1) many people are involved in driving change, and they come from throughout the college; (2) individuals involved in this group opt in versus being told they must participate; (3) meaning and purpose drive participation; (4) vision and inspired action support passion in this group of stakeholders; (5) individuals in the dual system are connected to the hierarchy and not merely acting as a siloed group of individuals (Kotter, 2014). In contemplating how a tipping point for real change for equity in community college leadership can occur, it is important to acknowledge that this type of deep change will take time—with estimates of 10 years common (Kotter, 2014). Thus, this type of change first requires an honest investigation into underlying schemas regarding what it means to lead and what it means to achieve equity in developing leaders (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Oakes et al., 2005; Rusch & Horsford, 2009). A tipping point of diverse racial leaders is within reach given the significant increase in numbers of non-White presidents found in 2016 (Gagliardi et al., 2017), yet a tipping point organizationally to embracing an equity agenda for leadership requires a level of organizational change not yet seen.

CONCLUSION

Achieving racial equity in community college leadership requires action on a number of fronts. First, individuals can work to develop their leadership capacity irrespective of their position (Quinn, 1996). Learning more about leadership, in particular how to lead authentically, can help increase an individual’s approach to leadership and ultimately open up more opportunities. Second, change agent leaders can recognize and leverage multidirectional leadership within community colleges (Hooijberg, 1996). Engaging in creating organizational structures that can support leadership across, up-and-down, and between the white spaces of organizational charts provides increased opportunities not only for increasing racial equity, but for improving institutional outcomes (McPhail, 2013). A focus on faculty members and mid-level leaders provides for a means to change from within, as these individuals often stay in their positions longer than most presidents (Gagliardi et al., 2017).

It is important to have more alignment of racial equity in leadership that aligns with the diversity found in the student body. Change agent leaders need to intentionally change the organizational architecture of community colleges and create an environment that fosters and encourages a broader array of leadership. Finally, hiring boards can be intentional in how they recruit presidential leaders to not only open up the pipeline by direct hires, but also by hiring individuals committed to issues of equity. Board training and increased diversity on community college boards will ultimately lead to a tipping point for racial equity. Collectively, we must work toward the type of deep change required to increase the diversity and range of individuals leading today’s community colleges.

References

Allan, E. J., Iverson, S., & Ropers-Huilman, R. (Eds.). (2009). Reconstructing policy in higher education: Feminist poststructural perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2013). AACC competencies for community college leaders (2^nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Amey, M. J. (2013). Leadership: Community college transitions. In J. S. Levin & S. T. Kater (Eds.), Understanding community colleges (pp. 135–152). New York, NY: Routledge.

Amey, M. J., & Eddy, P. L. (2018). Leading in the middle. In J. S. Levin & S. T. Kater, Understanding community colleges (2nd ed.; pp. 203-226). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor Francis.

Amey, M. J., & Twombly, S. B. (1992). Re-visioning leadership in community colleges. Review of Higher Education, 15(2), 125–50.

Argyris, C. (2004). Double‐loop learning and organizational change. Dynamics of organizational change and learning, 389–402.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483–500.

Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams and teamwork in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bortz, C. M. (2014). Women community college presidents: Gendered organizational cultures influence on breaking the glass ceiling (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest Document ID 1798477674)

Bowen, R., & Muller, G. H. (Eds.). (1996). Achieving administrative diversity [special issue]. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1996(94).

Brown, L., Martinez, M., & Daniel, D. (2002). Community college leadership preparation: Needs, perceptions, and recommendations. Community College Review, 30(1), 45–73.

Burciaga, R. (2015). Presuming incompetence from preschool to the professoriate: How leadership preparation programs perpetuate or prevent deficit thinking. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 26, 4–9.

Burkinsaw, P. (2015). Higher education, leadership and women vice chancellors; Fitting into communities of practice of masculinities. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carter, D. F. (2006). Key issues in the persistence of underrepresented minority students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2006(130), 33–46.

Chochezi, V. S. (2013). Diversifying California’s community college leadership: What’s race got to do with it? A qualitative multiple case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest Document ID 1336086926)

Clark, B. R. (1960). The “cooling-out” function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 569–576.

Cook, B., & Kim, Y. (2012). The American college president: 2012. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Diekhoff, J. (1950). Democracy’s college: Higher education in the local community. New York, NY: Harper and Brother Publishers.

Ebbers, L. H., Gallisath, G., Rockel, V., & Coyan, M. N. (2000). The leadership institute for a new century: LINCing women and minorities into tomorrow's community college leadership roles. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24(5), 375–382.

Eckel, P. D., Cook, B. J., & King, J. E. (2009). The CAO census: A national profile of chief academic officers. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Eddy, P. L. (2010). New faculty issues: Fitting in and figuring it out. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(152), 15–24.

Eddy, P. L., Garza Mitchell, R., & Amey, M. J. (2016, December 2). Leading from the middle. Chronicle of Higher Education, 68(15), A48.

Eddy, P. L., & Lester, J. (2008). Strategizing for the future. In J. Lester (Ed.), Gendered perspectives on community colleges. Special issue of New Directions for Community Colleges, 2008(142), 107–116.

Eddy, P. L., Sydow, D., Alfred, R., & Garza Mitchell, R. (2015). Developing tomorrow’s leaders: Contexts, consequences, & competencies. Washington, DC: Community College Series: Rowman & Littlefield and ACCT.

Ehrenberg, R. G., Jakubson, G. H., Martin, M. L., Main, J. B., & Eisenberg, T. (2009, December). Do trustees and administrators matter? Diversifying the faculty across gender lines (NBER Working Paper No. 15606). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Foote, E. (1996). Achieving administrator diversity. ERIC digest. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.

Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stages of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review, 28(1), 1–22.

Fujii, S. J. (2010). Observations, values, and beliefs about ethnic/racial diversity by members of community college faculty search committees (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest Document ID 820431300)

Gagliardi, J. S., Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., & Taylor, M. (2017). American college president study 2017. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Garvey, J. C., Taylor, J. L., & Rankin, S. (2015). An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(6), 527–541.

Garza Mitchell, R. L., & Eddy, P. L. (2008). In the middle: Career pathways of midlevel community college leaders. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(10), 793–811.

Gillett-Karam, R. (2017). Changing leadership: Taking a stand by “moving the needle” for women’s leadership in community colleges. In P. L. Eddy (Ed.), Constructing gender. Special issue of New Directions for Community Colleges, 2017(179), 35–46.

Gonzalez, C. (2007). Building sustainable power: Latino scholars and academic leadership positions at U.S. institutions of higher learning. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(2), 157–162.

Gutierrez, M., Castañeda, C., & Katsinas, S. G. (2002). Latino leadership in community colleges: Issues and challenges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 26(4), 297–314.

Hempsall, K. (2014). Developing leadership in higher education: Perspectives from the USA, the UK and Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(4), 383–394.

Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49(7), 917–946.

Jeandron, C. A. (2006). Growing your own leaders: Community colleges step up. A Leading Forward Report. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Kezar, A. (2008). Understanding leadership strategies for addressing the politics of diversity. Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 406–441.

Kezar, A. (2013). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.

Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2011). Enhancing campus capacity for leadership: An examination of grassroots leaders in higher education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2003/04/tipping-point-leadership

Kotter, J. P. (2014). Accelerate: Building strategic agility for a faster-paced world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Long, J., Johnson, C., Faught, S., & Stret, J. (2013). The need to practice what we teach: Succession management in higher education. American Journal of Management, 13(2), 73–78.

Martin, A., & O’Meara, K. (2017). Conditions enabling women’s leadership in community colleges. In P. L. Eddy, K. Ward, & T. Khwaja (Eds.), Critical approaches to women and gender in higher education (pp. 61–86). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

McPhail, C. J. (2011). The completion agenda: A call to action. Summary report from the November 10–11, 2010, meeting of the American Association of Community Colleges Commissions and Board of Directors. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

McPhail, C. J. (2013). From tall to matrix: Redesigning organizational structures. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(4), 55–62. doi:10.1080/00091383.2016.1198189

Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and closing racial gaps in California's community colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics: 2015 (NCES 2016-014). Washington, DC: Author.

Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawa, S., & Allen, R. (2005). Norms and politics of equity minded change: Researching the “zone of mediation.” In M. Fullan (Ed.), Fundamental change: International handbook on educational change (pp. 282–305). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Perrakis, A., Campbell, M. D., & Antonaros, M. (2009). Diversifying the community college CEO pipeline. Community College Enterprise, 15(1), 7–19.

Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Reid, L. D., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2003). Race matters: The relation between race and general campus climate. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 263–275.

Rusch, E. A. (2004). Gender and race in leadership preparation: A constrained discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 14–46.

Rusch, E. A., & Horsford, S. D. (2009). Changing hearts and minds: The quest for open talk about race in educational leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(4), 302–313.

Sadao, K. C. (2003). Living in two worlds: Success and the bicultural faculty of color. Review of Higher Education, 26(4), 397–418.

Shapiro, A. (2010). Creating contagious commitment: Applying the tipping point to organizational change. Raleigh, NC: Strategy Perspective.

Smith, A. A. (2017, June 30). Training the community college leader. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/30/nc-state-revamps-community-college-leadership-doctoral-degree

Snowden, D. R. (2012). An examination of Maryland community college trustees’ intentions to promote succession planning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest Document ID 1030444214)

Stachowiak, D. M. (2015). Re-envisioning diversity in higher education: From raising awareness to building critical consciousness among faculty. Thought & Action, 115–128.

Strom, S. L., Sanchez, A. A., & Downey-Schilling, J. (2011). Inside-outside: Finding future community college leaders. Community College Enterprise, 17(1), 9.

Sydow, D., & Alfred, R. L. (2012). Re-visioning community colleges: Positioning for innovation. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tedrow, B., & Rhoads, R. A. (1999). A qualitative study of women's experiences in community college leadership positions. Community College Review, 27(3), 1–18.

Tipton, E. C. (2016). Pipelines to leadership: Aspirations of faculty in the community college, Kentucky Community and Technical College System (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest Document ID 1798477668)

Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (2007). Community college faculty: Overlooked and undervalued. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Turner, C. S. V. (2007). Pathways to the presidency: Biographical sketches of women of color firsts. Harvard Educational Review, 77(1), 1–38.

Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know and need to know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5–24.

Van Noy, M., Jacobs, J., Korey, S., Bailey, T., & Hughes, K. L. (2008). The landscape of noncredit workforce education: State polices and community college practices. New York, NY: Columbia University, Community College Research Center.

Vaughan, G. V. (2004). How to keep open access in community colleges. Education Digest, 69(6), 52.

Vega, W., Yglesias, K., & Murray, J. P. (2010). Recruiting and mentoring minority faculty members. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(152), 49–55.

Waggoner, R. (2016). Pipelines to leadership: Aspirations of executive-level community college leaders to ascend to the presidency (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest Document ID 1798477674)

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2017). “Good” places to work: Women faculty, community colleges, academic work, and family integration. In P. L. Eddy (Ed.), Constructing gender. Special issue of New Directions for Community Colleges, 179, 46–57.

Yarnall, L. (2014). Meeting 2020 workforce goals: The role of industry–college collaboration and goals for instructional design. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(2–3), 250–260.

Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2007). Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency, and micro‐emancipation. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1371–1397.