University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

I am not your mule: intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders

(USC Thesis Other)

I am not your mule: intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content I Am Not Your Mule: Intersectional Bias Against Black Female HBCU Leaders by Donna Lynne Brock Rossier School of Education University of Southern California A dissertation submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education May 2022 © Copyright by Donna Lynne Brock 2022 All Rights Reserved The Committee for Donna Lynne Brock certifies the approval of this Dissertation Anthony B. Maddox Brandon D. Martinez Monique C. Datta, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2022 iv Abstract This study comprised qualitative, phenomenological exploration of intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders. Research epistemology, ontology, and axiology were rooted in Black feminist theory to guard against the incursion of Eurocentric norms and standards (Collins, 1989). Inquiry was guided by Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986), which facilitated deconstruction of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental contexts, as well as Acker’s inequality regimes theory (2009), which enabled identification of environmental disparities that precipitated power imbalances. Findings were based on commentary from a sample of seven Black, female HBCU leaders, four presidents and three administrators, recruited from among the population of 27 permanent, female HBCU presidents. Inquiry centered on three research questions. The first question interrogated the experience of marginalization in an HBCU context. The second question investigated how marginalization affected participants’ career progression. The third question solicited prescriptive advice for aspiring Black, female HBCU presidents. Following analysis of institutional documents to confirm organizational similarity, participants’ responses to a one-on-one, semi-structured interview were coded and analyzed. Findings confirmed that the majority of participants experienced marginalization and were inhibited in their performance as a result of marginalization. Recommendations attend to eradication of cultural mores that engender intersectional bias, mentoring for presidential aspirants, and professional development that centers Black feminist theory, which embraces intersectionality. Keywords: Black female leader, intersectional bias, intersectionality, HBCU, marginalization v Dedication To my parents, Mr. Otis J. Brock, Jr. and Mrs. Annette K. Brock, whose love, sacrifice, and support made this journey possible, and who were bright, guiding lights when the road became rocky. To the memory of my late brother, Otis III, whose laughter, faith, confidence, and love buoy me still, as does his legacy. To the physical, occupational, and speech therapists, doctors, nurses, and staff of St. Joseph’s/Candler Hospital, who literally put me back together again, physically, mentally and spiritually. vi Acknowledgements On December 1, 2021, I had a stroke. My entire right side was paralyzed. Recuperation has been slow. However, because of the people who were in my life prior to that incident, I was able to persevere with the privilege of nurturing my curiosity more so than my physical limitations. Everyone should be so fortunate in unanticipated circumstances. Dr. Monique C. Datta’s pedagogical excellence and disciplinary rigor made my USC experience an academically superior one. As dissertation chair, her guidance and support were irreplaceable. As a woman and a leader, there are few of such sterling character and infectious passion. Dr. Anthony B. Maddox was my first USC professor. His ability to reduce the theoretical to discourse, then praxis, is remarkable. In a world in which Black men and women are continually maligned and assaulted, he stands as a testament to the power of Black intelligence and scholarship. Dr. Brandon D. Martinez made learning theory come alive, largely because of his palpable zeal for teaching. However, his personal embrace of learning and his rare ability to engage students afforded me a model of instruction that will forever guide my professional pursuits. Every student needs a Dr. Martinez. Dr. Marcus Pritchard’s humor and wisdom are superseded only by his mentorship. I would have been lost without his counsel, correction, and selfless assistance in completing this capstone exercise. I am grateful. The sisters of Omicron Epsilon Alpha, Luisa Ortega, Evangelina Estrada, and Lisa Hansen, provided a support system without which this experience would have been much more difficult. I now have the high honor of calling them friends. vii My professors in the USC Rossier School of Education’s Organizational Change and Leadership Doctoral Program, Dr. Stephen Aguilar, Dr. Daniel Chatham, Dr. Adrian Donato, Dr. Adam Kho, Dr. Douglas Lynch, Dr. Raquel Sanchez, and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox in particular, challenged and inspired me. I am beholden to them for their sacrifice of time and the impartation of new knowledge. Mr. Cosmas Adebowale saw potential in me that I did not see in myself. His exhortations, guardianship, support, and encouragement meant the world to me over the past decade. I am blessed to have him as a guiding influence in my life. Howard University President Emeritus H. Patrick Swygert is far more than my former supervisor. He is a role model, mentor, and fount of wisdom. I am grateful for every life lesson poured into me over the years, especially the tough love administered in honing my leadership. Rev. Aisha Karimah is my sister and my friend. Her kindness, prayers, humor, and insider news reports have lifted me at myriad junctures. I am thankful for her influence and encouragement before and during my doctoral studies. Michael Brock and Nicholas Patrick, both exemplars of Black manhood, narrowed the void that my brother’s untimely death created. Their assistance during this program, as impromptu IT and logistics coordinators, was invaluable. I am forever in their debt. Finally, this dissertation would not have materialized without the candor and insight of the seven, courageous, accomplished participants in this study. Confidentiality prohibits their personal and institutional identification. Yet each is a strong pillar, upholding the best of the HBCU legacy. Each is a shining example of Black, female leadership. I am in awe of their persistence and perseverance, and thankful for their service. viii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ viii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. xi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1 Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2 Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 6 Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 8 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 9 Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 10 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 11 Black Feminist World View .............................................................................................. 11 Black Female Intersectionality as Experience and Methodology ..................................... 15 The HBCU Ecosystem ...................................................................................................... 40 Social Cognitive Theory as a Theoretical Framework ...................................................... 47 Acker’s Inequality Regimes Theory in Bias Identification ............................................... 50 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 54 ix Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 55 Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 56 Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 57 The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 58 Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 60 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 61 Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 63 Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 64 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 66 Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 66 Ethics 69 Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 71 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 71 Document Analysis Findings ............................................................................................ 72 Semi-Structured Interviews ............................................................................................... 79 RQ1 Findings ..................................................................................................................... 79 RQ1 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 95 RQ2 Findings ..................................................................................................................... 96 RQ2 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 116 RQ3 Findings ................................................................................................................... 118 RQ3 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 123 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 124 Chapter 5: Recommendations and Discussion ............................................................................ 125 x Discussion of Findings and Results ................................................................................. 125 Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 131 Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 133 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 134 Implications for Equity .................................................................................................... 135 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 136 Appendix A: Baccalaureate Historically Black Colleges and Universities ........................ 171 Appendix B: Supplemental Definitions ....................................................................................... 174 Appendix C: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 178 Appendix D: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................ 183 Appendix E: Institutional Artifact Registry Log ......................................................................... 185 Appendix F: Supplemental References by Topic ........................................................................ 186 Appendix G: AABHE Correspondence ....................................................................................... 188 Appendix H: Participant Recruitment Letter ............................................................................... 190 xi List of Tables Table 1: Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 57 Table 2: Interview Participants ................................................................................................... 72 Table 3: Institutional Mission Focus ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4: Institutional Vision Focus ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5: Participant Organizational Structure ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 6: Major Campus Strategic Goals ..................................................................................... 78 Table 7: Indicators of Male Organizational Culture (MOC) Reported ....................................... 85 Table 8: Presidents’ Self-Described Institutional Conditions ..................................................... 88 Table 9: Sample Mentor and Sponsor Possession ....................................................................... 95 Table 10: Organizational Climate Metaphors Reported .............................................................. 110 Table 11: Reported Signs of Black, Female Leader Fatigue ....................................................... 111 Table 12: Factors Attributed to Lower Black, Female Compensation ........................................ 115 Table 13: Reported Inhibitors of Black, Female HBCU Leader Progression ............................. 117 xii List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 52 xiii List of Abbreviations BFT Black Feminist Theory GCS Glass Cliff Syndrome HBCU Historically Black College or University MOC Masculine Organizational Culture NCES National Center for Educational Statistics PWI Predominantly White Institution TMSF Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund UNCF United Negro College Fund 1 Chapter One: Introduction to the Study Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) in the United States comprise a majority African American ecosystem within the U.S. higher education domain (National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), 2004). Black women account for the majority of HBCU faculty (Gasman et al., 2014) and staff (NCES, 2021a). HBCU enrollment is 62% female (NCES, 2019) and has exceeded annual male enrollment since 1976 (NCES, 2018). Yet, among America’s 88 four-year, baccalaureate degree granting HBCUs, 27 (31%) have permanent, Black female presidents (NCES, 2021b; see Appendix A). Although sparse, research indicates Black female HBCU leaders encounter barriers to promotion (Jackson & Harris, 2007) and hostile work environments (Lockett & Gasman, 2018). In a landmark 2001 study, Bonner reported that Black female HBCU presidents are clustered among smaller HBCUs and earn less than their Black male counterparts. Scholars attribute these disparities to racism and sexism (Hannum et al., 2015; Jean-Marie & Tickles, 2018; Johnson & Thomas, 2012; Rousseau, 2013). The imposition of sanctions rooted in interconnected racial and gendered inequities constitutes intersectional bias (Harris, 2020). Intersectionality (Carbado et al., 2013; Crenshaw, 1989) refers to overlapping social constructions (e.g., race, gender, and class), the convergence of which compounds women’s marginalization (Shields, 2008), subordination (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008), or both. This phenomenon warrants redress, because intersectional bias impedes leader emergence (Gamble & Turner, 2015), subverts leader appraisal (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014), and penalizes gender role agency (Rosette et al., 2016), all requisite for leadership. This dissertation interrogates intersectional bias (Harris & Leonardo, 2018) against African American female leaders within the HBCU ecosystem. More specifically, this study explores the subjection of Black women 2 leaders to gendered, racist behaviors in a predominantly Black, predominantly female environment. Context and Background of the Problem Research has demonstrated male superiority in global higher education. Morley (2013) documented masculinist devaluation of female intellect and leadership in higher education in Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Dubai, citing the persistence of male supremacy rooted in gendered, patriarchal behaviors and norms. In another study, Shepherd (2017) attributed the paucity of women in European Union higher education leadership to structural exclusion predicated upon institutional conservatism, geographic immobility, and male homosocial promotion. Dlamini and Adams (2014) found that patriarchy suppressed female scholarship and upward mobility in South African higher education institutions. Likewise, Toni and Moodly (2019) documented how South African male organizational homosociability and policy deficiencies perpetuated gender disparities and male exclusivity in higher education. In a Vietnamese study, Nguyen (2013) identified familial obligations and negative stereotypes as inhibitors of female progression into deanships. This pattern recurs in U.S. higher education. Sexism permeates leadership in U.S. higher education, a community of 2,300 baccalaureate degree-granting institutions (NCES, 2021c). Of 3.6 million higher education employees in fall 2018, two million were women (NCES, 2021d). Yet, Chen and Crown (2019) cited gender disparities in academia, including female wage gaps ranging from 8% to 15%, institutional discounting of female research, and more rigorous female tenure criteria. In their exploration of academic sexism, Rabovsky and Lee (2017) studied 254 private and public U.S. institutions, finding female pay gaps among both. As part of their survey of higher education leadership, Howard and Gagliardi (2019) reported 70% of U.S. college presidents were male, 3 typically 62-years-old, and White. African Americans comprised 8% of that population, 65% of which were men. The authors observed that female presidents, despite being more likely to hold a doctorate, were twice as likely to have deferred career progression to care for others and were more likely to lead institutions primarily comprising marginalized students. Racism also pervades U.S. higher education. American higher education emerged from and reinforced socioeconomic structures linked to enslavement and oppression of Africans in America. Patton (2016) disclosed ties between wealth generated from slave labor and early patronage of postsecondary institutions. Mustaffa (2017) coined the term “educational violence” (p. 711) to delineate means by which U.S. higher education was engineered from and fostered Black oppression. Affirming this perspective, Thomas (2017) cited higher education’s “White male template” (p. 4), asserting that America’s colleges and universities were established by White men with disproportionate economic and political capital that continuously affects every aspect of the domain. As important, Stein (2016) cited the encoding of subordinative social constructions in higher education policy designed to maintain and elevate White patriarchy. Delgado and Stefancic (2012) further clarified the prevalence of White male supremacy in higher education, associating exclusionary campus environments with differential racialization, the application of racial stereotypes to inculcate White supremacy. Illustrating this tactic, Patton et al. (2015) equated hegemonic exclusivity of elite postsecondary institutions with systemic colorblindness, mechanized through legacy admissions. Wilder (2013) further elucidated diffusion of Eurocentric ideologies and White supremacist narratives (e.g., eugenics) via academic knowledge production. Although the establishment of HBCUs represented ostensible redress of systemic African American 4 disenfranchisement, research disconfirms this supposition. For example, Hiraldo (2010) employed critical race theory to substantiate endemic structural racism in higher education. As a response to racism (Albritton, 2012), Congress in 1965 established HBCUs as a class of accredited institutions. HBCUs share a common mission: educating African Americans (Higher Education Act, 1965). Shared raison d’etre aside, scholars including Gasman and Hilton (2012) detailed the means by which HBCUs, from their inception, constituted White interest convergence to mitigate perceived Black incivility, stabilize the supply of Black labor, and systematize Black intellectual inferiority in the post-civil war South. In like manner, Lockett and Gasman (2018) and Mustaffa (2017) detailed the establishment of HBCU structure, governance, leadership selection, and policy by White males. Scholars have demonstrated that White hegemony was inculcated through Eurocentric curricula (Harris & Leonardo, 2018) as well as meritocratic policies (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). In other words, HBCUs are not exempt from the influence of White supremacy (Patton, 2016). To wit, Bonner (2001) asserted that Black women in HBCUs face the same obstacles as at predominantly White institutions. Studies document Black women’s experience of racial and gendered discrimination within predominantly Black environments. In a phenomenological study, Reed (2012) observed that Black female principals’ experience of sexism in the Black community manifested in undermined authority and personal disrespect. In her autoethnography, McClellan (2012) decried the absence of leadership studies that address Black female gender discrimination by Black men. The author associated Black male bias with misdirected, racially motivated hostility and Black community appropriation of Eurocentric gender doctrine. Although Njoku and Patton (2017) lamented societal preoccupation with Black disunity, their theoretical analysis exhorted 5 exploration of HBCUs’ role in objectifying Black women and perpetuating negative, subordinative stereotypes. This objectification may be the result of intersectional bias. In articulating the concept of intersectionality, Crenshaw (1989, 1991) explained that Black women are dually oppressed in a manner from which Black men and Whites are exempt. She asserted that layered oppression resulted in Black female invisibility, or erasure, from sociopolitical schema. Expanding upon Crenshaw’s work, Haynes et al. (2020) delineated three forms of intersectionality. Representational intersectionality weaponizes stereotypes as a means of social control, exemplified by Black women’s metaphoric role as “mule[s]” (Collins, 2000, p. 48). Political intersectionality imposes a choice of constructions (i.e., Black or female) subverting one identity while prioritizing another, sacrificing social capital in both. Thomas et al. (2014), for example, found that Black women were rendered invisible as a result of identification as neither Black nor female in a series of task experiments. In another example, Settles (2006) studied 89 Black graduate and undergraduate women and confirmed participants’ preference for Black-female, versus single-layer, identity. The author noted depression and lower self-esteem when participants’ gender identity interfered with their racial identity. Structural intersectionality occurs when Black women experience overlapping forms of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, and classism), and are subsumed by categorical defaults such as Black (male default), women (White default), and leaders (White male default). As an illustration, Haynes et al. (2020) found that of 680 studies on Black women in higher education conducted between 1986 and 2016, only 23 embraced Black-female intersectionality without recentering Whiteness. Intersectionality will be explicated in Chapter Two. Here, its enactment is overviewed to underscore the centrality of invisibility (Sesko & Biernat, 2010). Smith et al. (2019) deconstructed four types of invisibility: (a) benign intersectional invisibility, in which individuals 6 are unfamiliar to dominant groups and, thereby, elude stereotyping; (b) intersectional invisibility, by which an individual’s nonprototypicality specific to default constructs disqualifies social categorization, engendering erasure; (c) hypervisibility, in which subordinated individuals’ contributions are scrutinized more than others; and (d) hostile intersectional invisibility, by which possession of multiple social identities results in compounded penalization. Each of these types portends discovery and documentation of intersectional bias within the HBCU ecosystem. Purpose of the Project and Research Questions The purpose of this study is predicated upon the paucity of research on Black female leadership (Rosette et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2019). The primary aim of this research is to identify and propagate effective leadership progression strategies for Black females among HBCUs. The secondary aim of this research is to analyze data collected using intersectional methodology (Bowleg, 2013; Scheim & Bauer, 2019) to augment scant empirical literature on Black female leadership in higher education, particularly among HBCUs. Three research questions will guide this qualitative study: 1. How is Black female leadership marginalized in the HBCU ecosystem? 2. How does marginalization inhibit Black female leadership progression? 3. What prescriptive measures engender success in attaining Black female HBCU leadership? Importance of the Study Beyond examining issues of racial and gender marginalization and subordination (Jean- Marie, 2006; Jean-Marie et al., 2009; Jean-Marie & Tickles, 2018), this dissertation is among few analyses employing intersectional methodology (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Haynes et al., 2020; Healy et al., 2011) to disentangle Black female leadership dynamics in the HBCU 7 community. This work is significant because researchers have established that female leadership affords organizational advantage. The benefit of female leadership advantage is concretized here through four lenses. First, Beaman et al. (2012) submitted that Indian female leadership positively influenced Indian girls’ educational attainment. This frame is noteworthy given the female predominance of HBCU enrollment. Second, research has shown that female leadership improved organizational task performance when innovation was prioritized (Deszo & Ross, 2012), and positively correlated with corporate equity outcomes (Glass & Cook, 2018). These findings warrant examination given challenges to HBCU business models (Burnett, 2020; Dougal et al., 2019) and academic outcomes (Fryer & Greenstone, 2010; Montgomery & Montgomery, 2012). Third, this study evaluates participants’ leadership styles. Of note, Frear et al. (2019) confirmed that women in their meta-analysis exhibited more transformational leadership behaviors, such as idealized influence and individualized consideration, and, therefore, were associated with more positive leadership outcomes. Fourth, this research considers the institutional conditions under which participants lead. The problem of practice impels environmental analysis, since research has shown that female leadership was preferred in crisis, as it harkened organizational change (Ryan et al., 2016), yet exposed female leaders to greater professional risk, or the “glass cliff” (Ryan & Haslam, 2007, p. 554). Germane to this dissertation, Cook and Glass (2014) confirmed that women of color, in particular, were more likely to be selected to lead, with restricted autonomy, during organizational decline. Therefore, this study contemplates the organizational (campus) dynamics through which participants navigate. This inquiry requires a theoretical framework capable of focusing and clarifying these perspectives. 8 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986) enables bi-directional analysis of cognitive processing, observable behavior, and environmental dynamics, also referred to as contextual affordances (Lent et al., 1994, 2000). This study employs social cognitive theory to evince African American women’s identification (cognition) of marginalization, subordination, or both; self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) assessment prior, and in response (behavior) to marginalization; and the effect of HBCU contextual affordances (environment) on Black women’s leadership progression. Inherent in this analysis is the impetus underlying acts of marginalization and subordination, power (Collins, 1990, 2000). While adoption of Black female phenomenology centers intersectional methodology, epistemology alone is insufficient to corroborate structural disparities in position, authority, or influence. Therefore, an ancillary theoretical framework is required. This study also applies Acker’s inequality regimes theory (2009) which enables detection of power imbalances within structural contexts. Acker asserted that inequality regimes (i.e., racial, gender, and class structures linked to macro social, political, and economic inequalities) systematize inequities through production, distribution, and transfer of resources. Inequality creation processes employ gendered, racialized conventions to reinforce the appropriateness of White men, and the inappropriateness of all others, for leadership. When social dogma induces perceptions, resource allocation, and hiring, bias ensues. This research utilizes qualitative methodology (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative methods encompass semi-structured, one-on-one interviews (Patton, 2002) of 12-15 Black female HBCU cabinet- and senior-level executives, recruited by letter of invitation and online invitations to participate in a confidential field study. The qualitative sample includes Black 9 female academic and administrative vice presidents, associate vice presidents, deans, and directors, in addition to Black female HBCU presidents. In addition, qualitative data collection includes review of artifacts and institutional data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Definition of Terms The terms below are relevant to the research topic and theoretical frameworks employed in this dissertation. Accompanying definitions are contextualized specific to the problem of practice. Additional definitions are indexed in Appendix B. Erasure Erasure is the state of social and/or organizational insignificance characterized by alienation based upon one’s social status or socially constructed, intersecting identities (Haynes et al, 2020, p.756) Inequality regimes Inequality regimes are interrelated practices, processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender, and racial inequalities through the production, distribution, or transfer of organizational resources (Acker, 2006, p. 443). Intersectional bias Intersectional bias occurs when individuals are subjected to compounded penalty, oppression, or reward, as a result of overlapping social identities, such as race, gender, and class (Crenshaw, 1989). Marginalization Marginalization denotes negative change characterized by exclusion from organizational membership as a result of intersecting, layered, socially constructed identities (Shields, 2008, p. 303). 10 Subordination Subordination is the relegation of a group’s or individual’s status or authority to a lower rank by a dominant group or individual, mechanized as social penalty against single or multiple layers of identity, such as race and gender (Harris & Leonardo, 2018). Organization of the Study Chapter One of this dissertation provided an overview of the problem of practice, including theoretical frameworks and methodology. Chapter Two presents a review of the literature relevant to the problem of practice. Chapter Three details the qualitative methodology guiding data collection strategies. Chapter Four presents empirical analysis of qualitative and quantitative data. Chapter Five discusses implications and recommendations predicated upon research findings. 11 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature In Black Feminist Theory in the Matrix of Domination, Patricia Hill Collins (1990) described Black feminist theory as the theoretical interpretation of reality by the Black women who experience it. Collins addressed oppressions most significant to Black women, race, gender, and class, each element in a matrix of domination constituting personal, community, and structural control. Benard (2016) characterized this standpoint as a form of social suffering. As an epistemological frame for this dissertation, BFT guards against the application of Eurocentric norms and standards in research that centralizes Black female phenomenology (Collins, 1989b). After summarizing salient aspects of BFT, the review will then examine the construct of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). Next, the review will examine literature deconstructing means by which organizations inhibit Black female leadership. The review will then consider studies examining Black female leadership inhibition at the mesosystemic, or HBCU ecosystem, level. As a theoretical framework, Bandura’s social cognitive theory will elucidate connections between participants’ cognition of and response to intersectional bias, as well as the environmental dynamics that precipitate intersectional bias or activate resistance to oppression. Acker’s inequality regimes theory will enable identification of Black female HBCU ecosystem power imbalances precipitating intersectional bias. Black Feminist World View The utility of black feminist epistemology in this research transcends existential reverence of Black womanhood. First, as a framework, it highlights gender and racial oppression of Black women. Second, it enables tracing of alternate forms of leadership ascendancy imposed by gender and racial discrimination against Black women (Rosser-Mims, 2010). BFT promotes decolonization of norms pervading higher education (Okello, 2018). 12 Black Feminist Epistemology Adoption of a Black feminist theoretical worldview as the epistemological underpinning for this dissertation centralizes Black female phenomenology predicated upon individual and collective insight, situated knowledge emerging from multiple oppressions (Collins, 2000). The framework constitutes a transversalist shift (Alinia, 2015), recentering Black females’ history and politics, replacing traditional Eurocentric norms (May, 2014). Intellectually, James (2009) aligns BFT’s focus on experience and social justice with Dewey’s philosophical outline of pragmatic democracy. Collins (1998), however, noted that while BFT guided the pursuit of justice, it yields no universal truth. In fact, Johnson and Ghandi (2015) underscored the evolutionary nature of collective knowledge. The genesis of Black feminist epistemology is rooted in the exploitation of Black female labor. Systematization of black female oppression harkens back to U.S. enslavement of Africans, an era hallmarked by commodification of black women, and progresses through subsequent eras absent elevation of their social location. From enslavement to World War II, the majority of African American women worked in agricultural or domestic servitude. In fact, Black female domestic work gave rise to the concept of other mothering in which Black women cared for and reared children not their own. The chasm between Black and White social constructions of femaleness arose from discrepancies reinforced through negative stereotypes manipulated to fortify racist, patriarchal patterns of Black female disenfranchisement (Collins, 2000). Black feminist thought exists as resistance to political and socioeconomic oppression. Black Feminist Ontology Black feminist ontology arises from fulfillment of roles systematized through community and institutional constructions. Enactment of institutional and social functions such as worship 13 and motherhood informed Black female self-definition in relation or opposition to environmental stimuli (Collins, 2000). Of note is the outsider-within status in which Black domestic workers gained intimate access to White families, a vantage point that allowed them to dismantle racist, patriarchal ideologies, but precluded familial belonging because of their race (Collins, 1986). Black feminist ontology exposes national, racial, gendered, and class-specific oppression of Black women in the United States. This oppression reifies through three lenses, economic commodification, sexual and reproductive politics, and social control. The history of African American women is rooted in their reduction to a unit of labor (Rousseau, 2013). Anchored in Marxian materialism, which emphasizes inequity as elemental to capitalistic competitiveness, U.S. capitalism emerges from a White, patriarchal slave economy (Benard, 2016; Marable, 1983), a pattern that persists in the digital economy (Fuchs, 2018). Black female domestic work gave rise to the concept of other mothering, in which Black women cared for and reared children not biologically theirs (Collins, 2000). The politics of Black female oppression formed around White male biological control of Black women’s bodies, both as technology and producers of technology for future labor supply (Jones, 2013). For example, Georgia in 1908 systematized post-Reconstruction policies that criminalized and dehumanized black femininity through chain gang labor and convict leasing. Yet, the State of Georgia in 1908 formally associated femaleness with Whiteness to safeguard White women from hard penal labor (Haley, 2013). Stereotypes ratified social narratives that legitimized this economic model. For example, typing Black women as mules cast them as tools of strength and labor (Stewart, 2017). Another trope, Black women as Jezebel, connoted female savagery and animalism necessitating White patriarchal control (Anderson et al., 2013). These oppressions persist. Henderson et al. (2010) asserted that racialized, gendered tropes such as mammy and the angry black woman supplanted 14 Black female intellect, relegating Black females as “the maids of academe” (p. 3). Collins (2000) posited that suppression of Black females’ experiences, knowledge, and voices, either by omission, ideological neutralization, or organizational subordination, constitutes systemic marginalization, subordination, and erasure from White feminist concerns, as well as from within traditionally Black organizations. Black feminist thought facilitates resistance. Major Tenets of Black Feminist Thought Major tenets of Black feminist thought emanate from its epistemological and ontological foundations. First, the aim of BFT is empowerment that counters interlocking oppressions. One example of oppression is capitalist control of women’s bodies by appointing themes such as femininity, morality, and sexuality to induce comportment aligned with hegemonic social expectations (Benard, 2016). Second, without embracing essentialism, BFT centers upon Black female group knowledge, or a Black feminist standpoint, built through experience of interconnected oppressions, including those mediated through segments of the Black community. Third, Black female self-definition is essential to resistance of social injustice. Self-definition reflects altered consciousness rearticulated upon experience of personal and social interactions (Collins, 2000). Scholars including Collins (2000), Henderson et al. (2010) and Lorde (1984) observed that personal resistance requires self-valuation and self-knowledge, cautioning that eschewing self-definition validates oppression. Fourth, two levels of knowledge inform the Black feminist standpoint, tacit knowledge and interpretive scholarship. Tacit knowledge constitutes informal awareness gleaned from common experiences (e.g., Black female haircare). Interpretive knowledge informs standpoint scholarship that fortifies resistance. Collins (2000) asserted that both are requisite in negotiating discursive foundations. Fifth, Black feminist thought evolves as social conditions that create oppressions evolve. Bilge (2020) argued that 15 centralizing knowledge discovery of Black women safeguards the capacity of intersectionality to analyze and deconstruct the marginalization of [all] other oppressed groups. Finally, Black feminist thought embraces, rather than rejects, other liberatory struggles. Paradigmatically, the construct is non-binary and humanist in its pursuit of social justice for all (Collins, 2020). As noted in the Combahee River Collective’s iconic Black Feminist Statement (1977), Black feminist thought presumes the inseparability of race, gender, and class as agents of Black oppression. Black Female Intersectionality as Experience and Methodology If racial, gendered oppression has been ascribed to conceptual ambiguity (Bowleg et al., 2017; Omi & Winant, 1994) or dispelled as constructive redundancy (Beale, 1979), intersectionality affords cogent, paradigmatic calibration enabling attributive and experiential analysis. By collocating and juxtaposing social constructions, intersectionality exposes structural asymmetries by which ontological and epistemological disparities can be revealed (May, 2014). Epistemologically, May posited that intersectionality challenged dominant, hegemonic conventions by decentering them in favor of standpoint mindsets. May further pointed out the utility of intersectionality in tracing how normative ideation instantiates contextual hegemony. Ontologically, the author noted that the paradigm enables plotting of in-group and structural positioning (i.e., hierarchical subordination), thus framing the constitutive relationality evident in a particular context. Most associated with Attorney Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), who first coined the term, intersectionality refers to overlapping social constructions that compound reward or penalty as a result one’s multiple identities. Crenshaw in 1991 defined the term as the experience of groups in hierarchical relationships structured upon converging systems of racial, gendered, and class 16 domination. The concept manifests as experience and methodology in research literature. For example, Bramesfeld and Good (2016) highlighted the construct’s experiential property, referring to social identities that interact with systems of inequality to privilege or marginalize group members. In outlining the social construction of race, Omi and Winant (1994) affirmed the experience intersectionality in collocating race and gender as personal identifiers, equating lack of racial clarity with “having no identity” (p. 12). In similar fashion, Clark and Saleh (2019) centralized the experience of intersectionality, addressing male-dominated hierarchies that stereotyped Black females as inferior, thereby demonstrating that, for minoritized women, racism and sexism intersected. Above all, Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (2008) explained in their landmark study that the prototypical person is a White, able-bodied, heterosexual male. Cultural, social, or political deviations from that norm can result in social invisibility. Other scholars have presented intersectionality as a methodological consideration. For instance, Alexander-Floyd (2012) defined intersectionality not only in legal terms, but also as an ideograph, a principle often cited, but incompletely applied within structural dynamics. Accordingly, Bowleg (2012) invoked the term to navigate multiple identities of microlevel experience reflecting macrolevel systems and structures of oppression. Likewise, Chun et al. (2013) posited that intersectionality emerged through power dynamics and, therefore, prioritized mechanization of systems and relationships over the constitution of identity. In delineating the paradigm’s deconstructive properties, Clark and McCall (2013) warned that without intersectionality, researchers may overlook or ignore independent systems dynamics. Finally, Burkner (2012) promoted the use of intersectionality for structural comparison in the analysis of exclusion. Both experiential and methodological perspectives elucidate and concretize disparate treatment predicated upon socially constructed markers and resulting hierarchical implications. 17 Black Female Social Location as Intersectional History Intersectionality evolved across the 19 th and 20 th centuries, surfacing as Black female resistance to chronological, systemic oppressions. Regardless of perspective, experiential or methodological, Moradi and Grzanka (2017) argued that determinative application of intersectionality required reverence to Black female epistemology, expanded prototypicality, and embrace of othered experiences. Crenshaw’s landmark essay, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics (1989), satisfies each of these attributes. Her legal thesis drew attention to the way interconnected oppressions disadvantaged Black female plaintiffs. However, Black women’s pursuit of relief from marginalization predates her work. As Carbado and Harris (2018) recounted, womanhood was racialized and gendered during slavery. Chun et al. (2013) suggested that the history of intersectionality is itself a social movement. Early intersectional leanings emerged during the French Revolution, during which abolitionists such as Olympe DeGouges advocated against gender inequality and denounced slavery (Gerdtz, 2018). Although known for her religious exhortations, Abolitionist Maria Stewart included feminist undertones in her famous 1832 speech before Boston’s African American Female Intelligence Society (Duran, 2020). In the speech scholars would later title, Ain’t I a Woman (Truth & Kennedy, 1992), Sojourner Truth promoted women’s suffrage while denouncing slavery and Black male sexism. Anna Julia Cooper advocated for Black women’s rights and higher education in A Voice from the South: By a Black Woman of the South (1892), notably challenging educated Black women to transverse class lines to support those not educated. Although popular domestically and internationally, Ida Wells Barnett’s anti-lynching campaign and the notoriety it garnered was overshadowed by Black male backlash at her candor 18 in confronting their sexual relations with White women (Pich, 2015). In The Double Task: The Struggle for Race and Sex Emancipation, educator Elise Johnson McDougald (1925) associated “sexual irregularities” (p. 689), including economic disparity and stereotypic representation of African American women in advertising, with issues of race and class. All-male Harvard Law School denied a fellowship to Black female cleric and civil rights champion Pauli Murray, who had experienced gender discrimination, despite graduating first in her class, at all-Black Howard Law School. While serving President’s Lyndon B. Johnson’s Commission on Women, she lobbied for the addition of language prohibiting sex discrimination to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With the language included, she then lobbied Equal Employment Opportunity Commission officials who had condemned racial discrimination, but dismissed gender discrimination (Hartmann, 2002). What began in 1973 as a New York meeting to discuss Black women and concerns regarding the White feminist movement, culminated with the establishment of the National Black Feminist Organization. However, ideological arguments led to its swift dissolution (Wallace, 2015). By 1974, another New York group of women organized the Combahee River Collective. In a formal, high-profile statement, members addressed their cohesion to authentic Black feminism, pledged to fight racial, sexual, class, and heterosexual oppression, and called out the simultaneous oppressions plaguing women of color (Combahee River Collective, 1977). Beale’s 1979 exposition of double jeopardy, introduced an additive conception of oppression, equating the number of one’s identities to the number of one’s disadvantages. Crenshaw’s 1989 legal treatise upended the additive formulation, instead articulating the interlocking, simultaneous nature of oppressions. She subsequently penned Mapping the Margins of Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color (1991), observing that 19 Black women comprise two identities which often inhabit competing social, political, and economic agendas. In Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Nation: Some Implications for Black Family Studies (1998b), scholar Patricia Hill Collins theorized the impact of race, class, and gender on the Black family, especially households headed by single females, and expounded upon how privilege dictated national and cultural perspectives on what constituted family. Core Tenets of Intersectionality A researcher’s approach to intersectionality determines the strength and content of its utility. Choo and Ferree (2010) outlined three approaches. Inclusion, an approach enlivened in the Combahee River Collective and Patricia Hill Collins’ work, is content centered, focusing on the substance of differences. Process-centered approaches, such as Crenshaw’s legal definitions, focus on relational interaction effects and the structural organization of power. Systematic approaches, identification of inequality regimes, for example, address labor or class differences embedded in capitalist logic undergirding organizational analysis (Acker, 2012). Intersectional categories are not additive, but interlocking (Best et al., 2011). As such, demographic intersectionality occurs when people merge stereotypes across categories, influencing social perceptions. For example, Black women stereotyped as desperate single mothers may be excluded from hiring for a position. Claim intersectionality encompasses legal claims predicated upon two or more legal characteristics (e.g., gender and race). For example, a Black woman who is neither prototypically female, nor prototypically Black, may be excluded from a group. Bowleg (2012) demonstrated that intersectional categories also are mutually constitutive. She recalled a study participant unable to articulate thoughts about manhood, but who elaborated on what it meant to be a Black man. 20 Atewologun et al. (2016) posited that people are cognizant of identities, their own and others, as well as their agency in engaging or limiting their social interactions. Carbado and Harris (2018) submitted that universality (e.g., women of color) fostered sameness, which normalizes obedience and compliance to prototypical norms. Similarly, Clair et al. (2012) employed the affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) to demonstrate how experiences trigger emotions, resulting in interactions that translate into workplace consequences. These transactions and consequences can be processed as threats by different, or othered, individuals (Clark & McCall, 2013). Intersectionality analyzes the process of differentiation to chart inequalities (Dhamoon, 2011). Clark and McCall (2013) emphasized that simultaneous, integrative analysis of social differences is necessary to understand the impact of intersectionality. The authors added that, although multidimensionality must not subsume interrelationships, the construct enables identification of new, non-normative social insights. For example, in an analysis of Black female fertility through a single-axis lens, empirical data associated college-educated Black women’s low fertility rates with economic incentives to defer childbirth. However, when the authors applied a multi-axis, intersectional lens, qualitative data indicated that a paucity of romantic partners moderated family planning decisions and, as a result, Black college-educated women, who spent fewer of their childbearing years in a marriage, had a higher child-bearing rate than their non-college-educated Black, White, and Hispanic counterparts. This example illustrates the utility of intersectionality in interrogating systems without defaulting to essentialism (Burkner, 2012). Bowleg (2012) asserted that situational knowledge may shape the experience of identity in general, and intersectionality in particular. In a subsequent study (Bowleg, 2013), the author 21 cautioned that identity categories could not be ranked and no one category was more salient than another. In fact, Bernstein (2016) offered a causal theory of intersectionality by which intersecting systems of power produce interactive effects that otherwise would not occur. The researcher attributed this to the inseparability of categories, distinguishing categorical determinables (e.g., race, gender, class), which are inseparable, from determinates (e.g., Blackness, femaleness, upper-class) which are separable. Bernstein further delineated how intersectional elements engender explanatory unity. In this case, multiple conjuncts (e.g., Blackness, womanhood) form a conjunction (Black woman). Conjunctional experiences are distinct from those belonging to single-conjunct (i.e., prototypical) categories. Burkner (2012) further noted that intersectionality is context dependent. Bernstein (2016) elaborated on this principle by offering two conceptions, destruction and intact intersectionality. In the destruction conception, categories are inseparable, as with eggs folded into a recipe. The intact conception positions categories as beams in a house, each standing alone, but necessary to create the whole. Balancing the two perspectives is crucial, since interaction weakens inseparability, but strengthens explanatory unity. Sims and Carter (2019) constructed a context-intensive model of Parker and Ogilvie’s (1996) African American Women Executive Leadership (AAWEL) Model as redress to the “Black ceiling” (p.100) limiting Black female leadership attainment. Parker and Ogilvie’s model acknowledged the psychosocial loci of Black women, predicated upon their intersectionality, self-concept, and lived experiences in social contexts. Their original construct acknowledged the androgynous leadership styles of Black women college presidents. Sims and Carter (2019) expanded the original model to include tokenism and isolation as social contexts, as well as Sue’s (2010) Microaggression Process Model (MPM), a remedy to stereotype threat (Steele & 22 Aronson, 1995) and avoidance-confrontation behaviors in navigating bicultural contexts. Because Black women in this study experienced twice the microaggressions as Black men and White women (Holder et al., 2015), the MPM includes organizational scarcity of black women as an environmental microaggression. Unique among leadership models, Sims and Carter’s (2019) AAWEL model may signal a broader, more visible pathway to Black female HBCU senior leadership. The model honors Black women’s intersectionality, lived experiences, and history of oppression. Most important, the model empowers African American women and, unlike traditional leadership approaches, does not render them invisible. Atewologun et al. (2016) framed identity work as meaning making to determine self- identification in a particular context. They suggested that identity work facilitated navigation through interactions, particularly for othered individuals who encounter identity threats (e.g., microaggressions). The authors cited Polzer and Caruso’s (2008) assertion that identity negotiation during marginalizing interactions was challenging for low-status (i.e., minoritized) group members with positive self-perceptions, such as Black female executives. The researchers analyzed 101 interactions across 24 participants and documented the use of identity cues and resources to navigate advantages or disadvantages resulting from subordinate, superior, and client interactions. Their study revealed participant behavior modification to exploit perceived cues. Shared identities strengthened group pride and narrowed gaps among subordinate groups. In encounters with superiors, respondents leveraged their identities to expand or restrict their power positions. In one-third of all client encounters, women in male-dominated environments were more likely to negotiate their position (e.g., architect vs. woman). Bowleg (2012) also documented the constitution of social identities through interactive power dynamics, resulting in the production of inequalities through stereotypes, 23 microaggressions, normalization of heterosexism, and hypermasculinity. Carbado (2013) established that Black women’s gender diminished their representational currency. Conversely, the author found Black men’s heterosexuality, conflated with Blackness, galvanized theirs. Rooted in Power Dynamics Intersectionality simultaneously reveals power differentials between actors in a social context and equips those who are different for resistance. Carbado and Harris (2018) stated intersectionality challenges discrimination predicated upon conventional systems of power. Clark and Saleh (2019) described intersectionality as the proffer of descriptors to break neoliberal, meritocratic silences. Conversely, Collins’ (1989) depiction of the outsider-within scenario demonstrated the construct’s capacity to reveal insights and promote resilience toward social justice. For this reason, some systems endeavor to exclude intersectionality from organizational design and logic. Bilge (2014) began her interrogation of exclusion in the higher education domain by noting that the construct emerges from a critique of white-dominated feminism and male- dominated racism. Exclusionary strategies included subsumption of intersectionality through neoliberal knowledge governance that advanced colorblind post-racialism. The researcher added that one need not be White to Whiten intersectionality. Non-White colonial immigrant scholars ideologically coopted into dominant epistemologies sustain and perpetuate hegemonic disciplinarianism, relieving sociologists of the task of racial analysis. Higher education’s commodification of intersectionality simultaneously promoted the paradigm while essentializing Black women into artifacts. In other cases, White females diluted intersectionality in their post- racial theorizing, essentializing Black women by embedding their scholarship in universalist iterations of feminism. Bilge warned this misappropriation of intersectionality portended 24 remarginalization of Black female academics and constituted the “afterlife of slavery” (p. 2313). Rodriguez and Freeman (2016) recounted the failure of one university’s initiative because its definition of diversity was so granular that every individual was marginalized. Zanoni et al. (2010) confirmed the rare application of intersectionality in organizational analysis. However, the authors noted that when applied, hegemonic discourses were adjusted to maintain traditional power dynamics. In their examination of social psychology approaches to diversity, the authors found that case studies reviewed focused group diversity and contextual outcomes (e.g., task independence, time, and group outcomes) rather than exploring how the context informed the meanings attached to identity. Pullen et al. (2019) attributed organizational exclusion of intersectionality to two strategies. Universalism generalizes the experience of Black women to apply to all women. The second method, bait and switch, appropriates the effects of intersectionality to underscore the pain of White women. Pullen and colleagues further noted that organizational design subverts intersectionality by defaulting to single-axis categories of analysis, abject failure to analyze interactivity, and the depoliticizing of identity by deemphasizing social interactions and highlighting individual difference. Settles et al. (2020) documented formal and informal epistemic exclusion of intersectional logic and found it reduced work quality and permitted application of stereotypes to intersectional scholarship. The authors indicated the favorability of positivist psychological convention, which assumes one reality, noting that intersectionality challenged this epistemology by analyzing multiple realities, each of which were falsifiable. The 30 highest-impact psychological journals reviewed in this study published only 1.6% of the 441 intersectionality articles. 25 In grappling with the fact that few studies document intersectional effects on inequality, Carbado (2013) reported six criticisms levied against intersectionality: 1. The paradigm focuses primarily on Black women. 2. The paradigm overemphasizes identity. 3. The paradigm is static and does not capture environmental dynamism. 4. Intersectionality over-emphasizes subjects [categories]. 5. The paradigm has achieved theoretical saturation. 6. Alternate approaches should replace intersectionality. Carbado refuted these criticisms in his work. He noted, first, that the paradigm does not privilege categories. Second, he emphasized that the framework focuses on structural inequalities. Third, he posited the emergent, continuous nature of intersectional analysis, especially its reliance upon contextual meaning and avoidance of pre-fixed categories. He also argued that attempts to locate alternate theories proved less utilitarian in resolving inequalities. Additional scholars have found fault with the intersectional approach. In particular, Best et al. (2011) claimed that the paradigm, which relies heavily on qualitative inquiry, problematizes analysis of interaction effects. Offering another critique, Capper and Young (2014) protested intersectionality’s preference for social interaction at the expense of person- centered leadership construction. In an effort to dismiss the paradigm’s utility, Gunnarsson (2017) argued that intersectionality has transcended reasonable bounds and subsumed women. Although Atewologun and colleagues (2016) advocated the importance of identity work, they also conceded that efforts to hone daily meaning-making challenged important individual foci, including: self-identification, self-esteem, and coherence. The scholars also expressed concern over the use of intersectionality as an uncharted research methodology, citing low 26 generalizability and the possibility of overlooking clusters of power and privilege if focusing too narrowly on individual interactions. Nash (2008) also registered concerns about lack of clarity regarding intersectional methodologies. Agosto and Roland (2018) suggested the inchoate nature of intersectionality leads to errant application and operationalization. Only one of 15 authors reviewed in their study had connected their daily work to tenets of the paradigm. This finding led the duo to call for incorporation of administrative practices as a measurable indicator of leadership to ensure that variables are not amalgamated. Indeed, Carastathis (2014) opined that the methodological paradox of irreducibility created tension between the propensity to collapse categories and creating an additive list. However, the authors reminded readers that the construct presupposes the integrity of emergent system-identity descriptors. Despite concerns about operationalization of intersectionality, researchers continue to study its utility and effects in organizations. The Experience of Intersectionality Intersectionality enables identification and tracking of differential power dynamics in an organization. Burkner (2012) articulated how institutions reinforce structural hierarchies that connect epistemological and personal dimensions of race and gender. Acker (2012) further detailed how interactions across those hierarchies produce substructures that reaffirm or produce inequalities. Ferber and Herrera (2013) maintained that privileged groups presume normative comportment and access equality. Conversely, marginalized groups typically know how inequalities affect them (Williams & Melchoir, 2013). Thus, isolating the effects of intersectionality begins with understanding the form of intersectionality presented. Carastathis (2014) employed Crenshaw’s (1991) matrix to explain the three most common types of intersectionality. Structural intersectionality occurs when co-located 27 oppressions particularize experiences that result in penalty such as marginalization or invisibility. Examples of structural intersectionality include Black maternal mortality and Black male homicide data (Bowleg, 2012). Political intersectionality occurs when individuals must choose between co-activated identities and are penalized for activating neither. For example, Benard (2016) wrote that Black women are conflicted between their support for Black men and disdain for Black sexism. Representational intersectionality occurs when racialized, gendered tropes are employed to objectify and control othered group members. For example, the angry black woman stereotype (Jones & Norwood, 2016) harkens the labor control model of African American enslavement. Colorblind intersectionality (Carbado, 2013) enables non-othered groups to occupy othered categories free of accountabilities. As a result of colorblind intersectionality, Black women are more commonly identified as men and penalized for their Blackness. Clair et al. (2012) and Sims and Carter (2019) espoused monitoring oppressions (i.e., micro-aggressions) and the agency they may evoke. In her landmark legal analysis, for example, Crenshaw (1991) delineated between two perspectives in analyzing responses to sexual assault. Intercategorical intersectionality addresses differences between groups based upon differing social, economic, and political locations. Intracategorical intersectionality refers to differences within groups. In-group differences, characterized by divergent social, political, or economic agendas, can provide a framework for new social justice pursuits. In-group alliances became a platform for redress of social inequalities. Alberti and Iannuzzi (2019) conceived embodied intersectionality as relationality with the self, based upon interactions with others. Mirza (2018) related the experience of embodied intersectionality through five interactive experiences. 28 • Disorientation (e.g., How did you get invited?) • Infantilization (e.g., Are you here to serve coffee?) • Invisibility (e.g., Contextual erasure through stereotyping) • Hypervisibility (e.g., Extreme scrutiny) • Containment (e.g., Extreme workload). As Zanoni et al. (2010) called for monitoring of how individuals relate to structural inequalities, Mirza (2018) contended that these experiences, forged by the power of Whiteness in her resident India, evoked a spirit of resistance among minoritized women pursuing education. Best et al. (2011) determined two types of intersectionality, demographic and claims, by reviewing federal Equal Opportunity Employment (EEO) claims filed between 1965 and 1999. Plaintiffs with demographic claims, filed based upon overlapping demographic characteristics that exceeded the sum of individual categories (e.g., inner-city Blacks), were less likely to win their cases. Plaintiffs with claim intersectional claims, those filed based upon multiple positionalities (e.g., courts that view Black women as neither female nor Black), were half as likely to win their cases as single-claim plaintiffs. Between the 1970s and 1980s, there were less than 100 intersectionality cases, accounting for 10% of all EEO cases. By the 1990s, there were more than 1,000. By 1995, intersectionality claims accounted for 25% of all EEO cases. Win rates during this period indicate intersectional bias against Black females as well as scant legal protection from discrimination against Black females. Black Female Intersectional Bias Having explored the fundamental construction and dimensions of intersectionality, this section more closely explores intersectional bias, especially intersectional bias against Black female leaders. Despite theoretical and methodological misgivings about the inchoate application 29 of intersectionality to higher education problem-solving, its benefits include: (a) reflection of diversity in higher education; (b) inclusion of invisible and marginalized stakeholders; (c) identification and monitoring of inequalities through the convergence of othered identities; and (d) rejection of one-dimensional assumptions (Museus & Griffin, 2011). This approach shines a light on what Collins (1998) referred to as containment in white spaces. Research has shown that women who cross into male boundaries may experience resistance, othering, and gendered vs. disciplinary (i.e., woman first; engineer second) identification (Koch et al., 2015; Martin & Barnard, 2013). Scholars such as Hatmaker (2013) documented women in masculine professions struggle to achieve a sense of belonging. Hatmaker explained female acceptance is relative to identification with cultural norms. Hatmaker further noted that physiognomy can trigger sex types, which result in gender stereotypes, which can engender bias. Bias also emerges via interactions which, continuously enacted, constitute culture (Bramesfeld & Goode, 2016; Schein, 2017). In such cases, gender diversion may be employed as a tactic to avert marginalization. Gender-marginalizing behaviors include amplifying (e.g., being identified as a woman, not an engineer); imposing gendered expectations (e.g., asking women to record meeting notes); tuning out during interactions; and doubting competence (Hatmaker, 2013). These affects are further complicated by racialization, including within the African American higher education community. Black Female Leadership Bias Black women’s leadership, authority, and influence are diminished by intersectional bias. Crenshaw (1992) invoked this sensitivity in her work. She noted that organizations, including feminist and civil rights groups, have failed to acknowledge and comprehend the importance of Black women’s intersectional experiences, and have treated Black women in ways that subvert 30 their compounded identities and experiences. Given the pervasiveness of industrial hegemony, Acker (2012) affirmed the importance of including race, gender, and class in analyses of organizational inequalities. Examination of Black female intersectional bias first necessitates comprehension of how the phenomenon may be created in an organization. MacKinnon (2013) asserted that Black women can experience discrimination for not being White women, or not being Black males, but are most often penalized for not being both. This constitutes intersectional bias. McMahon and Kahn (2016) claimed intersectional bias was instantiated when biases associated with intersectional group members contained emergent elements that did not overlap with the biases of their constituent, minority group identities. For example, a permanent hair relaxer would be associated with a Black woman, but not all females nor all African Americans. Goff et al. (2008) offered an exclusionary bias perspective: sexism is Eurocentric; racism is androcentric. Thus, Black women are marginalized, subjugated, or erased. McMahon and Kahn (2016) also expounded on the ambivalent sexism theory by which non-prototypical individuals are typed as angry, ungrateful, and power hungry, and penalized by subjection to hostile sexism. Conversely, prototypical individuals are typed as weak, gender differentiated, deserving of intimacy, and are rewarded as recipients of benevolent sexism. In the absence of information on gender role fulfillment, race can substitute as a mediator of assigned stereotypes. Next, it is important to understand how intersectional bias affects female leaders. For example, Carton and Rosette (2011) reported that decision makers typically view females as less competent and less capable of leading organizations. In their breakthrough study, Ryan and Haslam (2007) observed that women and leaders of color were more likely to be promoted to 31 CEO when an organization was in decline. This appointment strategy was intended to signal a change in direction. Additionally, Glass and Cook (2013) monitored the leadership of 500 Fortune 500 companies from 1996 to 2010 and determined that a newly appointed leader’s decision-making power and authority were more likely to be constrained. The researchers also found that the tenure of leaders of color in declining organizations was likely to be shorter because of hypervisibility, extreme scrutiny, and performance pressures. This confluence of stressors also triggered negative performance stereotypes particularly among token leaders. Finally, Glass and Cook (2013) found that minoritized CEOs in positions where decline persists were more likely to be replaced by White males. The authors called this the savior effect and suggested it typifies masculine organizational culture. Masculine Organizational Culture Structural bias that prioritizes single-construct identities, masculine gender, for example, creates a hierarchy that excludes and oppresses individuals without that identity. This exclusion invalidates the experiences and creates barriers to career progression for the omitted. A common form of this bias is masculine organizational culture (Eagly, 2005). Masculine organizational culture blocks female inclusion and frustrates female career progression (Kark & Eagly, 2010). Researchers (Featherstone, 2004; Kark & Waismel-Manor, 2005; Silvestri, 2003) determined that masculine organizational culture reifies through lexicons, social interaction, and symbols, all diminishing women’s social capital (Eagly & Carli, 2007), a necessity for professional attainment. In their study of 411 Lebanese female managers, Tlaiss and Kauser’s (2010) subjects blamed unfair judgment of job performance (67%), personal work (68%) and professional capabilities (72%) on male organizational culture. In their explication of a related phenomenon, Derks et al. (2011) cited the Queen Bee Phenomenon, a response to masculine organizational 32 culture in which successful women alienate themselves from and stereotype other women, thus perpetuating gender oppression. Derks and colleagues argued this practice perpetuates gender discrimination. Black Male Privilege Single-construct dominance also can permeate spheres defined by a discrete, master construct such as race. While an entire population may be structured based upon a representative identity (e.g., African Americans), a targeted sample of that population may be excluded on the basis of the target’s imputed, subconstruct-specific inferiority. One example of this phenomena is Black male privilege. Three researchers, Lewis-McCoy (2014), Marsh (2011), and Woods (2008) posited that, in the Black community, the male domination underpinning masculine organizational culture reproduces as Black male privilege. Lewis-McCoy (2014) defined Black male privilege as a set of unearned, gender-specific advantages that center black men’s priorities. Lewis-McCoy asserted this behavior is embedded in Black community norms to the exclusion of women. In a 2008 essay, Woods provided a checklist of behaviors that systematize Black male primacy, subjugating women, Black women, in particular. Although Johnson (2018) rejected the concept of Black male privilege and equivocated the affect with “reflections of real privilege found in White society” (p. 35), he conceded its provision of gendered benefit. Woods (2008) argued that addressing Black male privilege is necessary to rectify “male supremacist attitudes and actions” (p. 1). Marsh (2011) advised that the “chains of history” (p. 63) can be unlocked only by acknowledging inequalities borne of black male privilege. Eagly (2005) stated that, when predicated upon masculine influences, leadership is disproportionately male, irrespective of the composition of followers. These studies demonstrated means by which male privilege, whether observed as masculine organizational culture, including the Queen Bee effect, or Black 33 male privilege, may pervade the HBCU leadership realm, engendering marginalization or erasure of Black female leaders. Consequences of Black Female Leadership Bias Citation of abstract phenomena, however salient, is presumptive and insufficient in demonstrating causality and informing cogent redress of organizational bias. Examination of this problem space, therefore, requires ontological analysis of constitutive enculturation (Dubnick, 2014) framed by environmental dynamics. Assessment of phenomenological effects further requires epistemological analysis of environmental frames to understand how interactions that constitute organizational culture are mechanized. In fact, Bandura (1977) argued that the mechanization of interactions, in this case the structural imposition of governance, constitutes social order which, in turn, influences cognition and behavior. As such, this dissertation explores the mechanization and constitutive dynamics of Black female leadership in the HBCU ecosystem. Whether intentional or inadvertent, the absence of attention to Black female intersectionality frustrates the study of intersectional bias. There is a paucity of research on Black female leadership, especially Black female higher education leaders, particularly those at HBCUs (Lloyd-Jones, 2009). Nevertheless, the results of every survey identified in this section confirm some degree of intersectional bias. For example, Sesko and Biernat (2010) reported that Black females’ faces and statements were least likely to be remembered by participants in a series of lab experiments. Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) reported that although the number of African American leaders has increased, African American female leaders experience lower promotion rates, were more likely to be treated unfairly, and were more likely to have limited access to information, resources and support networks. Lloyd-Jones (2009) lamented finding 34 only one case study focused on meaning and insight ascribed to Black female leadership experiences at predominantly White institutions. The researcher exhorted Black career women’s attention to assessment of organizational culture, since they were more likely to be relegated to the margins of an organization. Stewart (2017) invoked writer Zora Neale Hurston’s characterization of Black women as mules who toil independently to depict the how Black females are objectified. She also pointed out how Black women’s emotions are weaponized against them by deploying the “strong Black woman” (p. 32) stereotype. She explained that Black women are silenced by external expectations of strength and resilience, thus oppression is normalized within the Black woman’s body. Commodore (2019) contended that Black women are expected to suppress their intersectionality in support of racial uplift, which is historically rooted in Black male patriarchy. The author suggested this robs Black females of their constitutive intersectionality, forcing them into political choice of one category (i.e., race or gender) over another. This choice portends invisibility. Research confirms this is a reasonable expectation for Black female executives. The next six sections document Black female leaders’ experience of intersectional bias. The Impact of Leader Prototyping on Leader Emergence Racial and gender subjugation of Black women is commonplace in organizations. Cook and Glass (2014), Davis and Maldonado (2015), and Livingston et al. (2012) found that leadership prototyping marginalizes Black women. Waring (2003) commented that African American females in higher education may need to “convince others that leaders are not just one type of person” (p. 43). Rosette et al. (2008) confirmed the centrality of Whiteness as a leadership prototype. Their study’s 167 respondents considered White subjects more likely to be leaders than African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Participants of all races judged White 35 subjects as more successful and possessive of greater career potential than non-Whites. Data also indicated non-Whites were evaluated against a “White standard” (p. 772), subordinating Black female leaders. Collins (1986) assessed the subordinated “outsider within” (p. S14) status of Black women in academia by harkening Black domestic workers. She recalled maids’ intimate vantage point in uncloaking Whiteness, without the benefit of full acceptance by their White employers. Collins outlined the denial of agency to maids’ and their simultaneous treatment as “objectified others” (p. S20) to maintain systems of domination, thereby eliminating their “professional authority to challenge…anomalies” (p. S29). Henderson et al. (2010) submitted there exists a void in the representation of Black women as intellectuals, supplanted by racialization and gendering of African American women’s roles as “less integral to the Academy” (p. 30). She and her colleagues documented unequal respect for Black women’s scholarship, credentials, and expertise. Her research associated Black women’s professional disenfranchisement, which frustrates leader emergence, with the inability to access resources and information. Another result of structural oppression among HBCUs is the paucity of African American female executive mentors (Beckwith et al., 2016). The Absence of Black Female Mentors Structural dynamics (e.g., male organizational culture) can preclude the provision of support requisite for Black female leadership development. Bonner (2001) described the need for formal support of women’s advancement in the HBCU environment, noting a climate of “silent suffering and conflict between racism and sexism” (p. 190). The paucity of female mentors is attributed to the shortage of African American female leaders (Gamble & Turner, 2015). In their survey of 100 Black female postsecondary executives in Georgia, the researchers learned that 36 although 50% acknowledged awareness of higher education mentoring programs, a shortage of Black postsecondary mentors frustrated leadership networking. Freeman and Gasman (2014) interviewed 10 HBCU presidents grooming prospective successors. Of the 10, six male presidents were grooming males; four female presidents were grooming females. This gendered pattern portends no shift in female HBCU leader emergence. When African American females do ascend into HBCU leadership, they are likely to encounter bias in the assessment of their leadership performance. Inferential Performance Bias and Leadership Efficacy Prejudiced evaluation of work performance also impedes Black female career progression. In two surveys of 313 participants, Biernat and Kobrynowicz (1997) observed heightened ability requirements for Blacks and females, labeled low-status job applicants. Novel for incorporating performance standards, the methodology revealed that, because of negative stereotypes, low-status job applicants were judged differently than high-status (i.e., White male) applicants. There was no difference between White males’ minimum performance and ability standard measures. However, minimum job performance standards were lowered, while ability standards were heightened, for low status applicants. The authors argued this impeded Blacks’ and females’ demonstration of competence-based leadership ability. Carton and Rosette (2011) found disparate evaluative standards for Black and White leaders. White leaders in the study were evaluated more positively than Black leaders regardless of organizational results. Black leaders received no credit for organizational success, which was attributed to non-leadership qualities believed to counteract their perceived incompetence. However, Black leaders’ negative leadership attributes were cited as the reason for organizational failures. 37 Disparate, More Critical Appraisal of Female HBCU Leaders Beyond actual performance of organizational actors, application of unequal standards in the assessment leader capability also can disadvantage Black female leaders. Lockett and Gasman (2018) asserted that Black female presidents are judged more harshly than women with one subordinated identity. The authors cited Williams and Dempsey (2014), who asserted that Black women, who do not fit the White male leadership prototype, are held to higher standards of competence and performance measures (p. 206). This constitutes intersectional bias. Allen and Lewis (2016) posited that because Black female leaders do not conform to White male professional norms, they encountered resistance to their authority and subversion from superiors and subordinates. The authors emphasized that Black women, in particular, were marginalized, reinforcing their “outsider within” (p. 8) status. Examples of this affect include objectification of leaders’ identities (e.g., mistaking a leader for an assistant) and, as Collins (1986) noted, disparate standards of comportment (e.g., attire and hairstyles) that were considered less professional in the absence of White and male attributes. Recent HBCU research bears this out. In a study that analyzed 247 media stories and public commentary on 23 Black female HBCU presidents from 2007 to 2017, Commodore et al. (2019) used critical discourse analysis to examine the perception of Black female HBCU presidents within the context of “White patriarchal society” (p. 1). Researchers filtered out stereotypes to neutralize perceptions of Black women. In addition to comments that condemned presidents’ transgression of traditional gender roles, the authors found that, regardless of issues pre-dating the presidents’ appointments, appraisals of leader performance included incompetence, laissez-faire leadership, and intentional organizational destruction. Commenters appeared to associate institutional failings with negative stereotypes of Black women, resulting in media coverage that reduced female HBCU presidents 38 to scapegoating or erasure. While leadership failings in this study were attributed to negative characteristics, the enactment of leadership also can result in negative leader characterization. Agentic Penalty as Intersectional Bias Organizational sexism can be operationalized regardless of a female’s approach to leadership. For example, role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) specifies that female leaders are stereotyped as communal (i.e., caring, helpful, sensitive), rather than agentic (i.e., confident, decisive, dominant), and are penalized for exhibiting agentic behaviors. Rudman et al. (2012) posited that women must display agentic behaviors to appear fit for leadership but may be penalized for agentic deportment. Conversely, the researchers stated that communal behavior may mitigate agentic backlash but perpetuates the perception of women’s incompetence. The study determined that male and female participants penalized incongruent behaviors equally to maintain gendered stereotypes. Rosette et al. (2016) further affirmed that “intersectionality matters” (p. 12) in agentic bias. Black women in this study were not penalized for agentic behaviors such as dominance, anger, and strength, nor were they perceived as competent or communal. In fact, the study’s 180 nationwide respondents found Black women capable of assisting goal accomplishment, but absent the intellect to lead. As with Lewis and Neville (2015), Rosette et al. (2016) indicated that, because of racial stereotypes, Black female leaders faced harsher consequences for comportment that challenges or fails to fulfill stereotypical gender roles. In each study, penalties appeared to be levied as means of preserving socialized gender hierarchies. Stereotypes also influence how role-incongruency penalties are levied against Black female HBCU presidents (Collins, 2002; Commodore et al., 2019). 39 Stereotype-Influenced Agentic Penalty as Leadership Control One means of bias enculturation involves the ascription of stereotypes and tropes. The “strong black woman” (Welang, 2018, p. 302) archetype depicts African American female leaders as unempathetic, indestructible, and alien. Welang also discussed the “Mammy” (p. 302) stereotype, a characterization of enslaved Black females expected to comport themselves with the social order, prioritizing other’s needs over their own, regardless of the oppression encountered. Treatment of some Black female HBCU presidents mirrors this affect. Gasman (2007b, 2016) noted a pattern of Black female leaders’ disparagement and micromanagement within patriarchal HBCU hierarchies (Gasman, 2007b). As an example, Lockett and Gasman (2018) cited the termination of former Alabama State University President Gwendolyn Boyd, who was hired in December 2013. Unlike peer and predecessor presidents, a no-cohabitation clause was placed in Boyd’s contract (Elliott, 2014; McConner, 2014). On, January 17, 2015, after making “hard decisions” (WSFA, 2016, p. 3) to safeguard revenues, curtail expenses, and restore institutional accreditation, concerns that pre-dated her appointment, the university’s board publicly fired Boyd for failure to maintain confidence. Reasons for the lack of confidence were not provided. As such, Lockett and Gasman (2018) cited Boyd’s tenure as “unnecessarily cut short” (p. 207). While Black women ascend to HBCU presidencies at a higher rate than in the overall higher education domain, their ascendance is characterized by efforts to constrain their power and authority (Jean-Marie & Tickles, 2018). In 1997, Black women comprised 1% of all U.S. college presidents; 8% of all female presidents; and 25% of all African American college presidents. Fifty-five percent of those women served at junior and community colleges. The remainder served at satellite campuses of larger institutions, or HBCUs. Gender stratification 40 (women in staff and lower-level positions), a convention in higher education, persisted despite women’s possession of academic backgrounds similar to men (Waring, 2003). Commodore (2019) disclosed that, beyond their competence, aspiring Black HBCU leaders also must comport themselves with a standard conservatism, such that the inability to perform conservative aesthetics (i.e., Whiteness) stifles presidential ascendancy. Examples of conservative performance included hair styles, gender-role conformity, and attire. The HBCU Ecosystem America’s 100 Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are institutions that were established prior to 1964 with the primary mission of educating Black Americans. In 2010, there were 107 HBCUs. In 2018, there were 101 HBCUs, 51 public and 50 private. The number of HBCU students increased 47%, from 223,000 to 327,000 students, between 1976 and 2010, then decreased 11%, to 292,000 students, between 2010 and 2018. In comparison, the number of students in all U.S. degree-granting institutions increased 91 percent, from 11 million to 21 million students, between 1976 and 2010, then decreased 7%, to 20 million students, between 2010 and 2018 (NCES, 2020). A Brief History of HBCUs HBCUs share a history that emanates from the United States’ racist, sexist foundations. Rooted in the goal of racial uplift, HBCUs are the only class of institutions created to advance African American education (Gasman, 2007a). Established between 1837 and 1964, many of the institutions were conceived with the aim of religious inculcation and industrial training. HBCUs were the only higher education option available for Blacks until the 1960s, when HBCU enrollment declined. Blacks comprised 100% of HBCU enrollment in the 1950s; 80% in the 1980s (NCES, 2011); and 76% today (NCES, 2020). 41 Cheyney, Lincoln, and Wilberforce universities were the only higher education options for free Blacks prior to the civil war. Following the civil war, the Freedmen’s Bureau and the Church (e.g., American Missionary Association) opened schools to deliver basic skills pedagogy to Blacks, 90% of whom were illiterate. Institutional missions were tied to the plight of Blacks who had endured protracted enslavement. White intentions, benevolent or not, were often met with Black mistrust, resulting in demands for increased participation in decision-making and administration as education levels increased, notably during Reconstruction. Black faculty hiring increased during this period, still marked by White male leadership (Albritton, 2012). By 1890, the Second Morrill Act, mandated higher education accommodations for Black admission to institutions. Southern efforts to circumnavigate the legislation resulted in an increase in the number of HBCUs despite the lack of State support. For example, in 1919, eight Alabama HBCUs received $4000; a white counterpart received $65,000 (Albritton, 2012). Although HBCUs were founded to educate Black students, they enrolled students of other races as well. This diversity has increased over time. In 2018, non-Black students made up 24% of enrollment at HBCUs, compared with 15% in 1976. While Black enrollment at HBCUs increased by 17% between 1976 and 2018, the total number of Black students enrolled in all degree-granting postsecondary institutions more than doubled during this period. As a result, among Black students, the percentage enrolled at HBCUs fell from 18% in 1976 to 9% in 2010, then showed no measurable change between 2010 and 2018. Female enrollment at HBCUs has been higher than male enrollment every year since 1976. The percentage of female enrollment at HBCUs increased from 53% in fall 1976 to 62% in fall 2018. Also in 2018, 88% of HBCU students attended four-year institutions, while 12% attended two-year institutions. Approximately 76% of HBCU students attend public institutions, while the remaining 24% 42 attend private, nonprofit institutions. Half of all HBCU students are the first in their family to attend college (NCES, 2020). In academic year 2017–18, HBCUs conferred approximately 48,300 degrees. Of the degrees conferred, 11% were associate’s degrees, 68% were bachelor’s degrees, 16% were master’s degrees, and 5% were doctorates. Of the degrees conferred by HBCUs, 74% were conferred to Black students. Black students earned 43% of the 5,500 associate’s degrees, 81% percent of the 32,600 bachelor’s degrees, 71% of the 7,700 master’s degrees, and 62% of the 2,500 doctor’s degrees conferred by HBCUs in 2017-18. At all levels, the majority of degrees conferred to Black students were conferred to Black females (NCES, 2020). Gasman (2013) noted that over time, the percentages of bachelor's and master's degrees conferred to Black students by HBCUs have decreased. For example, HBCUs conferred 35% of the bachelor's degrees and 21% of the master's degrees Black students earned in 1976-77, compared with 13% and 6%, respectively, of bachelor's and master's degrees Black students earned in 2017-18. Additionally, the percentage of Black doctorates conferred by HBCUs was lower in 2017-18 (11 %) than in 1976-77 (14%). Ezell and Schexnider (2010) surmised that persistent, historic underfunding places pressure upon HBCU leadership and governance to maintain solvency and mission focus. The total revenue for HBCUs in 2017-18 was $8.7 billion, with $1.9 billion from student tuition and fees. Total expenditures were $8.0 billion, of which $2.3 billion was spent on instruction (NCES, 2021). In 2017-18, degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the United States spent $604 billion (in current dollars). Total expenses were $385 billion at public institutions, $207 billion at private nonprofit institutions, and $12 billion at private for-profit institutions (NCES, 2021). 43 According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (2011), faculty salary gaps between HBCU and national average PWI salaries ranged between $18,000 and $53,000. HBCU Culture HBCUs are traditionally conservative spaces (Harper & Gasman, 2008). One indication of cultural conservatism is the ecosystem’s presidential hiring process which selects out, or reproduces inauthenticity in, candidates not subscribing to or performing conservatism. Thus, prospective senior HBCU leaders who emulate prototypicality in ideology and comportment are more favorably perceived and evaluated. Njoku et al. (2017) observed that oppression in the HBCU ecosystem is reinforced through organizational subtexts that equate respectability with Whiteness. Patton (2014) cited Black aesthetics that marginalize Black women. HBCUs provide frames of reference for examining disparate treatment of African American female presidents. Institutionally, the majority of baccalaureate HBCUs not affiliated with Black religious denominations share a similar leadership evolution: they were established and led by White males (Lockett & Gasman, 2018; Stripling, 2012). Leadership subsequently was entrusted primarily to Black males (Gasman, 2007b; Lockett & Gasman, 2018). HBCU boards included only White males prior to the 1950s, and are predominantly male today (Gasman, 2007a; Jackson & Harris, 2007). Even all-female HBCUs initially overlooked Black women as leaders. The first African American female HBCU president of a fully accredited, four-year institution, Bennett College President Willa B. Player, was installed in 1956 (Gasman, 2007b, 2011), 83 years after its inception and 30 years after its 1926 baccalaureate accreditation (Bennett College, n.d.). Spelman College was established in 1881. The institution’s first Black female presidential finalist was interviewed (but not selected) in 1981. Spelman’s first Black female president was appointed in 1987 (Lockett & Gasman, 2018). 44 Although Black female HBCU enrollment continues to increase, female ascendancy to the HBCU presidency does not reflect proportional representation (Commodore, 2019). HBCU female faculty are less likely than males to be tenured (37% vs. 43%) and less likely than men to hold the rank of professor (34% to 47%) or associate professor (29% to 33%). Women also are not proportionately reflected in HBCU administrative ranks (Gasman et al., 2014). Freeman and Gasman (2014) reported 75% of presidential survey respondents were grooming prospective successors in personal attributes and functional competence. However, mentoring was typically pursued as a same-sex endeavor. Freeman and Gasman (2014) conducted a mixed methods study of 94 HBCU presidents, in addition to curriculum vitae review for non-respondents. The team also conducted in-person interviews with 10 presidents. Data indicated that 46% had been president prior to their current post; 33% had been vice president for academic affairs; 15% had been K-12 administrators; and 3% had been business leaders. Three percent progressed into HBCU leadership from some other background, while 34% had worked in higher education between 25 and 50 years. Educationally, 58% of the sample had Ph.D.s; 25% had Ed.D.s; 3% had M.D.s; and 14% had J.D.s. Data on presidents’ educational backgrounds revealed that 75% had degrees in education; 15% had degrees in social sciences; 95% earned their doctoral degrees at historically white institutions. Only 58% earned their bachelor’s degrees at HBCUs, a rate 30% lower than 30 years ago. Finally, a lower percentage (58%) of HBCU presidents secured their degrees at HBCUs than 30 years ago (75%). The average tenure among this sample was 6 years, compared to 8.5 years nationally. Sixteen percent had served 15 to 25 years. 45 HBCU Interaction Climate Deconstruction of interaction framed by racist, sexist structures in the HBCU ecosystem evinces mechanization of intersectional bias. Patterns of interaction are foundational in forging organizational culture (Schein, 2017). This research study centers upon individual and group interactivity by Black female leaders in the HBCU ecosystem. Literature documenting their professional experiences is scant (Jean-Marie, 2011). Available research nonetheless confirms intersectional disparities. Henry and Glenn (2009) noted an environment of racism, ostracism, and disrespect fueled by underrepresentation. Evans (2007) commented on the encoding of female comportment to ensure male dominance in curricular and administrative policy and practice. In a historiography of HBCUs, Gasman (2007b) laid bare the use of policy to control Black women, fueled by Eurocentric mores that called for restoration of Black women’s feminine virtue post-slavery. Religious subtexts, such as hiring male administrators who also served in ministry, systematized these norms. More broadly, the author remarked on the failure to address issues of gender in HBCU historiography, despite much of it having been recorded by women. HBCU administration today remains a male-dominant sphere. Lockett and Gasman (2018) called for HBCU leadership to more proportionately represent its enrollment, presently 62 female (NCES, 2021). The authors listed barriers to goal attainment, including: masculine organization culture in governance; male social reproduction in leadership ranks; and male bias against and stereotyping of black female faculty and administration. The duo also specified micromanagement as an intersectional leadership issue. Jackson and Wu (2015) outlined the underlying paradox Black women HBCU leaders encounter. Beyond the pale of intersectional bias, the pair contested social unwillingness to embrace the reality of discrimination at HBCUs. The scholars addressed elements of an issue 46 long veiled in HBCU culture: discrimination against Black women by Black men in a supposedly race-neutral environment. They labeled this paradox the “hidden hand” (p. 170) that perpetuates macrosystemic racism. The authors asserted that Black men who had found HBCUs a refuge from higher education racism were actively “replicating and instigating it” (p. 170). Institutional barriers such as administrative silencing of Black women’s voices and salary gaps have been systematized through implementation of three cultural models, each emanating from documented aspects of HBCU history. The military model invokes war-making (i.e., personal and sexual abuse) and victim-blaming as social control. The Black church model inculcates male dominance in accordance with scriptural precepts and minimizes female contributions to the academy. The athletics model benefits Black men, as a gesture of racial accommodation, but subverts Black women, who are marginalized in favor of non-othered women to fulfill gender objectives. Jackson and Wu further asserted that among HBCU leadership are women who have ascended as pretextual administrators. As with queen bees (Derks et al., 2011) the advancement of pretextual administrators is an ostensible reward for their support of the male-dominant status quo (Jackson & Wu, 2015). Objectivity requires an assessment of what constitutes successful HBCU leadership. Brown et al. (2012) conducted mixed methods research encompassing 21 in-person, one-on-one interviews and found that mentoring mattered. HBCU presidents considered mentorship crucial to successful leadership candidacy, and in their own succession planning. Role clarity and social politics (i.e., personal influence and trust) also were considered crucial to success. Freeman et al. (2016) also interviewed 21 leaders in HBCU sphere. The most salient leadership attributes reported were: self-awareness, focus on strategic issues; openness to mentoring; willingness to be mentored by a current president; administrative experience; professional leadership 47 development; possessing a terminal degree; humility; understanding of institutional and domain politics; and executive comportment (i.e., soft skills). However, these attributes neither reflect the uncertainties of real-world leadership nor the reality that not all leadership is successful. Historically portrayed as autocratic and dictatorial, Gasman (2011) found that early Black HBCU presidents operated under veil of White skepticism, as well as Black criticism. Oral histories of their leadership revealed that all contended with community politics steeped in Southern racism. Contemporary Black college presidents continue to face external and internal perceptions and misperceptions about their leadership. Palmer and Freeman (2019) interviewed 19 HBCU leaders using qualitative social constructivist methodology. Views on unsuccessful HBCU leadership were discussed in light of a perceived HBCU leadership crisis (Ezell & Schexnider, 2010). In most cases, leadership failings were attributed to autocratic leadership styles characterized by lack of vision; lack of mission focus; lack of innovation; lack of management ability; lack of HBCU cultural understanding; and lack of political skills. Social Cognitive Theory as a Theoretical Framework This dissertation employs social cognitive theory as a theoretical framework. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) enables bi-directional assessment of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences in Black female HBCU leadership. Cognitive processes include leaders’ self-efficacy, cognitive processing of environmental stimuli, meaning- making, and effectance. Behavioral processes include affect, goal-setting, motivation, effort (i.e., work), goal persistence, and environmental regulation. Environmental influences include social interactions (i.e., education as modeling); individual and group learning and feedback; and environmental rewards and sanctions. Bandura (1986) argued that these three poles are not 48 independent, but that each affects the others. He called this effect reciprocal determinism, also referred to as triadic reciprocity. Social cognitive theory was selected to undergird this research for three reasons. First, the theory enables cognitive assessment of female HBCU leaders’ awareness, categorization, cognitive processing and, most important, their sense-making in response to environmental dynamics. Second, social cognitive theory provides insight and language to evaluate leaders’ behavioral responses to environmental influences. Third, social cognitive theory affords categorization of environmental stimuli that motivate or demotivate leaders. The use of this framework and application of triadic reciprocity is outlined in Figure 1. Cognitive Considerations Research question #2 addresses factors inhibiting female leadership progression in HBCUs. Social cognitive theory provides a map into mental, social, and psychological planes that govern individuals’ regulation of cognition (Bandura 1977, 1986). Bandura (1986) espoused that people form beliefs from “observed regularities” (p. 13) and resulting consequences. He further asserted that processing of events includes retrieval of archived knowledge to which meaning is assigned and attached or reattached. The psychologist further outlined how individual regulation of external stimuli, cognitive processing of events, and intrinsic motivation facilitates goal direction. He asserted that outcome expectations could best be realized by altering perspective, rather than outlook, to address inhibiting circumstances. As such, research question #2 seeks to understand how participants identify, process, and categorize events in their environment. Self-efficacy is a crucial component of cognitive processing. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy, the central component of agency, as an individual’s belief in their capacity to organize and implement actions required to achieve specific outcomes. He posited that self- 49 efficacy not only registers the internal standards requisite for self-regulation (Bandura, 1986), but is also requisite for neurobiological navigation of the environment. Bandura (1997) argued that highly efficacious individuals exploit opportunities to circumvent constraints, whereas less efficacious people are more likely to become discouraged when encountering organizational impediments. This assertion is at the center of this study and directly addresses research question #2. Bandura (1997) characterized self-efficacy as an internal regulator, arguing that agency fortified with deep investment of self-worth fosters endurance in the case of protracted mistreatment. Last, Bandura argued that instances of poor performance, racism, or gender stereotyping undermine self-efficacy. This tenet of social cognitive theory inspires inquiry inherent in understanding forms of intersectional bias encountered (research question #1). An individual’s cognition also influences his or her effectance motivation, the desire or aversion to interact with the environment as a result of accrued knowledge and transactions (Bandura, 1986). In their analysis of effectance motivation, Waytz and Young (2014) proposed consideration of affiliation motivation in pursuit of positive (or avoiding negative) environmental connections. While the researchers determined that effectance motivation enabled agentic planning toward goal attainment, both concepts align with individual and group power dynamics inherent in intersectional methodologies. Behavioral Considerations The examination of behavior in this study establishes a basis for registering Black female resistance to intersectional bias. In its most simplistic terms, the social cognitive behavioral realm addresses the performance of motivation (Bandura, 1986). Enactment of motivation encompasses activity selection, effort, persistence, attainment, and environmental regulation (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016). Bandura (1986) argued that motivation emanates from internal 50 (intrinsic) sources, or external (extrinsic) sources, and the consequences connected to the behavior are either organically (i.e., in satisfaction of internalized values or standards) or arbitrarily (i.e., behavior for its own sake) situated. Bandura also addressed the impact of social systems on motivation, specifying that closed social systems, especially those with significant reward or coercive power, can dramatically influence motivation. This dissertation explores this element by examining participants’ goal choice, effort, self-regulation, and persistence in relation to their unique environments. Environmental Considerations Structural elements such as policy, rules, and hierarchy constitute the landscape, or environment, of an organization. These fixed elements precipitate cognitive and behavioral interactions that create organizational culture (Bandura, 1986). People calibrate their behavior and regulate their motivation toward goal attainment based upon patterns observed in their environment (Schunk, 2012). Environmental factors, such as social comparison and modeling constitute learning opportunities that can reinforce or dissolve self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Schunk & DiBenedetto (2020) asserted that environmental factors such as reward (or sanction) and feedback also influence self-regulation, which is essential to enacting one’s agency. As such, richer understanding of environmental influences on Black female HBCU leaders will facilitate address of research question #3, characteristics that foster HBCU leadership ascendency. Acker’s Inequality Regimes Theory in Bias Identification Acker (2012) stated that institutional cultures of invisibility, in which equity was suppressed or undermined, perpetuated inequality and were resistant to societal change. Thus, Acker’s inequality regimes theory (2006, 2012) enables the identification of hierarchical power imbalances that impede Black female leadership ascendance in the HBCU ecosystem. Acker’s 51 theory (2006) further enables evaluation and deconstruction of organizational processes, structures and controls that create, legitimate, and reproduce race, gender, and class inequalities by mechanization of direct (e.g., wages and rewards), indirect (e.g., information flow), and internalized controls (e.g., hierarchies and structures). Acker (2006) contended that inequality regimes can be eradicated by targeting inequality-producing mechanisms. Most important, the paradigm embraces intersectionality’s focus upon race, gender, and class. Ruiz et al. (2016) encouraged the use of Acker’s theory and proposed an emic methodology for mapping organizational power imbalances through interactions and reported experiences. Ruiz and colleagues espoused identification of organizational inequality markers, or indicators of difference, which reify through physical, symbolic, discursive (i.e., rules) or structural means. Next, the researchers commended attention to organizational logic, the parameters and orientations that govern and steer organizational decision-making. Acker (2012) noted it was important to consider organizational substructures, which reproduce as interactions among individuals or groups at different levels of power. She also commended attention to organizational subtexts, written or nonverbal codes, rules, or practices that shape gendered substructures. Bias is either produced or reaffirmed at the substructure level. The integrated Bandura-Acker conceptual framework allows for thorough examination of the HBCU space in which this study occurs. Epistemologically, Acker’s inequality regimes theory (2006) enables review of behaviors that signal marginalization. Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986) affords a platform to study how that behavior is processed, and resultant, reciprocal effects on the environment. Ontologically, Bandura makes possible the assessment of how marginalization shapes patterned behavior, or a way of being, for a population sample. Taken together, these two theories inform the axiological underpinnings that guide this study. 52 Figure 1 Conceptual Framework Conclusion The first enslaved African women were brought to America, as cargo, in 1619 (Hannah- Jones, 2019). They immediately transcended from cargo to capital (Benard, 2016). Despite a vortex of change 403 years in the making, Black women remain at the bottom of social, economic, political, even technological hierarchies (Collins, 2000; Rosette et al., 2016). The very institution founded more than 150 years ago for racial uplift (Gasman, 2007a), HBCUs, is at least partially complicit in disenfranchising Black women today, relegating them to the margins of the ecosystem (Waring, 2003). This dissertation portends exploration into the relational space inhabited by African American female HBCU leaders, a realm of inquiry hallmarked by a dearth 53 of research (Alston, 2012; Beckwith et al., 2016, Parker & Ogilvie, 1996; Sims & Carter, 2019). Identification of inequalities seeks to illuminate power structures that imbue hegemonic (Hiraldo, 2010), Eurocentric masculinist ideologies (Collins, 1990, 2000) into this “counterhegemonic” (Kynard & Eddy, 2009, p. W24) HBCU ecosystem. Adoption of an intersectional approach to this problem of practice, fortified by Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which will be operationalized using Acker’s inequality regimes theory, affords exploration into a world that is at once propelled by vision and swathed in invisibility. The overarching objective of this dissertation is to ensure that African American female HBCU leaders are fully seen. This aim is important because they are women. They are leaders. They are not mules. 54 Chapter Three: Methodology This research study was anchored in phenomenological methodology, a term derived from the Greek phainomenon, to appear, and logos, or reason (Pivčević, 2014). Emanating from the realms of psychology and philosophy, phenomenological research interrogates participants’ lived experiences, reducing collective individual accounts to a unifying essence (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Austrian Edmund Husserl developed the method as redress to insufficiencies he ascribed to positivist study of the human experience (Allen-Collinson, 2011). Husserl framed a transcendentalist approach to phenomenology, exploring experiences of meaning. He asserted that by exploring experiences to which we attach, or through which we evoke meaning, or events that are meaningful to us, we are able to extract the essence of that experience. Husserl added that meaning is the result of reflection, with objective meaning centering upon a recursive nucleus, or essence, defined by experience. He explained that the appearance of objects emerged as a result of consciousness directed toward them. This appearance, or givenness, constituted the parameters of a phenomenological sphere, referred to by Husserl as natural knowledge. (Miron, 2016). A student of Husserl’s, Martin Heidegger, of German origin, rejected the idea of subject as spectator, instead asserting the inseparability of observer and the observed. He stated that the essence of being was rooted in inseparable embeddedness in the world and its daily navigation (Horrigan-Kelly, 2016). Also a student of Husserl, Frenchman Jean-Paul Sartre insisted that consciousness was powered by will and impulse, or the freedom to choose alternative, intentional actions, thus challenging Heidegger’s more passive notion of embedded being. French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty presented an existentialist form of phenomenology that investigated sensory dimensions of human embodiment as drivers of experience. He also advocated the concept reversibility (e.g., objects can see and be seen) (Allen-Collinson, 2011). 55 Nearly eight decades after Austrian Alfred Schutz arrived in the United States and began applying Husserl’s framework to the social sciences (Barber, 2021), Allen-Collinson (2011) proposed the critical need for feminist phenomenology, predicated upon what Berger and Luckman (1966) reported as the group construction of reality which, as a result of power imbalances, determines the constitution of reality and, as important, knowledge. Allen-Collins noted that these universalist constructions were prejudiced, androcentric, hegemonic, and marginalizing to “black and minority ethnic groups” (p. 302). Research demonstrates how racism and sexism pervade the higher education domain (Albritton, 2012; Gasman, 2007a, 2007b; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). This qualitative field study purported to identify and explicate the convergent effects of racism, sexism, and class on Black female leaders in the HBCU ecosystem. As such, the methodological focus of this research encompassed interrogation of racist proclivities in a primarily Black environment and examination of gendered disparities that instantiate male dominance in a primarily female environment. Three research questions guided this inquiry. This chapter first restated the research questions guiding this study, the design of which was then overviewed. Next, the research setting for this study was discussed, followed by declaration of the researcher’s positionality specific to this inquiry; a description of each data source to be employed; and a review data sources and sequencing of data collection. The chapter then reported on instruments to be administered for data collection, as well as general data collection procedures. Data analysis included measures to ensure credibility and trustworthiness. Research Questions 1. How is Black female leadership marginalized in the HBCU ecosystem? 2. How does marginalization inhibit Black female leadership progression? 56 3. What prescriptive measures engender success in attaining Black female HBCU leadership? Overview of Design The methodological design for this qualitative research comprised one-on-one semi- structured interviews and institutional document review. Semi-structured interviews centralized respondent narrative, while standardizing the topics covered during interviews, facilitating content uniformity during data analysis (Patton, 2002b). Semi-structured probing, which precipitated heightened respondent-interviewee interaction, portended collection of richer, clearer data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). One-on-one interviews were conducted with a sample of seven Black female senior-level HBCU leaders via Zoom®, for a duration of 60 minutes, following defense of the dissertation research proposal and University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Interviews were transcribed, and their content analyzed, using third-party software. Once interviews were completed and transcribed, transcripts were cloaked to ensure respondent and institutional confidentiality (Glesne, 2011). Following confidentiality checks, draft transcripts were forwarded to respondents, for review and to verify the accuracy of their statements. Upon receipt of respondent verification, interview content was digitally coded to distill participant meanings and perceptions. All data collected during this process was stored on an encrypted external drive to ensure security. Hard copies of data were destroyed upon successful dissertation defense and publication. Secondary data was also reviewed. Organizational charts reflected the reporting structure of institutional leadership ranks, whereas strategic plans revealed institutional goals and priorities. All secondary artifacts were collected from official institutional websites. Data sources are shown in Table 1. 57 Table 1 Data Sources Research Questions Artifactual Data Semi-Structured Interviews RQ1: How is Black female leadership marginalized in the HBCU ecosystem? X X RQ2: How does marginalization inhibit Black female leadership progression? X RQ3: What prescriptive measures engender success in attaining Black female HBCU leadership? X Research Setting Of 100 U.S. HBCUs, 88 offer four-year bachelor’s degrees, in addition to graduate and professional degrees (NCES, 2021). These 88 institutions constituted the dissertation problem space as a matter of epistemological and ontological cogency, ultimately manifesting as phenomenological participant data. The baccalaureate HBCU network expands across 19 states and the District of Columbia (see Appendix A), employing an administrative population of 2,026 individuals, 55% of which are female (NCES, 2021d). The 1,126 females comprising this administrative majority constitute the general research population. This study purported to examine cognition and behavior in response to environmental effects. HBCUs’ divergent geographic, social, economic, and cultural climates rendered each institution unique. Bandura (1986) nevertheless instructed that environmental influences affect cognition and meaning making. More important, he asserted that individuals evoke social reactions based upon personal characteristics (e.g., age, race, or gender) even prior to enacting behavior, which, in reciprocal manner, induces or inhibits self-efficacy as well as the perceptions of others. Bandura further pointed out that this process foments positive or negative environmental bias. As such the aim of this study was to document salient cognitive and 58 behavioral responses to bias in campus settings across a selection of these 88 discrete environments. However, the diversity of institutional climates warranted management of maximum variation, measurement across a wide range of cases, to ensure research credibility (Patton, 2015). Thus, a crucial aspect of data collection was collection of participants’ constructed realities through a common, rather than a context-dependent, medium (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Videoconferencing technology will help satisfy this requirement. In addition to the use of videoconferencing technology, phenomenological research orientation (Creswell, 2013) presumed the researcher’s role as an instrument of inquiry. Thus, the researcher’s positionality warranted disclosure. The Researcher McDermott and Varenne (1995) suggested that individuals’ resistance to constraints that cannot be ignored reveals dominant forces that constitute existential problems. Thus, personal hierarchies of resistance evinced the researcher’s psychosocial being. Author and philosopher Anaïs Nin explained it another way. In Seduction of the Minotaur (1961), she wrote, that people “don’t see things as they are,” but rather “as we are” (p. 124). These congruent perspectives were significant, because Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also instructed that, in qualitative research, the researcher becomes the research instrument. As such, individual responses to external stimuli informed research positionality. Therefore, given my racial, gender, and professional alignment with the sample population, this inquiry applied a romantic philosophical orientation (Roulston, 2010), one in which the researcher’s subjectivities were disclosed in pursuit of intimate data. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that this research philosophy, specific to interviewing, emanated in part from phenomenological theory. 59 Omi and Winant (2015) explicated race as a master social category. Accordingly, my self-identification as Black was continuously reinforced by race-based socioeconomic structures (e.g., neighborhoods, educational systems, churches, and social organizations), as well as personal experiences of anti-Black racism including verbal assault, organizational microaggressions, and personal and group marginalization. These influences evoked varying degrees of resistance in both integrated and segregated milieus. Sex and gender also informed categorical experience of structural disparity within organizations (Best et al., 2011). As a heterosexual cisgender female, I have experienced benevolent and hostile sexism (McMahon & Kahn, 2016). There existed, however, significant, personal cognitive dissonance between idealization of the traditional male-as-head-of-household family model--likely the result of early Christian and media socialization, and unapologetic subscription to Black feminist thought (Collins, 1990), an epistemological approach that sought to dissect oppressive social constructions by invoking the lenses of race, gender and class to counter Black female subordination fostered by predominantly (but not exclusively) Eurocentric male-dominated systems of power. This study explored oppressive categorical constructions in the professional field. Slay and Smith (2011) employed narrative analysis to explore the relationship between professional prestige and autonomy, gained through positive career attainment, and social identity construction among stigmatized individuals (i.e., Black journalists). Of note, the authors found that identity construction required redefinition of, as opposed to adaptation to, categorical conventions. The authors conflated identity construction with class construction. Similarly, in addition to racial- and gender-specific positionality, nearly two decades of executive-level institutional leadership at three HBCUs inspired my curiosity about intersectional bias (Carbado 60 et al., 2013) against African American females in senior leadership, as a class of leaders in the HBCU realm. Sixteen years of administrative leadership at three HBCUs afforded a personal sense of belongingness (Walton & Brady, 2017) as well as myriad opportunities to observe racist, sexist, and Eurocentric (Morgan, 2018) power dynamics manifested through personal (micro-level) and systemic (meso- and exo-level) interactions with internal (e.g., campus and departmental hierarchies) and external (e.g., trustees, donors, and business partners) structures (Burke-Litwin, 1992). Those experiences and resulting sensibilities informed this research. Data Sources Two data sources were employed in this qualitative field study to enhance the descriptive richness of information collected. Semi-structured interviews (Patton, 2002) were conducted to centralize respondents’ voices and, most crucial, deconstruct their sense-making while assuring cogent address of uniform topics in each interview. Artifactual data (Schein, 2017) such as organizational charts were reviewed first to help contextualize respondents’ unique institutional environments and, more important, marked their location in discrete institutional hierarchies. Positional plotting enabled analysis of participants’ interview responses in relation to their hierarchical status. Artifactual Data Bogdan and Biklen (2011) encouraged the review of artifacts, including public records, as data sources. In this study, previously generated data such as National Center for Educational Statistics reports provided baseline statistical data, including campus enrollment and administrative employee population size. The authors also commended review of visual data, available in public spaces. By culling institutional websites for organizational mission and vision, statements, one began to understand the organizational markers, the underlying 61 assumptions, espoused beliefs, and cultural artifacts (Schein, 2017) distinguishing campus cultures. By reviewing published strategic plans, one gained a sense organizational thrust. A review of institutional organizational charts enabled assessment of respondent’s professional identity (Slay & Smith, 2011) specific to organizational hierarchy. This review established a basis of comparison across disparate positions and institutional structures. For reasons outlined here, artifactual data was reviewed prior to implementation of participant interviews. Interviews Semi-structured, one-on-one interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) struck a balance between structured interviews, which elicit forced choices to pre-determined survey questions, and unstructured interviews, also referred to as informal conversations. Semi-structured interviews afforded cogency in the analysis of common data points across respondents without overshadowing respondents’ voices. This tenet was crucial given the phenomenological revelation intended in adopting a romantic interview orientation. Following a review of artifactual data for their respective institutions, respondents were interviewed using a protocol developed for this study (see Appendix C). Participants The first organization identified for recruitment did not fulfill its full obligation. Founded in 2006, the American Association of Blacks in Higher Education (AABHE) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established to represent and pursue the educational, sociocultural, and leadership development interests and concerns of Black faculty, staff, and administrators across the U.S. higher education domain. Organizational membership comprised 280 academic and administrative employees of HBCU and predominantly White institutions (O. West, personal communication, July 7, 2021). Of particular interest, AABHE’s Leadership and Mentoring 62 Institute (LMI) was established in 2012 to provide faculty and administrative members with the requisite skills and tools to secure senior-level leadership opportunities in higher education (AABHE, 2021). As in the higher education domain, the membership in AABE and the LMI was predominantly female, in this case predominantly Black and female. Thus, given their proclivity toward pursuit of leadership and similarity to the higher education and HBCU ecosystem populations, a minimum of 12-15 participants required for completion of this field study were to be purposefully recruited via researcher-generated online invitation to HBCU representatives enrolled in the LMI. The organization confirmed in writing its permission to access and recruit participants from among its membership. However, AABHE did not honor its commitment to facilitate email recruitment among its members (see Appendix G) and social media and newsletter recruitment efforts were unproductive. The researcher therefore conducted independent mail and email recruitment campaigns, distributing letters of invitation (see Appendix H) to the 27 female HBCU presidents. Four volunteered. Three administrators were identified via snowballing. Participants were purposively sampled, using a unique sampling approach designed to target Black females employed in senior-level leadership positions at an HBCU. It was anticipated that, upon participation in the study, uniquely sampled participants would refer eligible colleagues, thus creating a second stream of recruits through snowball sampling. Snowball sampling, also referred to as “network sampling” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 98), occurred as recruited participants identified colleagues who met sampling criteria and referred them for participation. The recruitment period began six weeks prior to the one-month interview period with researcher-generated letters and email invitations. 63 Participants included in the research sample met two specific inclusion criteria (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). First, respondents matched the target demographic. Each was Black and female. Second, participants fulfilled an academic or administrative leadership role (i.e., dean, director, associate vice president, assistant vice president, vice president, senior vice president, provost, or president) at one of the 88 baccalaureate HBCU institutions for a period of at least 24 consecutive months. The employment span criterion (i.e., 24 months) ensured time for participants’ early organizational enculturation (Srivastava et al., 2018) and to account for the influence of organizational control on cognitive and biological processing (Michel, 2011). Instrumentation Instrumentation required to implement this phenomenological field study included an interview protocol (see Appendix C) and an artifact registration sheet (see Appendix E). Each provided the degree of flexibility necessary to organize data so that patterns of cognition and behavior become evident during data collection and analysis (Guba, 1987). In like manner, each instrument was designed to elevate standards of rigor and efficiency of data analysis. Interview Protocol The one-on-one semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix C) developed for this study comprised three sections, each designed for Zoom videoconference delivery. The first section was a brief introduction that explained the study and interview objectives, assured participant confidentiality, and invited any participant questions. The second section comprised 20 interview questions, in addition to probes, for use if necessary, each aligned with a specific research question. Interview questions employed techniques espoused by Patton (2015) to elicit background, professional experience, thought, feeling, sensory, values and beliefs, opinion, and knowledge data from participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). 64 Artifact Registration Sheet Each artifact reviewed was registered (see Appendix E) as part of the study, noting its organizational ownership, source (i.e., campus website) and date of retrieval, degree of authenticity, date of creation, and contents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each artifact’s registration included cross-matching with sample participants to reflect their institutional affiliation. This approach proved useful when assessing institutional beliefs and tacit assumptions (Schein, 2017). A master artifact log indexed individual registered artifact sheets for quick reference. The log became a significant element in the study’s data audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), a necessity for smoother data analysis and access citations that warranted inclusion. Data Collection Procedures While the dissertation research sample was purposively recruited, a second pilot study was be conducted among ineligible (i.e., retired) Black female HBCU administrators to ensure instrument content validity. Upon successful recruitment of a purposive sample, participants’ institutional affiliations were documented along with demographic and professional information (i.e., race, gender, and length of service) to confirm sample eligibility. Once the sample was confirmed, rigorous data collection measures were implemented to ensure research credibility and trustworthiness. Artifactual Data Once the study sample was recruited, campus organizational charts, strategic plans, mission statements, and vision statements were pulled from the official website of each institution represented in the sample. Each document collected was registered individually and on a master artifacts log to fortify the study’s audit trail. Next, these materials were screened to identify and code espoused beliefs characterizing each institution (Schreier, 2014). Not only did 65 content data enable institutional contextualization, but each set of institutional themes provided two crucial frames of reference. First unitary institutional artifacts constituted a frame against which affiliated participants’ narratives and insights can be examined. Second, similarities and differences in content revealed key themes across diverse institutional cultures within the HBCU ecosystem. Interview Protocol Once sample eligibility was confirmed, each sample received via email a list of one-hour interview time slots from which they can self-schedule an appointment. Upon scheduling their appointment, each received a confirmation email with an advance copy of interview questions (without probes) for prior reflection. Pre-interview instructions asked interviewees to sequester themselves from other individuals and work activities during the interview. The confirmation email also contained a pass-coded Zoom link. Participants received an email appointment reminder two days prior to their appointment, and a final appointment reminder 24 hours prior to their appointment. Each interview began with the protocol’s introductory remarks, followed by a statement on participant confidentiality. Then, participants were asked for permission to record the one-on- one interview session, followed by invitation to ask any precursory questions they had. As each interview question was asked, the guiding rule will be centralizing the participant’s narrative. Therefore, the researcher spoke, or used probes, only when the interviewee reached a temporary impasse or requested guidance. At the close of the semi-structured interview, participants were asked if there was anything they wished to add. Once this exchange was concluded, the researcher’s closing remarks promised delivery of the interview transcript draft within 5-7 66 business days for participant review, editing and certification of accuracy. No edits or alterations were received from participants for incorporation into transcripts. Data Analysis The overarching objective of data analysis in this study was to derive meaning from qualitative content precipitated in response to environmental effects. Data yielded by each of the methods employed in this study was analyzed to heighten descriptive richness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Textual data collected during institutional artifact review was analyzed using content analysis. This data was organized and coded as Track One in the data analysis process. Track one data helped ground environmental themes in the research. Once participants certified transcript accuracy, narrative one-on-one interviews were analyzed using digital transcription software (e.g., Otter.ai®). Interview data was organized and coded as Track Two in the data analysis process. Track Two data grounded cognitive and behavioral themes in the research. In the case of Track One and Track Two, themes were assessed on two levels. The first, microlevel, evaluation explored themes emerging from comparisons of participants’ interviews and their institutions’ artifactual data. The second, meso-level evaluation examined themes emerging from across the sample population and their respective institutions. Credibility and Trustworthiness As phenomenological inquiry, this field study adhered to the qualitative standards of credibility and trustworthiness. Lincoln and Guba (1985) reframed the internal validity construct associated with quantitative inquiry to address comprehension of meanings assigned to observed, emergent realities in qualitative research. Thus, research credibility was contingent upon the rigor of data collection, evinced by the quality of description specific to people and events, and the reasonableness of interpreted findings based upon the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 67 2016). Tracy (2013) established eight criteria for qualitative rigor: topic worthiness; rigorous data collection procedures; researcher transparency; authenticity of findings; significance of findings to the field of study; social relevance; ethical standards; and cohesive meaningfulness of findings. Lincoln et al. (2011) dissected rigor into two components, methodological rigor and interpretive rigor, the latter relating to sound determination of results and findings. As a quantitative paradigm, research reliability, or the extent to which findings can be replicated, failed to address the emergent, dynamic conceptualization of reality inherent in qualitative research. The standard of trustworthiness instead required scholars to assess whether research findings are authentic, germane, and relevant, given the worldview in which inquiry is situated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Trustworthiness further captured the epistemological sustainability of research, a measure of its integrity as findings mature and are subjected to scholarly challenge (Stake, 2005). Research conducted for this dissertation sough to uphold both perspectives by adhering to four tenets: rich descriptive data; transcript review; researcher reflexivity and peer review; and research saturation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Rich Descriptive Data To ensure rich, descriptive data, participants’ voices were centered using semi-structured interviews. This was a core methodological consideration, given the location of inquiry in the Black feminist theoretical worldview. As important, data composition constituted participants’ attributive meaning- and sense-making narratives (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Thus, participants dictated findings based upon their constitutive realities, not the researcher’s. While the collection of participant data using a semi-structured interview methodology aimed to extract categorical asymmetries resulting from event-based encounters, participant probes were 68 employed when researcher’s understanding or judgment necessitated additional context or description. Probing questions are included in the interview protocol in Appendix C. Transcript Review Each participant interview was recorded using third-party transcription software (Otter.ai®) synchronized for direct Zoom® download. This connectivity reduced the degree of data handling, and thereby the possibility of errors or breaches in confidentiality, from content generation to transcription. Once transcript drafts were downloaded and proofed for major errors, each was cloaked and to assure confidentiality. Once participants certified a transcript’s accuracy, each was queued for data analysis. If participants had determined that edits or content modifications were required, changes would have been incorporated and a revised draft returned for recertification of its accuracy. No transcript content was modified. Reflexivity and Peer Review Given the romantic philosophical orientation in which this study was grounded, it was important to monitor personal bias, or reflexivity, during field study and data analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In addition to maintaining research memos to document researcher reactions and insights during interviews, three forms of peer review safeguarded the credibility of this dissertation study. First, members of the researcher’s dissertation committee set and guided domain and institutional standards for methodological rigor, beginning with steps outlined in this dissertation proposal. Second, sample-exclusive Black female colleagues in higher education leadership reviewed study drafts to ensure that insights and judgments are credible given the data reported and trustworthy based upon their tenure in the field. Finally, an external auditor, a retired male HBCU president, was asked to review the study prior to, and in preparation for, the final dissertation defense. 69 Research Saturation Two challenges applied to affirm research trustworthiness, the small size of samples and knowing when to cease data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), are germane to this study. Although intersectional bias was the central factor in this study, the quantifiable preponderance of evidence substantiating it was, in this context, secondary to the meaning attached to it and behavioral responses enacted to as resistance. Thus, research saturation was evaluated not upon numeric calculations, as in quantitative research, but instead was determined as new cognitive and behavioral insights no longer emerged from the purposive sample of participants. this study endeavors to decenter the White male dominance that pervades the higher education domain. Artifactual review helps reveal categorical constructions that formulate disparities against which participant behavior (i.e., resistance) will be explored herewith. Ethics No data was collected prior to USC IRB approval. Furthermore, once approval was confirmed, no individual was forced to participate in this study. Informed consent was secured prior to implementation of any methodologies, and while participant signatures were not required, each eligible participant received a research information sheet (see Appendix D) during sample recruitment. In addition to the information sheet, each participant was offered the opportunity to decline participation in interviews prior to methodological execution. As important, the interview debriefing process afforded an opportunity for participant questions and to ascertain that the interview caused no harm (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There were no extreme cases in which participants share sensitive, private information, so data did not have to be suppressed to protect confidentiality (McCurdy & Ross, 2018). 70 Four specific measures were implemented to protect participant confidentiality. Interview transcripts were cloaked, replacing participant names with pseudonyms. Institutional names on artifactual documents and interview transcripts were replaced by pseudonyms. In addition, all dissertation data was secured on an encrypted external drive. Finally, all hard copies of field and interview data will be destroyed following defense and publication of the dissertation. One digital copy of the data will be retained on the encrypted, external drive through June 2027, in line with American Psychological Association standards (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). 71 Chapter Four: Findings This chapter addresses findings of document analysis and qualitative, phenomenological field study, predicated upon three research questions: 1. How is Black female leadership marginalized in the HBCU ecosystem? 2. How does marginalization inhibit Black female leadership progression? 3. What prescriptive measures engender success in attaining Black female HBCU leadership? A sample of seven participants, four HBCU presidents and three HBCU administrators, participated in one-hour, semi-structured interviews following a review of each respondent’s school mission and vision statements, organizational chart, and strategic plan. Participants represented six HBCUs. All respondents and institutions are identified by pseudonyms to assure confidentiality. Participants All participants (100%) identified as African American and served at least 2 years at their current institution. Four of 27 Black, female HBCU presidents volunteered to be included in the sample (see Table 2). One had a tenure of 5 years and was the first female to serve as her university’s president. One, in her fourth year, represented a private university, and recently received a contract extension. One president served for 3 years, representing a state university. One president served three years, leading a private institution. The sample also included three HBCU administrators. One, employed by a federal agency, worked as an HBCU program lead, and was immersed in daily campus culture for 21 years. Two, employed as unit heads, served 6 and 7 years, respectively, at their institution.. Table 2 provides descriptive information on each participant. 72 Table 2 Interview Participants Title Name Degree(s) Tenure Institution Type President & CEO Bond J.D., Ed.D. 5 Years Severn U. Private President & CEO Bunson Ph.D. 4 Years Golden U. Private Asst. VP Fortius Ph.D. 7 Years Middleville U. Private Director Reed Ph.D. 21 Years Manchester U. Public President & CEO Salvatore J.D. 3 Years Hirschorn U. Private Senior Director Sepiana M.Ed. 6 Years Middleville U. Private President & CEO Sharpe Ed.D. 4 Years Victory U. Public Note. Surnames and institution names replaced by pseudonyms. Document Analysis Findings Prior to conducting interviews, the researcher performed document analyses to ensure similarity of organizational purpose, goals, and structure for each participant’s institution. The analyses were necessary to ascertain if participants responded based upon experiences in like contexts. Each institution’s mission and vision statement, organization chart, and strategic plan was examined employing content analysis. Overall, the six institutions represented in this sample shared commensurate mission focus. Vision statements employed divergent semantic tactics, but promulgated common aims. Strategic plans outlined institutional priorities and the goals and objectives set to achieve them. All schools prioritized academic service provision, enrollment growth, building infrastructure and capacity, and fundraising, not necessarily in that order. Structurally, each president reported 73 to a board of trustees or, in the case of the public institution, a system president. Salient findings in each document category follow. Mission Statements Divulge Diverse Perspectives A mission statement articulates an organization’s purpose, listing key stakeholders, lines of service, often articulating underlying rationale for its purpose (Schein, 2017). A review of six HBCU mission statements, retrieved from school websites, preceded each interview. Of the six, three mentioned the institution’s African American heritage. Four of the six institutions, Golden, Hirschorn, Middleville, and Severn universities utilized the words “transform” or “transformative,” harkening to the establishment of HBCUs to mitigate socioeconomic disenfranchisement. Three statements were race neutral. Analysis also indicated another distinction. Three schools’ mission statements committed to the preparation of leaders. Four statements specified modes of service delivery to its students. Middleville and Victory universities adopted an alternative approach. Table 3 delineates each institution’s mission focus. Table 3 Institutional Mission Focus Institution Name Heritage Invoked Transformation- Focused Leader- Focused Outcome- Focused Output- Focused Geographical Focus Golden X X Hirschorn X X X X Manchester X X Middleville X X X Severn X X Victory X X X X Note. Institutional names replaced by pseudonyms. 74 Three Different Mission Foci Golden and Hirschorn, and Victory universities’ mission statements contained the word “leader,” making it the central focus of their statements. Golden University’s mission detailed its intent to transform diverse student learners into world leaders. Hirschorn’s mission stated that it educates students by transformative means to produce leaders. Victory University professed to produce leaders capable of lifelong learning, but also enumerated modes of student service delivery. These mission statements were centered on student outcomes. Manchester, Severn, and Victory universities focused on how the institutions provided services to students. Manchester emphasized the quality of pedagogy and research, as well as community service. Severn espoused the caliber of its academic and extra-curricular programs. Victory was the most specific in its description, articulating disciplinary and programmatic integration of pedagogy, research, and service. These three mission statements focused on university outputs. Middleville and Victory universities adopted a different approach to their missions. Both statements were outcome-focused, highlighting the schools’ location. In the case of Middleville, the statement invoked its location’s history, attributes, and technological capacity, bridging the school’s history and reputation to that of its locale, in essence positioning it as a destination campus. Victory University also declared its intention to fortify regional socioeconomic progress. Vision Statements Reveal Aspirations Regardless of focus, all mission statements denoted a collection of academic enterprises resolute in educating and developing African American students to transcend their low socioeconomic circumstance (Saunders et al., 2016). The researcher also examined institutional 75 vision statements found on university websites. Unlike mission statements, vision statements convey what an organization aspires to be or achieve (Burke, 2018). Table 4 delineates attributes of each institution’s vision statement discussed in the next two sections. Legacy Statements Recall History Although a vision statement is typically forward-looking, three of the vision statements referenced the university’s legacy. This semantic tactic harkens back to the role of HBCUs as an educational outlet, and once the only higher education option for African American students. Golden’s vision made known its intent to leverage its African American legacy. Hirschorn’s vision was an iteration of its historic reputation. No aspiration was included. Manchester’s vision statement was aspirational, but decreed adherence to its heritage. Statements of Prowess Pronounce Intent University vision statements also heralded intended eminence. Golden University aspired to recognition as a regional leader in the production of technologically savvy students. Manchester and Middleville both declared their aspiration for geographic leadership. Manchester also aimed to become a select, regional university. Middleville pronounced its intent to become an international leader in research and included the outputs by which it would pursue its vision. Like Manchester and Middleville, Victory resolved to become a premier, destination institution. Similar to Middleville, Severn avowed transformative learning excellence and named the outputs engendering success. 76 Table 4 Institutional Vision Focus Institution Vision Statement Focus Legacy Invoked Disciplinary Prowess Geographic Prowess Golden X X X Hirschorn X Manchester X X Middleville X X Severn X Victory X Note. Institutional names replaced by pseudonyms. Organizational Charts Indicate Similar Structures Organization charts, retrieved from each school’s website, disclosed common organizational structures among participants. Organizational structure is attributed to individual institution size, funding, and program needs. The four presidential participants operated within similar hierarchies. Three private university presidents reported to a board of trustees and had a similar span of control. The only public president, reported to a University System chancellor who served as president of a system-wide board of governors. Three members of the sample were university administrators. Dr. Fortius served as an assistant vice president at Middleville, with a dual reporting relationship to both the university president and the provost. Ms. Sepiana, a senior department director at Middleville, reported to a vice president, and was a unit of one. Dr. Reed, a program administrator, was director of a federally sponsored program housed at Manchester. She reported to a dean, who reported to an 77 interim provost. Participants’ organizational structure is outlined in Table 5, along with their number of direct reports, mode of supervision and direct supervisor. Strategic Plans Outline Common Priorities A review of campus strategic plans explored the priorities of each institution to determine whether institutions shared priorities. All six institutions prioritized strengthening academic programs and services. Four of six institutions sought to increase enrollment and retention rates. Four universities, Golden, Hirschorn, Middleville, and Severn, included fundraising as a major goal. Two schools, Victory and Manchester, included fundraising as a tactic under goals specific to engagement and sustainability, respectively. Finally, all six campuses listed institutional capacity-building as an organizational priority, encompassing efforts to fortify program effectiveness through economic development, policy improvements, and strategic partnerships. Major campus goals are compared in Table 6. Although each institution represented was unique, document analyses indicated that participants’ organizational dynamics were similar enough to prevent the skewing of data because of dissimilar contexts. The mission, vision, organization structure, and strategic priorities of the representative schools confirmed that all the sample schools were operationalized around the education of predominantly Black students. Given contextual congruity, the researcher then proceeded with semi-structured interviews. Tables 5 illustrates the participant organizational structure and Table 6 provides major campus strategic goals. 78 Table 5 Participant Organizational Structure Title Name Direct Reports Supervision Supervisor President & CEO Bond 9 Board of Trustees Black Male President & CEO Bunson 12 Board of Trustees Black Male Asst. VP Fortius 4 President and Provost Black Males Director Reed 2 Dean Pakistani Male President & CEO Salvatore 8 Board of Trustees Black Female Senior Director Sepiana 0 Vice President Black Male President Sharpe 7 Board of Governors White Male Note. Pseudonyms replaced surnames. Table 6 Major Campus Strategic Goals Institution Academic Programs Enrollment Fundraising Capacity- Building Golden X X X X Hirschorn X X X Manchester X X Middleville X X X X Severn X X X X Victory X X X Note. Only shared major campus goals listed. Pseudonyms replace institutional names. 79 Semi-Structured Interviews Original research plans called for the recruitment of volunteer participants from the membership of the American Association of Blacks in Higher Education (AABHE). Two Zoom® meetings resulted in an agreement, confirmed in writing, to recruit participants via email, newsletter, and social media. AABHE executives subsequently reneged on email recruitment (see Appendix G). Therefore, the researcher conducted independent mail and email recruitment campaigns, distributing letters of invitation (see Appendix H) to the 27 female HBCU presidents. Four volunteered. Administrators were identified via snowballing. Each interviewee participated in a 60-minute interview, based upon a 20-question protocol (see Appendix C). Interview transcripts were edited for accuracy following each interview. Participants engaged in interviewee transcript review, which included the opportunity to amend, augment, or edit their responses. No transcripts were altered. RQ1 Findings Research Question 1 investigated participants’ experience of marginalization in their organizational contexts. Articles that dissect marginalization of Black, female HBCU leadership, and the behaviors that constitute marginalization, are scarce. Therefore, participants were queried about matters emanating from normal, institutional interactivity. Marginalization of Black females encompasses attempts to weaken their power, authority, or personhood in the work environment (Shields, 2008). Three themes emerged when examining the marginalization of Black, female HBCU leaders. The first theme, reported by 100% of the respondents, was masculine organization culture (MOC). The second theme, experienced by all four presidents, was glass-cliff leadership. The absence of mentors and sponsors for administrators emerged as a third theme. These themes were investigated to 80 determine their impact on participants specific to their intersectionality in their job roles. Findings are disclosed in the ensuing sections. The Negative Effect of Masculine Organization Culture on Participants The first indicator of marginalization exhibited was MOC. All seven respondents (100%) recounted experiences signaling MOC, reifying as systemic minimization or exclusion of women. These experiences most often manifested as patriarchy, objectification and disorientation, and prejudiced evaluation. MOC was exemplified by Ms. Sepiana who said, “[If I were a man], I think my opinion would matter. I think I wouldn’t have to fight to be in the room. I see people respect men more than…women.” Ms. Sepiana added that if she was a man, “it would definitely make a difference [in how she was treated].” The subversion Sepiana expressed is a tell-tale marker for MOC. Another point of reference is patriarchy, which will be explored in the next section. Patriarchy Challenged Leader Authority Patriarchy presented a significant challenge to Black, female leaders. Six of seven respondents (85%), presidents and administrators both, experienced the phenomenon. President Bond reported her male board chair saying on more than one occasion, “you’re like a daughter to me” and being “so proud of his little girl.” She described her chairman’s perception of her as “paternalistic.” In another setting, a male co-worker verbally attacked Dr. Reed when she did not kowtow during an exchange. She explained that the co-worker erupted because her agency in identifying available lab space challenged his authority at a time when his power base in another unit was disintegrating. On a different occasion, Reed recalled being infantilized, a practice that derides leaders’ competence in a role (Mirza, 2018), by male colleagues who questioned her presence at a group project meeting. Still, there were other manifestations of the theme. 81 In another form of patriarchy, participants cited resistance against their ideas and opinions. In three of four cases (43%), leaders remarked on the effort required to advocate for ideas and opinions in light of their gender. President Salvatore, for example, noted male domination throughout the HBCU network. “I had no idea how many male presidents there are generally within the HBCU space…a very, very male dominated field. And those are the voices [you hear].” Ms. Sepiana, whose work was essential and in high demand, lamented that her requests for staffing support were unanswered through two consecutive administrations. She attributed her travails to an environment in which men were more often afforded their identified needs and resources and considered “stronger leaders” since “they [supervisors] feel like women are more emotional.” Sepiana cited a general lack of respect for her workplace input. She complained, “there is very little respect in terms of experience, in terms of knowledge, in terms of [my] recommendations on how to make things easier.” Respondents also cited the reality of Black male supremacy, a form of patriarchy, and its adverse effects on Black, female leaders. In two of three cases (29%) administrators referenced an environment that valued males over females. Presidents also referenced Black male supremacy. Although President Sharpe shared, she had no issue with patriarchy, she articulated that she saw “more and more of us [Black females] leaving, and how female leaders are being treated differently from male leaders.” President Salvatore attributed male dominance in the HBCU sphere to homosocial promotion, “for some reason, the very few men who are going on are getting the jobs to be leaders.” Patriarchy, in all its forms, disempowers female leaders, systematizing erasure and exclusion by dissolving the potency of female authority. Only Dr. Fortius did not raise the issue. In sum, 85% of the sample recalled being or knowing the female victims of patriarchal behavior, 82 or black male superiority. A second form of marginalization, disorientation (also called objectification), also presented as a signal of MOC. Disorientation and Objectification Question Leadership Participants also reported experiencing disorientation and objectification. Five of the seven (71%) participants experienced a form of these phenomena. Four participants (57%) endured disorientation when their authority was questioned or threatened. One participant (14%) was objectified when she was mistaken for a first lady. Both phenomena can trigger the outsider- within status, questioning leaders’ qualifications or comportment, psychologically excluding them from a setting. Disorientation often results in interactivity other than what a leader’s role requires. Four participants (57%), two presidents and two administrators, recounted instances of disorientation. President Bond shared that her gender was responsible for her initial institutional reception as CEO: “…they're still 'girling' me.’ They asked me to pick out a carpet. I'm not the first lady. I'm not here to pick out the drapes and the china and the menus. That's not what I'm here for.” President Bunson shared that she was circumvented during discussions involving a major institution contract renewal. Alumni, trustees, and community stakeholders were canvassed; she was not. In yet another example, Dr. Reed attributed her harassment claim against a male faculty member to his disdain for her election as faculty secretary. “Everything about me countered what he expected and wanted to deal with.” The harassment claim was filed after a university-wide faculty meeting, during which he whispered in Reed’s ear, “you don’t belong here.” One interviewee (14%) related her experience of objectification. While at a professional gathering with her husband, President Salvatore was introduced to a stakeholder as the new president of her institution. The man to whom she was introduced reached to shake her husband’s hand. 83 Black female leaders experienced two archetypes of MOC, patriarchy and disorientation and objectification, both subverting women in their roles and engendering erasure. A third phenomenon, prejudiced evaluation, differs from the first two. Prejudiced evaluation mechanizes disparate, higher standards of performance for Black, female leaders. Prejudiced Evaluation Imposes Disparate Standards As Black women, some participants noted differences in how their role as leader was judged. The phenomenon reported was distinct from evaluating poor work performance in that it pertained to standards not outcomes. The majority of the participants, in fact, felt the work they produced was adequately evaluated. Five participants (71%) believed that their work was fairly, positively assessed. Responses ranged from President Sharpe, who said, “I think the work I do has been received well,” and Dr. Reed, who responded “fairly and generously,” to two respondents who did not feel their work was fairly evaluated. President Bunson, who acknowledged commendable task assessment, nonetheless disclosed, “I think there is work to be done in that area.” Ms. Sepiana was asked if the work she produced was fairly evaluated. She responded, “it’s not,” noting that assessment of her work performance was “disappointing.” When asked whether their performance as leaders was fairly judged, participants’ responses were less positive. Although five of seven (71%) respondents attested to fair work appraisals, four of the seven (57%), expressed concern about disparate levels of competence and leadership evaluation. President Bond, who holds a J.D., encountered an unequal standard, securing a second doctorate, upon seeking a higher education promotion. Citing Black male presidents with one doctorate, she explained, “As women, we will always be challenged on everything. If there is a credential, you better get it. If there is a paper, you better write it. We do not get the same passes that men get.” President Bunson, who reports to a male board chair, 84 spoke of her board’s most recent evaluation of her performance. Despite two pages of institution- stabilizing accomplishments, her board conveyed a need to revamp her presentation style. She expressed her incredulity at the review: “…Rome is burning. And the one thing that [they] would like for me to work on is [a presentation]? Would you say such a thing to a male president?” Ms. Sepiana, who reports to a Black male supervisor, said her leadership performance was unfairly gaged, and articulated that her input was often overlooked, even on matters to improve her own area. Despite predating two Black, male supervisors, she said her ideas were discounted by higher ups, including those from unrelated departments. “It's very disheartening to be told somebody else has a perspective on something they know nothing about. It can get very frustrating when you have to implement those things just because of where [in the hierarchy] they are.” The pattern of interactivity Ms. Sepiana relays constitutes infantilization. Neither presidents Sharpe and Salvatore, nor Dr. Fortius expressed concern over disparate standards. Dr. Reed, however, held a different perspective. She perceived that her work was evaluated too positively, because her organization did not understand her subject area. The result was a tenure marked by carte blanche interactivity. Although she did not suffer a higher standard judgment, the lowering or absence of standards also constitutes an unequal measure. She recognized the discrepancy. When probed about the matter, she mused, “I think that's … unfortunate for me.” The sample’s responses regarding evaluation of performance suggest that as tactical contributors, participants’ performance was not questioned, even if a particular work product was deemed unacceptable. However, in the majority of cases (85%), the sample’s performance of leadership garnered less enthusiastic, more negative responses from stakeholders. The exceptional case was Dr. Reed, whose work and leadership were ignored, signaling erasure. 85 Participants Confirmed Masculine Organizational Culture Black, female leaders in this study recounted behaviors that manifested as MOC. Six of seven participants (85%) experienced at least one of these interactions for varying periods of time in their current roles, or in some cases throughout their tenure. Eighty-five percent of the sample experienced or spoke about patriarchy. Seventy-one percent of the sample experienced disorientation or objectification. Fifty-seven percent of the sample indicated prejudiced evaluation. Table 7 recaps reported experiences of MOC. Instances of these acts, conducted by Black males, shown in Table 7, prompted erasure, exclusion, invisibility, infantilization, and incongruous performance standards. The marginalizing effects of these situations were precipitous. Effects of the second, marginalizing theme, Glass Cliff Syndrome, are more dilatory. Theme 2 examines the phenomenon. Table 7 Indicators of Male Organizational Culture (MOC) Reported President Institution MOC Indicators Patriarchy Objectification and Disorientation Prejudiced Evaluation Bond Severn U. X X X Bunson Golden U. X X X Salvatore Hirschorn College X X Sharpe Victory U. X Fortius Middleville U. Reed Manchester U. X X X Sepiana Middleville U. X X X Note. Pseudonyms replaced surnames and institution names. Presidents appear above the rule. 86 The Glass Cliff Renders Presidents Vulnerable Each president in this study (57%) met the criteria for glass-cliff leadership. When combined, elements of glass cliff leadership (i.e., leader emergence during decline, hypervisibility, and constrained authority) can lead to CEO isolation, shortened tenure, and attrition. Administrators may have experienced elements of Glass Cliff Syndrome, but had not attained CEO status, Therefore, presidents’ experience of each peculiarity is explored in the next three sections. Presidents Emerged During Organizational Decline HBCUs are known for their fragile capacities and infrastructure, indeed each president commented on the delicate condition of their institution. Presidential participants (57%), in fact, remarked on the impaired state of their organization at the time of their appointment. President Bond noted, “years of deferred maintenance, and lack of technology investment,” that resulted in Severn being “sadly behind the times.” President Bunson referenced a history of institutional shortcuts and multiple personnel transitions in which Golden “endured six leaders in as many years.” Of Golden, she bemoaned, “Sometimes it feels like you’re stalled, and you’re just trying to keep yourself above water.” President Salvatore admitted, “I’m …not the conventional person they would have picked for this role had it not been such a turbulent situation.” President Sharpe commented on pre-appointment conversations about closing Victory, which “some people referred to as being on a respirator at one point,” adding “the University was facing some very grave challenges operationally, with accreditation and audit findings and some other difficulties.” These observations signaled leader emergence at a point of breakdown. Each of the four presidents (100%) further shared the implementation of their work to reverse the trajectory of their institutions and improve operations. President Bond talked about 87 her leadership as a new era of transparency and inclusion. She also touched on spearheading innovation at Severn: “we’re thinking about new programs, new modalities, institutional investments, budget development.” In addition to her “two pages of institution-stabilizing accomplishments,” President Bunson also discussed her intent to inculcate a more forward- thinking environment. She detailed that although legacy was a point of pride, it “sometimes causes an institution not to shift when it needs to.” She continued, “You find yourself in a situation where, because you didn’t change, you’re behind,” despite previous institutional leadership in a space. She ranked her institution’s intended paradigm shift as “the biggest issue.” President Salvatore was more general in her description of her leadership. She classified her “evolving” command at Hirschorn as the introduction of strategic thinking and strategic approaches “to shake things up.” President Sharpe credited team-focused leadership for Victory’s current direction, “bringing the institution from the standpoint of being referred to as being on a respirator to thriving,” including receipt of the largest operating budget in its history. The nature of each president’s self-described institutional condition is summarized in Table 8. The information includes the presidents, institutions, presidential descriptors, institutional state, and presidents desired outcome focus. Presidents in the study stated efforts to ameliorate organizational outcomes did not evade stakeholder criticism. Participants elaborated on extreme scrutiny endured while performing their role. This phenomenon, hypervisibility, is examined in the next section. 88 Table 8 Presidents’ Self-Described Institutional Conditions President Institution Institutional Condition at Emergence Presidential Descriptor Strategy to Repair Institutional State Presidents’ Desired Outcome Focus Bond Severn U. Anachronism Openness, Inclusion Tech Innovation Bunson Golden U. Legacy Fixation Paradigmatic Shift Future-Vision Salvatore Hirschorn College Faulty Info Proc Assessment Strategic Thinking Sharpe Victory U. Org. Breakdown Leadership Continuous Improvement Note. Pseudonyms replaced surnames and institution names to protect confidentiality. Leader Hypervisibility Prevalent Among Presidents Presidents (100%) substantiated hypervisibility, or extreme scrutiny, usually accompanied by performance pressures, based on respondents’ nonprototypicality (Glass & Cook, 2013). Before continuing, two factors of hypervisibility need to be explained. First, the rank of CEO legitimately portends organizational visibility. Therefore, responses pinpoint interviewees’ hypervisibility on the basis of their intersectionality. Second, the source of pressure was based upon the prevailing organizational culture, in this case MOC. Organizational scrutiny was therefore a function of culture, not a critic’s race or gender. President Bond shared that her predecessor had run the institution “like a monarchy.” Therefore, she surmised that her leadership “takes people aback at times,…it’s very different.” When asked about whether her leadership was scrutinized, she responded, “as women leaders, we are … second-guessed at every turn, as though we don’t understand money, business, or math. It’s just interesting to me these gender norms.” She further expressed that, “to be a woman 89 in this space means you were assaulted from every area all the time,” so she became a “data junkie” to preempt potential errors. “For women,” the president said, “making mistakes is costly. I don’t want to be wrong. So, I do tend to study all of the data and all of the possible outcomes before I pull the trigger.” Bond recalled a decision to fortify academic standards by abolishing a long-held open enrollment policy at Severn. Her decision, which was researched, vetted throughout the campus by her cabinet, and found to favor students, received “blowback” from faculty, staff, alumni trustees, and parents. Although the board was swayed by her evidence, approval of the new standard set off “a long fight” that lasted a full semester. President Bunson believed her motives were scrutinized by her board. Because retirement is a proximal goal, she endeavored to complete succession planning for her organization in the next academic year. She verbalized that “HBCU institutions suffer because the change in leadership is not orchestrated. So, I would like to be able to work with my team and with my board to orchestrate a smooth hand-off for Golden University.” She postulated the existence of “some reluctance in thinking that my motives are trying to usurp [the board’s] role in choosing the next president.” Despite efforts to navigate this issue, planning had not ensued. Bunson also attributed her dilemma to a history of institutional shortcuts, and the fact that “folks are just suspicious. And so now, it’s just continuing to present the evidence so that we can relieve some of the handcuffs that we have.” President Salvatore conveyed her surprise at the scrutiny focused on Black, female presidents. “It’s almost like we’re more under attack as women presidents,” she commented. She remembered a decision to transition her college to block scheduling. The decision was scrutinized by her faculty, who incited student resistance. “A number of faculty just kept coming back. And then they would try to kind of rile up the students to kind of come after me.” 90 However, once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, she observed that the same faculty and students who had resisted and protested the decision, applauded other institutions for adopting the measure. Salvatore noted “every time I do something…the response is you’re crazy, you’re wrong.” So, the president said she adopted a policy of “sitting back… [allowing constituents to] do “their own thinking, coming back with a better version, often of whatever it was I was talking about.” President Sharpe experienced scrutiny upon her arrival because of the severity of her organization’s disrepair. She cited the close observation she encountered while “just having to make tough decisions to transform and to turn an institution…around very quickly.” She recalled, “when I came to this university, I was considered an outsider. I was from the system office, and sometimes the perception of a system person coming to a university is ‘oh, you’re coming here to do something to us.’” She outlined a practice of “’navigating’ the waters very carefully, very strategically, with intentionality around …decision making.” She concluded that stakeholder trust and communication had evolved over the years of her tenure. All four presidents suffered hypervisibility while addressing urgent concerns. All four also conveyed they discharged their duties under the circumspection of supervision. Presidential Authority Constrained Presidents’ authority and decision-making also was dictated by imposed or natural constraints. Presidents spoke of their reporting relationships. Three reported to a board of trustees, primarily supervised by a board chair. The exception was President Sharpe, who reported to a board of governors, represented by a system president (see Table 4). Hierarchies represented aligned with structural norms for higher education. Still, presidents specified how 91 their supervisory structure influenced their authority and decision-making. The scenarios that follow conveyed the nature and degree of constraint reported. Each of the presidents (100%) addressed prevailing influences on their authority and decision-making. Two presidents, Bond and Bunson dealt with constraints imposed by their boards. In President Bond’s case, board interactivity was peremptory. President Bond attributed her decision-making to board relations and bylaws. She indicated that a “peculiarity” of her board’s bylaws “is that there are no term limits. And so, I have board members who have been here 20 years, and who may be here another 20 years. So that impacts my decision making….” She added, “If you are not suffering someone, who will be gone in three years, you’d better embrace and build relationships, because they will likely outlive you. So that certainly colors the nature of my relationship.” In President Bunson’s case, Board distrust tainted normal protocol. President Bunson remarked that a trustee committee of her board wanted to digress from governing and policymaking to monthly operational management and oversight of Golden. She communicated her resolve to stand firm, stating “I am not going to acquiesce to subcommittees running the university.” Two presidents’ authority and decision-making emanated from organizational dynamics. Neither President Salvatore nor President Sharpe declared that they were constrained. However, both disclosed controls warranting mention. President Salvatore cited the amount of time she spent with her supervisor, as well as her direct reports. She met weekly with her board chair. In addition, Salvatore said she met with her direct reports weekly, and her CFO daily. She referred to those meetings as “informal, continuous conversations” established because of the school’s small size, and because “we were in crisis.” President Sharpe noted her adherence to system policy, a naturally occurring constraint. In fact, she noted she receives her information “mainly 92 from the Board of Governors because it comes from the legislature to them.” Her decision- making is in part predicated upon the policy outcomes of her state’s legislature. Presidents on the Glass Cliff This theme detailed how Black, female HBCU presidents emerged at the point of institutional decline or crisis, endured hypervisibility, and were subjected to degrees of constraint in their authority and decision-making. The confluence of these factors places the four presidents on the glass cliff. While the presidents continued to fulfill their duties and reported myriad accomplishments, the concursion of glass cliff criteria is a vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Another vulnerability that plagued some participants was the absence of mentors. The circumstance can be isolating, given the paucity Black female mentors to support female leaders. The inculcation of male-female mentoring among HBCU institutions is rare. Participants addressed this reality. The next section addresses the third marginalizing factor, of particular concern to administrators. The Absence of Mentors and Sponsors Isolates Administrators Traditional mentoring perpetuates gender disparity. As in other sectors, mentoring in higher education is designed to support individuals to excel in their present roles, and advance to higher echelons. Research found that, among HBCUs, mentoring is generally a same-gender exercise (Freeman & Gasman, 2014). Because of the scarcity of Black, female executives, aspiring Black, female leaders often forego the benefit of formal mentoring. Mentoring a Same-Gender Proposition Presidential participants confirmed the support of mentors and affirmed the reality of same-gender mentoring. Each (57%) reported the presence of female mentors. President Bond described having multiple HBCU-based mentors, but said she was without a mentor in her early 93 years, because she “did not have the benefit of working around a lot of African American women.” She noted her early career suffered as a result. “If I had had mentors, I probably could have avoided a lot of heartache very early on. But I didn't have that.” President Bunson divulged that her mentor was a retired health care executive. She claimed, “I probably lean on her to have somebody outside of the industry that I can run things by.” President Salvatore was mentored by a retired, female HBCU president. However, she also shared that she relied on two Black males for support. “When I think about who helped me navigate at a national level…there are a lot of men in that circle. The closer an issue comes to campus, there are more black women in that circle.” President Sharpe reported having a female mentor for professional, personal, and spiritual support. “I can talk to her beyond just being professionals.” The presidents also referenced another type of relationship. Presidents Disclose Sponsors In addition to mentors, three of the four presidents (43%) also corroborated the endorsement of sponsors. Mentors counsel, aid goal-development, guide networking opportunities, and share information. Sponsors transcend that role by advocating for an individual’s career visibility and promotion, often in their absence (Wooll, 2021). President Bond referenced the distinction, quoting “boards of trustees aren't made up of people that look like us, and they pick the presidents.” She explained further, “If you don't have contacts in majority and male communities, who's going to say, ‘I know her. She's very thoughtful, such a good leader?’” President Salvatore said a male sponsor recommended her for her presidency. President Sharpe said, “A lot of my sponsors…are male. And sponsors can be people who want to wave your flag in a room that you're not sitting in.” While presidents extolled the virtues of mentoring and sponsorship, administrators had neither. 94 Administrators Functioning Without Mentorship Unlike the presidents, administrators’ relationships were less resolute. None of the administrators (43%) were presently in a mentoring relationship. Dr. Fortius was in the process of “developing relationships and also identifying some role models on campus that exude different professional behaviors that I believe are needed to be successful and to get to those next levels that I aspire to.” She reported having two, previous female mentors, one of whom facilitated a promotion. She deemed her second mentoring experience negative. She recalled “clashing with a previous mentor, because our decisions weren't the same. The mentor thought it [was] disloyal on my part not to come to the same conclusion” on a matter. Dr. Reed recalled having two, “high-level” male mentors early in her career. She characterized the period after both departed as “the drought,” saying she now “called upon fat stores...of good advice and good information.” When asked if she had a mentor, Ms. Sepiana replied “no.” She remembered, “I had a mentor, but they actually left.” In addition to the nonexistence of mentors, none of the administrators (43%) indicated having a sponsor. These relationships are detailed in Table 9. Data demarcated straightforward lines determining possession of mentors: presidents had them; administrators did not. Presidents also had sponsors; administrators did not. Not coincidentally, two administrators complained that they received no strategic information, a key benefit of having a mentor. Dr. Reed complained, “I don't get [information] anymore,” and Ms. Sepiana stated, “there's no…clear communication,” so she “read the strategic plan.” Table 9 illustrates the sample mentor and sponsor possession information. In addition, Table 9 includes the strategic information for each institution discussed in this study. 95 Table 9 Sample Mentor and Sponsor Possession Title Name Mentor Sponsor(s) Strategic Information President & CEO Bond Female Yes Yes President & CEO Bunson Female No Yes President & CEO Salvatore Female and Male Yes Yes Chancellor Sharpe Female Yes Yes Assistant VP Fortius None No Yes Senior Director Sepiana None No No Director Reed None No No Note. Surnames replaced by pseudonyms. Presidents listed above the rule. RQ1 Discussion In this first section, data revealed that Black, female HBCU leaders were marginalized by three emerging themes. The first theme, masculine organization culture, was concretized by patriarchy, objectification and disorientation, and prejudiced evaluation. Data further indicated that presidents were appointed during a period of organizational decline, experienced hypervisibility, and operated with varying degrees of constrained authority. The confluence of these elements placed all four presidents on a proverbial glass cliff. Finally, data also uncovered a third emerging theme, the absence of active mentors and sponsors for administrative participants. Concomitantly, two of three administrators (29%) complained of poor communication and isolation from strategic information. This section documented examples of marginalizing interactivity and confirmed Black, female marginalization in an HBCU context. Again, one’s job role did not prevent the experience of marginalization, although, in the cases 96 Glass Cliff Syndrome and the absence of mentors and sponsors, it determined the type of marginalization experienced. The next research question explored how marginalization inhibits Black female leadership progression. RQ2 Findings This section, by necessity, begins with a consideration of two important factors, organizational belonging and motivation. In a discussion of inhibited leader progression, one cannot assume that sample members welcomed or rejected progression. Taken together these two factors approximate effectance motivation, or an individual’s informed desire for future environmental transaction (Bandura, 1986). Although Bandura conceded that effectance was difficult to measure, these two reference points in tandem approximated participants’ effectance motivation, regardless of their role. Participants expressed a high degree of organizational belonging, predicated upon the common HBCU mission. All seven participants (100%) stipulated belongingness as the rationale for their institutional citizenship. President Bond recalled her experiences as a first-generation college student and saw herself in her students. President Bunson said she had “skin in the game” so she was driven to help students even when the work was difficult. Dr. Fortius and Dr. Reed both attributed their belongingness to being alumnae of their institutions. President Salvatore said she derived her sense of belonging from her assigned role as disruptor. She assessed, “I think I'm in the right place. I'm deliberately here to be an outsider.” Ms. Sepiana avowed her allegiance to her institution’s mission, noting “I'm here for purpose, and I'm here to bring what I have in order to advance the mission in whatever way I can.” President Sharpe observed that her sense of belonging had evolved over time. 97 Women in the sample also were propelled by a high degree of motivation. President Bond said student well-being was her “polar star.” President Bunson stated she found motivation in tapping students’ potential to lead. She surmised her commitment stemmed from a desire to hear students say, “I was at Golden and so and so took an interest in me, and it was the thing that changed my life.” Dr. Fortius declared her ties to her work were “personal,” Therefore, she expressed her dedication to Middleville’s operation. “I know what the institution is capable of doing for its students. And so, maintaining the university…is critical to the future success for our students.” Dr. Reed expressed that she was motivated by her program’s need for investment and innovation. Ms. Sepiana shared that she was motivated by student growth. “To see their transformation is just…something completely different that I've never experienced before.” She also responded that she loved performing her job. President Salvatore explained that her motivation was driven by the challenge of righting injustices and solving problems at Hirschorn. “The harder the problem, the thornier the problem, the more impossible it is, the better fit it is for me.” President Sharpe said she was motivated to “do the right thing for students.” These two factors, belongingness and motivation, were investigated because they approximate effectance motivation. Interviewee remarks suggested that the women in the sample had a significant, positive effectance motivation. Therefore, with the desire to separate ruled out, the first theme to be considered in discussing Research Question Two is devalued leader performance. Devaluation of Leader Performance Impedes Focus The entire sample articulated concerns evincing devaluation of their leadership performance. Respondents (100%) experienced challenges to leader competency, agentic penalties, and marginalization as a result of their nonprototypicality. The result was a dual- 98 consciousness necessary to manage threats to self-efficacy while simultaneously monitoring operations. Findings germane to these behaviors are explored in three ensuing sections. Challenges to Leader Competency Prompts Implicit Dual-Consciousness Questioning and healthy debate are hallmarks of leadership. However, when these practices target a leader’s competence and credibility, they taint interactivity. Five of the seven women (71%) in the sample reported challenges to their competency. President Bond lamented that she is challenged “pretty much all the time. It's interesting that as women leaders, we are subjected to being second guessed at every turn.” President Bunson recounted being challenged by her board on her operation of a key facet of the institution leading to a period of board micromanagement. She declared, “If you have a specific concern that you'd like to look at, a contract...that's one thing, but I'm not monthly going over…the managing of the institution.” Dr. Fortius, whose job role involves statistical reporting, said even though specific rules governed her work, her reports caused “constant conflicts between what was reported and what [other executive cabinet members] perceived.” Ms. Sepiana also said her competency was challenged, causing self-doubt. “I think a lot of times, in the midst of everything, people make you feel confused, and make you question what you know.” President Salvatore observed she was challenged by multiple stakeholders, “it's almost like we're more under attack as women presidents, you know, …it's very interesting and from within, not external.” In addition to having their competency challenged, President Salvatore also relayed that Black, female presidents were also targets of disrespect. She recounted an instance during a public presentation where she was verbally assaulted en masse for words on a slide depicting content, the school’s mission statement, published prior to her arrival. She described constituents in the presentation as angry, claiming that she had altered the statement. She had not. Of the air 99 of disrespect, Salvatore said she once considered an art exhibit to chronicle the negative messages she receives internally, disclosing “how a black woman in leadership is treated.” She further described her exhibit concept, adding that she would conclude the exhibit by pinpointing the source of the messages “… was our alums, by other Black[s], not by the White lady down the street, or the White man” or other groups.” Challenges to leader competency portended a distraction for presidents and administrators alike. Unchecked, the behavior could lead to the women being othered in environments for which they are accountable. Attenuating the dissent, all the seven (100%) sought to reinforce their credibility by adopting a strong team focus. In the case of Ms. Sepiana, a unit of one, her team comprised members from associated units in her division. By allowing the teams to participate in decision-making, the sample delineated how a group approach relieved the onus of individual action. Dr. Fortius espoused the virtues of team building, remarking “there's nothing that I do by myself. During my journey, I've realized that building teams and identifying groups is critical to the success of getting anything accomplished.” President Sharpe extolled the benefits of team leadership that “brings different ideas, challenges, different ways of thinking,” adding “that is the most effective team.” For example, President Bond proposed an emergency change in Severn’s academic calendar because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of making the decision herself, she asked her cabinet to broadcast the alternative dates to every organizational department, to vet the proposal’s pros and cons, before authorizing the change. She estimated the time it took to weigh benefits and consequences was offset by informed consensus. Shared decision-making served to alleviate the interferences resulting from challenges to leaders’ competency. However, the practice did not preclude the imposition of agentic penalty 100 upon women in the sample. The next section investigates how agentic penalty inhibits leader performance. Agentic Penalty Triggers Organizational Backlash In another illustration of intersectional bias, participants gave accounts of agentic penalty levied by their organizations. Each president spoke of having to make challenging decisions, and the institutional responses evoked. A majority of the presidents in the sample (75%), presidents Bond, Bunson, and Salvatore, reported instances of agentic penalty leading to targeted organizational resistance. President Bond, whose institution has no faculty senate, related making “a real effort to engage faculty in formal and informal ways to gain buy-in and support for the agenda” she endeavors to advance. Of the fora she said, “we continue to struggle.” Bond ascribed the resistance to faculty distrust of her motives, remarking on general faculty unwillingness to engage. She assured, “No, it's not a trap. No, I'm not trying to fire you. No, this is not a setup. I just want to have lunch with a couple of faculty.” President Bunson, who laid out a university agenda comprising innovation and succession planning, complained that, despite a five-year contract extension, her board was resistant to her strategic inroads. She surmised the board’s intransigence manifested in subjective evaluation (i.e., unclear, unquantified expectations) of her performance, and episodic micromanagement stemming from institutional discretions that predate her tenure. She resolved to address the issue because, “I would be doing the institution and myself a disservice to just let it go.” She added, “we've got real challenges we have to face, but I cannot allow them to get away with petty.” Presidents who endured agentic penalty at least had a degree of hierarchical leverage to address the resistance they experienced. However, two administrators did not. 101 Dr. Reed and Ms. Sepiana, both administrators, offered examples of agentic penalty. Dr. Reed ascribed the phenomenon to organizational resentment of her dual status. In addition to identifying and inhabiting available lab space, an act for which she was verbally assaulted by a Black, male colleague, she recalled previous service as a graduate program coordinator which, because of her federal standing, precluded compensation. She accepted the ruling, but “wanted there to be an acknowledgement of the effort.” So, she asked for program travel reimbursement, then a graduate assistant and, then professional development. Each subsequent request was denied. Yet the university continued to assail her with program demands. She assessed the organization’s posture as “the most disrespectful ‘ish’ I have ever seen [or] experienced….And yet they continued to email me wanting stuff.” Ms. Sepiana endured a form of agentic penalty that resulted in her capitulation of performance standards. She proposed staffing assistance and process improvements, but her proposals were disaffirmed by “someone from an entirely [unrelated] department, who made a decision about her area…that has nothing to do with them,” Sepiana therefore recalibrated her work ethic. She said her “work performance …changed significantly, from me trying to go above and beyond and putting forth the best effort, to now just getting it done. Which is disappointing to me, because that's not how I am.” She continued, “I've spent a lot of time in my career setting…how I want to be portrayed, to now just being dumbed down. I'm really not satisfying my purpose like I should.” Five participants (71%) suffered agentic penalty. Each case manifested as a form of organizational resistance. As targets of organizational resistance, these participants were psychologically, socially, economically, or logistically excluded from their institution’s culture. 102 This exclusion constitutes an impediment in participants’ roles as leader, which inhibits progression. Another inhibitor of leader progression was the nonprototypicality of participants themselves. Respondents’ intersectionality transgressed conventions governing traditional, hierarchical segregation. American hierarchies tend to be male, White, or both. Each of the interviewees identified as the antithesis of that prototype. Participants’ intersectionality, therefore, posed a dilemma in light of their structural locations. Comportment Highlights Nonprototypicality Leaders’ nonprototypicality, which violates prototypical White, male conventions presented as a structural impediment. Each of the participants (100%) cited at least one leadership practice that reinforced, or in some cases exaggerated, their nonprototypicality in their role. In each case, respondents’ described practices were as much an act of self-expression as they were professional and extra-professional comportment. Three of these practices, each an enactment of a university-ordained role, are discussed herewith: other-mothering, team leadership, and stereotype fulfillment. Other Mothering. Her choice of education as a career path aside, Dr. Reed’s practice of other mothering transcended institutional requirements at the expense of career objectives. “Early on,” she said, “I had to be the mother of everything, and that cost me some in my professional productivity because, as a [professional], I was supposed to be publishing.” As her career at Manchester advanced, she said the university exploited her proclivity, which resulted in her acceptance of leadership activities (e.g., homecoming) that, “were not building my resume, that didn’t make me competitive.” In retrospect, she said that while young males were asked to take on extra-curricular assignments, “the touch that I gave to it as a woman who wanted to 103 nurture my alma mater, and who did not have other family relationships…I think the university took advantage” of it. Reed also adopted this approach to nurture young Manchester faculty and administrators. “I put a lot of energy into fostering that cohort, talking with people, seeing how they were doing, having a drop-in …at my house, to kind of build those connections.” She said she disengaged from that role, since members of the group had either progressed into leadership or departed to other organizations. Still, she commented that her nurturing played no factor in advancing her professional role. Other mothering affirmed Reed’s nurturing disposition and aligns with the communal behavior often characterizing female leadership. Another communal hallmark exhibited by participants was team-based decision-making. While associated as a benefit of transformational leadership, women in a bureaucratic hierarchy practicing team-based leadership may not disrupt power distances, but reconfigure them, thereby reinforcing class distinctions, which highlights leaders’ nonprototypicality (Acker, 2006). Nonprototypicality activates gender confusion and violates conventional female subordination, triggering organizational backlash. Team-Based Decision-Making. Presidential participants (57%) differentiated between individual and team-based decision-making, appropriating the role of both. Presidents Bond and Sharpe spoke most formally about their teams, both making class distinctions. For example, President Bond in describing her team said, “occasionally, we [presidents] get separated and there are patches we have to traverse alone, but for the most part, we are traveling in a group.” President Sharpe made the same point in her interview: “My leadership style is very team oriented; I know that there's a lot of things that I have to do by myself as a leader.” President Bunson spoke of cultivating her team while aspiring to the presidency and communicated her 104 present distinction from them. “I built a lot of relationships as a colleague, many of the folks who now are more supportive, because it wasn't so long ago that I was one of them.” President Salvatore’s mention of team-based decision-making was most informal, positioning herself as the core of collaborations. “Now we have teams. I would say it's mostly informal. I think we're just so small, I think it is really just a continuous conversation.” Thus, although each president adopted a team-based approach to leadership, with varying degrees of formality, the fact that each differentiated their class within a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure suggests that, although well-intentioned, they may have reinforced their nonprototypicality. Among the administrators, only Dr. Fortius (33%) referenced team-based decision-making. Her organization chart did not indicate the structure of her unit; however, its hierarchy is ostensibly flatter than the university’s and therefore may engender a lesser degree of class distinction. Stereotype Fulfillment. Stereotyping is a phenomenon that supplants self-identification. Two examples of Black, female stereotypes are the mule, who toils alone, and the mammy (Welang, 2018), who maintains oppressive external expectations while bodily internalizing them. Ms. Sepiana personified both. Because staff funding was exhausted in 2019, “it has been very tumultuous, like a thunderstorm, considering that a four-person team was reduced to just one, and still works at the level of a four-person team.” Requests for replacement staffing support were denied by two consecutive Black, male supervisors, despite Sepiana’s identification of alternate funding and talent. Sepiana reported that the same two supervisors were “still expecting the level of work that’s required, as if there was a full staff.” To comply, she said she developed the habit of “literally sitting at my desk at 9 a.m. in the morning, and not getting up, not taking a lunch until 11 to 12 o'clock at night.” Finally, the imposed schedule took a physical toll. “I got 105 sick and that was a wake-up call. I made the personal decision that I was no longer going to do that.” Inherent in this commentary was the dichotomy between fulfilling a stereotype, a form of ambivalent sexism, and self-identification. In Sepiana’s case, stereotype fulfillment hastened organizational invisibility, activating two simultaneous tropes, effecting her containment and adjustment of her work ethic. Devalued Leader Performance Inhibits Progression Analysis of the data revealed one of the means by which marginalization can inhibit leader progression, fostering extrinsic devaluation of participants’ leadership performance. Challenges to competency led to the othering of leaders inside their own organizations, requiring an implicit, dual consciousness of participants. Agentic penalty engendered psychological exclusion through organizational resistance. Nonprototypicality reinforced gender-role confusion and invisibility among participants. Whether singular or in concert, these factors precipitated interactivity that demanded redress in addition to strategic institutional concerns. Leaders’ strategic focus was thereby distracted, handicapping progression. The previous section showed how participants’ nonprototypicality was problematic, even oppressive. While leadership, by definition, necessitates strategic focus and hard work, participants cited situations that required effort beyond organizational roles and job tasks. Thus a second inhibitor emerged in addition to devalued leader performance. The next section examines instances of Black, female leader fatigue. Black, Female Leader Fatigue Exacts Multiple Tolls Respondents indicated an anticipated level of activity in the disposition of their roles. However, the sample also intimated signs of fatigue. President Bond expressed “running against the tide” in what she called “muddy water.” Dr. Fortius, who said she felt empowered in her role, 106 still expressed the need for an oxygen tank, asserting “sometimes we can get burned out by some of the things that we're trying to solve.” President Salvatore related that she was unsurprised by the challenges of her job, but admitted it necessitated “psychological stamina to do this because you're basically every day just beat up by a lot of people.” Analysis of the data shed light on three origins of Black, female leader fatigue: leader containment, structural inequities, and organizational climate. Each will be explored in the next three sections. Leader Containment Burdens Leaders Some participants reported being hindered by containment, or excessive workloads. Three of the interviewees (43%) reported experiencing this practice. President Bunson explained that, in addition to her own work, part of her workload was generated by her predecessors. She encountered decisions and policies mandated by previous administrations that were “inhibiting to the organization,” necessitating what she deemed unnecessary interactions (i.e., meetings and policy debates). Yet, “because it's the policy as written,” she adhered to the outdated conventions, even though she felt they did not serve the institution well. Dr. Reed recalled doing a senior faculty member’s grant work when he, a Black male of national acclaim, ceased to perform, instead delegating assignments to three females. Nonetheless, the male took credit for the work and continued to draw a salary. Dr. Reed continued, “and the other faculty members didn't challenge him on it.” Reed decided that, because she was accountable for funding, “you aren't doing the work, so I'm not giving you the salary.” When the Black male continued assuming recognition for the work, campus higher ups were “thinking that we [females were] acting out of our lane in preparing and presenting tasks. Still, the man who had done the delegation didn't say anything, because he was still maintaining 107 that he was doing this work.” Of the incident, Reed said, “I don't think he would have pulled that if the three people doing this work weren't women.” Ms. Sepiana, who functioned as a unit of one after losing her staff, said her containment, effected by supervisors who vetoed staff replacement solutions, also robbed her of time to participate in normal work activities. “I can't strategize, there's work to be done. I can't sit in a meeting. I can't go to a lunch. There's just not enough time.” She reflected on her predicament, commenting, “I think I was probably thrown in the deep end coming in the door, considering the fact that a four-person team was dropped down to just one, and still works at the level of a four- person team.” In addition to leader containment, data produced yet another sign of leader fatigue. Some participants were impacted by virtue of their hierarchical position. Although presidents raised no concerns about structure, administrators did. Thus, structural inequity warrants discussion. Structure-Based Inequities Constitute Administrative Barrier Document analysis showed that all participants worked within a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure. Acker (2006) noted the positive association between hierarchy, sexism, and racial bias. Presidents (57% of the sample), all of whom sat at the top of deep, bureaucratic hierarchies did not raise any issues about structure. Although, Acker also pointed out that their nonprototypicality in light of their position atop their organizations may lead to organizational resistance as a result of gender-role confusion or agentic penalty. Administrators (43%) did, however, raise structural issues. Dr. Fortius perceived employees at her institution were segregated by job status, which affected the organizational climate. She assessed that her institution “sometimes isolate[s] our employees by the statuses. So, when we think about the faculty's role versus staff’s role, and 108 what policies and procedures govern those two populations, sometimes they conflict with one another.” Fortius surmised that the segregation was “isolating.” Dr. Reed, too, commented on her organization structure. “So, it used to be that there were doors that were closed if you did not have particular rank or status.” She confessed, “and so the structures, sometimes I didn't even know [them], … until I hit them as an obstacle and need[ed] to modify them.” Despite characterizing structure as an obstacle, Reed acknowledged, “I've been lucky, so far in that.” Ms. Sepiana had strong opinions about structure, asserting that only those near the top reaped the benefits of career development. She articulated her sense of structural exclusion. “I think…if you're not a top person, then [career development is] really not a priority.” She considered the executive ranks a “circle,” and said, “and I think that’s what's important here.” When asked how she felt about the circle, she responded, “I feel like sometimes…the personal side…overshadows what the business goal is.” Administrators articulated that organizational structure was “isolating,” “an obstacle,” exclusive and a determinant of training opportunities. Two of the three administrators made clear that organizational structure was an impediment. Constant encounters with structure, therefore, may prove psychologically and professionally taxing. Similarly, organizational climate may burden leaders’ affect. Organizational Climates Elicit Negative Characterizations Participants registered their psychological fatigue by describing their institutional climate. Organizational climate is an indicator of how people interact in the work environment, with emphasis on the rules, policies, and procedures that shape interaction (Schein, 2017). All of the leaders (100%) commented on organizational climate, using a lake setting as a metaphor to 109 describe it. Responses provided by participants are included in Table 10. In most cases (71%), the metaphors had a negative connotation, and were characterized by the effort required to manage them. President Bond, for example, invoked the image of “salmon swimming upstream” in what she referred to as “muddy waters.” In her observation, she spoke about the need “to propel… my institution into the 21st century” and update outmoded technologies. In like fashion, presidents Bunson, Salvatore, Sharpe, and Ms. Sepiana based their metaphors on work in progress at their institutions. In depicting her climate, President Salvatore, whose metaphor was the acronym VUCA (i.e., volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous), added “sometimes there are speed boats coming right at me…sometimes there [are] some sharks.” Two of the participants (29%) shaped their remarks to describe the comportment characterizing their respective campuses. Dr. Reed outlined a calm, placid lake, where individuals navigated calmly, but cautioned that there were “bottom organisms that are dangerous that you don't see, because everything is running in order.” She maintained that under normal circumstances, “we're in our realm and we don't interact. That's when you have the big disruptors that drop in the pond, and they are stirring things up.” She further explained, “When you have a major disrupter, then you can't ignore that and you can't stay in your own path. It would cause you to deviate and go into another group’s path, and then that causes more disruption.” Dr. Fortius emphasized organizational awareness in her assessment of institutional climate. She remarked “I believe that you have to be observant, or you can potentially be walking into something that might… cause more impact than you intended.” Fortius labeled her lake “Transformational” because of what the school could do for students, and noted she navigated it “cautiously.” 110 Table 10 Organizational Climate Metaphors Reported Title Name Institution Climate Metaphor Reported President & CEO Bond Severn U. Spawning Salmon President & CEO Bunson Golden U. The Titanic Asst. VP Fortius Middleville U. Transformational Director Reed Manchester U. Placid Lake; Disrupted President & CEO Salvatore Hirschorn U. VUCA* Senior Director Sepiana Middleville U. Deep End Chancellor Sharpe Victory U. Rough Waters Note. Pseudonyms replace names and institutions. *VUCA is an acronym for volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. Participants’ statements indicated a mindset that influenced, at minimum, how leaders daily interacted with stakeholders. Two previous considerations, containment and structure, required physical, mental, and psychological resilience of leaders. Whether these phenomena were experienced individually or layered in confluence, the resolve required to manage them may have contributed to Black, female leader fatigue. Negative organizational climates also appeared to burden leaders, who characterized the effort required to manage them using metaphoric descriptions. Leaders’ experience of these phenomena are indexed in Table 11. The third theme pertaining to inhibited career progression, lower or unfair compensation, is one frequently associated with intersectional bias. In the ensuing section, participants responded to inquiries about their salaries. 111 Table 11 Reported Signs of Black, Female Leader Fatigue Leader Institution Signs of Black, Female Leader Fatigue Containment Structural Impediments Poor Organizational Climate Bond Severn U. X Bunson Golden U. X X Salvatore Hirschorn College X Sharpe Victory U. Fortius Middleville U. X X Reed Manchester U. X X Sepiana Middleville U. X X X Note. Surnames and institutional names replaced by pseudonyms. Presidential respondents appear above the rule. Lower Compensation a Reality Among Participants The majority of women in this study felt they were underpaid. Interviewees were asked to gauge wage equity. Only one participant (14%) stated that their compensation was fair without qualifying their pronouncement. Two more (29%) claimed their compensation was fair in light of the condition of their institutions. Four (57%) indicated that their compensation was below expectation. Topics explored with regard to wage discrepancies included: gender, diminished organizational capacity, and inequality regimes. Each will be addressed, based not on institutional or agency data, but on participants’ responses. 112 Gender Inequities Not a Factor Findings in this study broke with traditional discourse regarding higher education pay gaps that disfavor women. Gender was not a major issue among participants. One interviewee (14%) mentioned the construct while discussing compensation. President Bond emphasized that gender was, in fact, not an issue in determining her salary. “My board chair, said to me the first day, I'm not going to treat you any differently than I treated him [her predecessor]. So, I don't have any reason to believe I make less money.” The six other (85%) respondents made no reference to gender in their evaluation of salary. Two of the six (29%) did, however, put their salaries into extra-institutional contexts. President Bunson rated her salary as equitable among her colleagues: “I think I'm fairly compensated: I look at ranges within my peer group.” President Bond also pointed out a distinction between HBCU and PWI salaries. “They [PWI presidents] are compensated much more highly than those of us who labor in the HBCU vineyards are, to do less work. Quite frankly, when you have resources, it isn't nearly as hard to govern, right?!” Bond reflected. Despite prior research findings, examination of gender as a factor yielded unexpected results. Only one participant, a president, mentioned the construct directly. Two cited other factors, peer comparison and institution-type comparisons, in assaying their salaries. The next section explores the role of institution type as a factor in participants’ remuneration. Diminished Organizational Capacity Inhibits Compensation Participants were more inclined to link their compensation to the tenuous state of their institutions. Although President Sharpe shared that her institution was rebounding after “discussions around closure,” and stated she felt her compensation was fair. However, the preponderance of respondents (85%) enumerated their respective institutional limitations. 113 Most respondents deemed their institutions incapable of paying a higher wage or meeting their salary expectations. President Bond qualified her response, asserting that her pay was fair given the school’s financial condition evidenced by “years of deferred maintenance and lack of technology.” She added, “There wasn't anything to give me there, there just wasn't any money.” President Bunson determined her compensation to be fair but cited, “the [poor] financial situation” of her institution. Four interviewees said their compensation was lower than it should be. Dr. Fortius said her compensation was “an area that needed to evolve” and, unlike other participants, attributed her lower rate of pay to the fact that “many of my counterparts are 10-plus years older than I am.” Dr. Reed’s funding comes from the government, but she called out yet-unpaid university stipends she was to receive for six years of gratis program coordination. President Salvatore, who had described her institution as being “in crisis,” came to higher education after leading in another industry sector. She said she expected a salary decrease, commenting that her wage was “just what the [institution] can afford. They caught me at a moment when I could afford to take a pay cut.” Ms. Sepiana remarked that her compensation was unfair, including the fact that she began her tenure at Middleville with “an employee that I had to manage making more than me.” She added, “I think that HBCUs are limited in what they're able to do in terms of resources. They have their own fight within the market.” When conversing about salary, five of seven respondents (71%) made reference to the critical nature of their university’s finances, operations, or both. The study further interrogated whether budgetary, departmental resources were allocated to facilitate or hinder execution of participants’ job roles, signaling a diversion of funds that would constitute an inequality regime. 114 Therefore, participants were queried to determine their perceptions of equity in funding at the departmental level. The next section explores their responses. Existence of Inequality Regimes Inconclusive Presidents reported organizing their institutions’ infrastructures to better mandate the distribution of resources but did not cite specific inequality regimes. Three of the four presidents (42%) detailed their work in rehabilitating operations and procedures to eliminate past dysfunctions. Administrators also shared their perspectives on funding. Although presidents in the sample had position power to influence and direct distribution of resources, administrators did not. When asked whether they received the resources they required to perform their individual roles, the three leaders gave three different responses. Dr. Reed surmised that despite her unit’s historic underfunding, she felt supported within her department. “I think it has been as good as it could ever be,” Reed said. She continued, “I get indirect cost recovery every year. It's usually the highest…in my unit. And I'm usually allowed to do things with it that are beneficial for me and others.” Conversely, Ms. Sepiana responded she receives “no support.” She reported that her division’s reliance on external consultants frustrated her. “Consultants are great, but …why not invest in the people that you have in-house?” Dr. Fortius was “neutral,” saying “there's nothing that I asked for that I didn't receive as I needed to get certain things accomplished,” but offered there was “still some vagueness with what is actually allotted.” Sample data revealed that the majority of presidents (57%) were, in fact, addressing concerns promoting equitable resource distribution. Administrators, absent the power to control the flow of resources, differed on whether resources were equitably distributed.. Table 12 summarizes findings related to participants’ compensation. 115 Table 12 Factors Attributed to Lower Black, Female Compensation Leader Institution Factors Attributing to Lower Compensation Gender Disparity Diminished Organization Capacity Inequality Regimes Reported Bond Severn U. No Yes No Bunson Golden U. No No No Salvatore Hirschorn College No Yes No Sharpe Victory U. No No No Fortius Middleville U. No Yes Unsure Reed Manchester U. No Yes No Sepiana Middleville U. No Yes Yes Note. Surnames and institutional names replaced by pseudonyms. Presidential respondents appear above the rule. Lower Compensation Attributed to Institutional Capacity This portion of the study explored data pertinent to a lower wage for Black, female HBCU leaders. Three themes were investigated: gender inequities, organizational capacity, and inequality regimes. Only one respondent referenced gender when discussing wages. Inequality regimes were addressed from two perspectives, the presidents’ reshaping of resource distribution and administrators’ receipt of resources based on their structural position. Three of four presidents (43%) reported efforts to change paradigms underpinning allocation of funds. Administrators offered mixed responses, indicating equitable, inequitable, and unclear resource disbursement. Five of seven (71%) of respondents, including two (29%) who reported equitable 116 wages, associated their wage with their institutions’ compromised state of operations. Thus, diminished institutional capacity appeared to be the major factor in leaders’ compensation. RQ2 Discussion In response to the second research question, how Black, female leadership progression is inhibited, data revealed three themes. In the first theme, devaluation of leader competency, analysis showed that challenges to leaders’ fitness in their role precipitated a dual, defensive mindset. Furthermore, leaders reported agentic penalties that precipitated backlash. Third, leaders’ nonprototypicality was evinced via three activities, other-mothering, team-based leadership, and stereotype fulfillment. Each activity othered respondents, weaponizing their gender or class at the expense of individuals’ self-identification, precipitating gender-role confusion and diverting leader focus. Analysis of data for the second theme, Black, female leader fatigue, showed that leader containment was an issue for almost half the sample. Structural inequities, which did not affect presidents, were reported by two of three administrators and deemed exclusionary. Data also indicated that respondents’ arduous organizational climate descriptions may facilitate leader fatigue. A final theme confirmed that most participants were paid below expectation. Analysis disconfirmed gender as a factor in participants’ remuneration. Data on the existence of budget- related inequality regimes was inconclusive. Schools’ operational status appeared the prevailing rationale for leaders’ lower compensation. Factors inhibiting interviewees’ leader progression are displayed in Table 13. 117 Table 13 Reported Inhibitors of Black, Female HBCU Leader Progression Inhibitor Element Bond Bunson Salvatore Sharpe Fortius Reed Sepiana Competency Challenged Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Devaluation Agentic Penalty Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Non-Prototypicality Emphasized Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Leader Containment No Yes No No No Yes Yes Leader Fatigue Structural Hindrance No No No No Yes Yes Yes Organization Climate Neg Neg Neg Pos Neut Neut Neg Low Organization Capacity Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Lower Compensation Gender Inequities No No No No No No No Inequality Regime No No No No Neut No Yes Note. Surnames replaced by pseudonyms. Presidential respondents (Bond, Bunson, Salvatore, and Sharpe). Documenting Black female marginalization in the HBCU sphere, and understanding how it inhibits Black female leader progression is a significant step toward attaining equity. Research questions one and two explored those themes amidst an environment entrenched in the racist, gendered socioeconomic conventions that prevailed at the time of most institutions’ establishment. With this understanding, the third research question asked participants to prescribe advice for prospective Black, female leaders aspiring to HBCU presidencies. The next section delineates respondents’ counsel. 118 RQ3 Findings When asked to prescribe advice for Black women pursuing HBCU presidencies, three themes emerged. First, the majority (85%) of participants advocated the significance of intentionality in preparing for the role. Second, participants (71%) emphasized the importance of building relationships. Third, respondents (43%) referenced personal development that warranted consideration. These themes are explored in the subsequent sections. Extra Preparation a Necessity for Aspiring Presidents All of the sample were well-educated. However, participants expressed that an advanced degree by itself may be insufficient to bolster a prospective leader’s presidential candidacy. Comments gravitated toward optimizing every available opportunity to prepare oneself for the role, including preparation outside the classroom and beyond the HBCU sphere. With one exception, participants’ comments on what makes for a well-rounded presidential candidate all began with educational preparation. Academic, Co-Curricular, Extra-Curricular Training Vital Respondents prioritized academic, co-curricular, and extra-curricular preparation. All participants, except one (85%), spoke of the importance of educating oneself to assume an HBCU presidency. Three of four presidents (43%) talked about the need to optimize academic opportunities as groundwork for the role. President Bond, who worked in higher education administration and earned one terminal degree before becoming a president surmised, “I might not have gotten to be a president if I didn't have an [second] earned doctorate. So be prepared.” President Bunson advised, “[a presidency] will have you questioning yourself over and over again, so, prepare, get the best knowledge you can on administration, finances, ….” 119 Other participants noted the importance of professional development, in addition to academic preparation. President Salvatore, for example, warned against too narrow a scope of preparation. “Make sure you've had a wide variety of experiences so that when all the crazy things happen, you're not caught off guard.” She felt co-curricular development was key, because “when people jump to a leadership role quickly, they haven't seen a lot. You may try to move too quickly when you don't need to; but you don't know enough to know.” Ms. Sepiana offered that volunteer opportunities also may help prepare candidates. “I would say definitely volunteer. Because when we volunteer, we find out what we do and don’t want.” Sepiana also mentioned the value of leadership training, “you need to learn some people skills, …you really have to stand out, you really have to be a leader, so leadership training is great.” The next topic of advice was the development of individual skills in an aspirant’s chosen area. Skill Development Essential Respondents pointed out the need to enhance specific skills in preparation for a presidency. President Sharpe accented the general need for subject area expertise: “just continue to develop your skills where you are now.” Dr. Reed espoused continuously learning new skills, saying, “don't think that you already have all the preparation that you need.” She further clarified, “you may need a credential, you may need to learn Lean Six Sigma, you may need to know that so that you can evaluate the information and the advice [that is] is coming your way.” President Bunson, who stressed the importance of finance and administration, and Ms. Sepiana both specified skills of import. Ms. Sepiana added fundraising to the list. “I would say know fundraising because as a college president, fundraising is a huge thing.” 120 Participants agreed on the pertinence of academic and co-curricular preparation. The sample also gave credence to building systems of support. Six of the participants (85%) advocated relationship-building in their remarks. The next section focuses on that advice. Presidential Pathway Paved with Relationships Presidents found mentoring to be an important component of preparing for a presidency. President Sharpe noted the benefit of the personal support she received from her mentor. “We're both married, we both have kids. And so, I can talk to her.” Dr. Reed, on the other hand, emphasized the information she received from former mentors. “I could just talk about whatever was on my mind, or whatever I wanted to know about.” Presidents also addressed the nature of relationships, strategic and nonprototypical, that should be developed. The rationale for each type of mentoring is discussed in the next three sections. Peer and Mentor Relationships Bring Comfort, Information Respondents agreed that mentoring was a critical factor in career advancement. Every president, and two of three administrators (85%), cited the need for support prior to assuming the role. President Bond commented on the importance of peer-group relationships. “It is comforting to be in the company of your sisters…to only engage with people who look like you, sound like you, walk like you, talk like you.” President Sharpe encouraged building a strong support system. “The higher you travel, in any job...your circle becomes very small. You need that support system of people who understand your role and can pour into you when you feel like you need to be poured into.” Participants also credited mentors with providing information they would not normally have access to. Dr. Reed recalled, “I was allowed to have conversations at different levels of leadership. As someone who was establishing my professional identity, that was extremely 121 helpful.” She further remembered, “I could ask anything about the enterprise of education. I could learn about structure, and I learned, memo and chapter and verse.” In addition to the support systems and information that mentors afforded, respondents also advocated for the development of nonprototypical networks. Relationships Should Broaden Exposure Interviewees also promoted relationships external to the HBCU sphere. Two participants (29%) spoke about the need to develop strategic, nonprototypical relationships to abet career progression. President Bond specified that these networks, largely sponsors, were essential. “You're going to have to push outside your comfort zone and build relationships with people in a position to help you. Not just commiserate with you, but help you.” Bond added, “if you don't have mentors, friends and contacts in majority and male communities, then who's going to vouch for you?” President Salvatore also extolled the benefits of building non-HBCU networks of support. She maintained that “if you can take at least one detour to a PWI, you [see] what they're doing.” She argued this was an important, often-ignored step, “because a lot of times, when people…tell me we can't do this, or it's not possible in higher ed, they mean, they've never seen it done at an HBCU.” Her response, to the contrary, was “oh, no, because of my experiences, I've seen it at a PWI. I know we can [do] that.” Salvatore said non-traditional exposure affected more than individuals’ knowledge base. She believed the benefit of exposure enabled leaders to give voice to a broader range of possibilities, adding, “I think that if you've not been in those [PWI] rooms, you can hold yourself back, or you don't recognize the language needed to discuss possibilities. So, I think it's important to have a variety of experiences.” Just as participants encouraged 122 relationships that broadened aspirants’ exposure, they also endorsed relationships that fostered personal development. Relationships Inspire Challenge, Accountability Respondents also credited personal development to mentors. Two participants (29%) spoke of relationships as a means to assure future presidents were challenged and held accountable. President Bunson said, “I think the best thing that you can do is surround yourself with people who will tell you the truth. You don't want to be surrounded by folks that tell you what you want to hear.” Similarly, Dr. Reed felt it was important to “gather a team of people who will tell you, ‘you did wrong,’ or you need to read deeper.’” Unlike the first two themes, the third theme dealt with personal affects a president might embody. Three participants (43%) cited qualities that should be developed prior to assuming the role. The qualities enumerated were authenticity, reflection, and position awareness. Personal Affects Should Be Part of Toolkit Dr. Fortius and President Bunson referenced personal authenticity. Dr. Fortius’ advice was predicated upon the assumption that some prospective presidents “might feel like they have to transform themselves to meet the needs of others. And sometimes that can become over[ly burdensome], if you tend to lose yourself.” Therefore, she advised, “if you can continue to stand in your decisions, your thoughts and beliefs and keep plugging away” the role should not be overwhelming. President Bunson admonished aspirants to step into the role with “self- knowledge, good and bad. The job will have you questioning yourself, so have confidence in your ability to do the role.” Bunson added that leaders should not “get sidetracked by all of the stuff that's going to get thrown your way, because it's going to happen. But you know how you feel about yourself.” 123 Ms. Sepiana cited the benefit of practicing reflection. She asserted that aspiring Black female presidents should be “learning how to listen, learning how to be patient, even in [a] hectic environment.” She added, “I think that you have to learn to figure out a way to step back and learn to be patient so that you can move forward.” Notably, Sepiana fulfilled the “mule” stereotype, which cast Black, female professionals as unwilling to work with others. Participants’ insights were, up to now, predicated upon the presumption that an HBCU presidency was a laudable goal. Dr. Reed’s counsel questioned that premise. Her remarks addressed reasons one may not want to aspire to the position. When asked what advice she would offer to Black, female presidential aspirants, she responded, “are you sure that’s what you want to do?” She asserted that fitness for the role should be evaluated against realities of the position. Therefore, she suggested that prospects interrogate myriad factors, from relentless schedules and hypervisibility, to loss of personal relationships and increased mental stress. In addition, Reed stated that HBCU presidencies were more demanding than PWI presidencies. She offered that her HBCU was not a PWI “where you've got such a well-oiled machine that can run [itself] if you're down.” She continued, “A school like Manchester needs all you’ve got every day, all day. And [it’s] still is going to have problems.” Reed asserted that those factors should guide, not preclude, individuals’ decision to pursue the position. RQ3 Discussion Participants laid out three prescriptive themes for Black female leaders seeking an HBCU presidency. First, advanced education was essential, and should be buttressed by co-curricular learning and professional development opportunities. Second, building relationships within and beyond the HBCU community expands the social capital and augments the stream of information necessary to secure the role. Third, prospective presidents were advised to hone personal skills, 124 such as listening, refection, and self-knowledge. According to Dr. Reed, part of that self- knowledge should be anchored in an understanding of what the role entails. Conclusion This study comprised two phases. First, contextual homogeneity was confirmed by conducting content analyses of organizational mission and vision statements, strategic plans, and organization charts. Then, a second phase of the research comprised 60-minute, semi-structured interviews. This research centered upon three questions. Research Question 1explored participants’ interactivity and gave traction to the supposition of Black, female marginalization in the HBCU context. Research Question 2 explored how marginalization inhibited career progression. Evidence confirmed that devaluation of leadership performance, leader fatigue, and lower compensation proved to have career-inhibiting impact, regardless of participants’ roles. Research Question 3 invited prescriptive advice for prospective HBCU presidential candidates. Participants prioritized academic and co-curricular instruction, relationship-building, and personal development. The methodology allowed insight into the professional endeavors of seven Black females in leadership at six HBCUs. Participants incurred varying degrees of marginalization. Interactivity resulting from marginalization encumbered the majority of presidents in their roles, and presented as organizational obstacles, in some cases obstructions, for the majority of administrators. The preponderance of evidence for research questions 1 and 2, therefore, suggested that participants endured and were inhibited by intersectional bias. The next chapter, Recommendations and Discussion, addresses these findings and measures for redress to increase equity in an environment dominated by Black male presidential leadership. 125 Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion HBCUs serve an important context within the higher education domain. Historically, the institutions represented the only higher education option for African American students who were prohibited from enrolling in PWIs because of racism. Today, the HBCU community persists, and remains a quality choice for students who esteem Black heritage and culture, and in some cases, otherwise could not afford a college education (Saunders et al., 2016). Despite a predominantly female population, comprising students, faculty, and staff (Gasman, 2014; NCES, 2019, 2021a), the leadership of 88 baccalaureate HBCUs is disproportionately male. Furthermore, Black female leaders in the HBCU context are subjected to racist, gendered mistreatment that betrays their racial homogeneity, instead penalizing their intersectionality. Thus, Black females in the HBCU environment endure intersectional bias. Bonner documented this disparity in her landmark 2001 study, and subsequent research (Harris, 2020; Harris & Leonardo, 2018; Jean-Marie & Tickles, 2018) affirmed this predicament. Yet, there is a paucity of literature that addresses Black, female leadership (Rosette et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2019), particularly among HBCUs (Lloyd-Jones, 2009). This study sought to address that omission. This chapter provides five elements for consideration. What follows is: a summary and discussion of findings, recommendations for practice, limitations and delimitations, and recommendations for future research. The chapter also includes implications for equity, which align with the Rossier School of Education’s mission. Discussion of Findings and Results This qualitative, phenomenological study was conducted with a sample of seven Black female leaders, representing six HBCUs. Research on this problem of practice comprised two qualitative methods. The similarity of organizational settings, ascertained by content analysis of 126 organizational documents, mitigated the likelihood of skewed data as a result of dissimilar contexts. Next, one-on-one, semi-structured interviews were conducted to determine participants’ realities and perceptions about their roles as HBCU leaders. Research Question One: Black, Female Marginalization in an HBCU Context Black female HBCU leaders confirmed they experienced marginalization in their positions. This finding was supported by the emergence of three themes: masculine organizational culture (MOC), glass cliff syndrome (GCS) among presidential participants, and the absence of mentors for administrative participants. The findings for this research question aligned with previous scholarship on the topic, as will be shown in the next section. Masculine Organization Culture Engenders Exclusion Participants corroborated an institutional context tainted by MOC. The phenomenon reified through participants’ experience of patriarchy (85%), disorientation and objectification (71%), and prejudiced evaluation (57%). Similar to the findings of Kark and Eagly (2010), MOC resulted in the minimization and psychological exclusion, or othering, of participants by denigration of their power and authority. Furthermore, participants reported diminution of their social capital, which mirrors the findings of Eagly and Carli (2007). In addition to MOC, presidential participants were alienated to the proverbial glass cliff. Presidents Subjected to Glass Cliff Leadership Each of the presidents in the sample (57%) met the criteria for glass cliff syndrome, which signals susceptibility to increased professional risk (Ryan & Haslam, 2007). The basis of their increased risk was not performance, but the women’s intersectionality, as indicated by Glass and Cook (2014). Although no participant invoked the term verbatim, GCS warrants presidents’ rapt attention, and is salient given the influence of MOC in the HBCU environment. 127 Administrators Bereft of Mentors Presidents reported having mentors, as well as sponsors. This study also documented that mentoring was a same-gender proposition, as reported by Freeman and Gasman (2014). The sample’s three administrators (43%) were devoid of mentors. This finding corresponds with previous research (Gamble & Turner, 2015), detailing the lack of African American female mentors. Although no correlation was performed on data, the finding that two of three administrators reported a void in strategic information is unsurprising. Acker (2006) would characterize the information vacuum as an inequality regime. Data concretized the marginalization of Black females in their HBCU communities. Of seven participants, six (85%) reported being subjected to marginalizing behavior or acknowledged its negative impact on HBCU interactivity. As a result, these participants reported incidents in which they were excluded, diminished, and isolated. This confluence of affects leads to the characterization of the HBCU environment as one corrupted by intersectional bias. The second research question looked beyond marginalization to investigate how its operationalization inhibited participants’ careers. Research Question Two: Participants’ Leadership Progression Hindered, Stifled Research on this question began with a consideration of respondents’ effectance (Bandura, 1986). Participants first demonstrated positive organizational belonging and motivation. These two measures approximated organizational effectance. With participants’ positive effectance established, the study assessed the degree to which marginalizing interactivity inhibited their career endeavors. Black female leaders in the study commented on how the effects of marginalization hindered their career progression. In fact, respondents volunteered examples, distinct from those 128 mentioned in Research Question One. For presidents, deterrents frustrated their agendas, transcending matters of institutional welfare. For administrators, inhibitors were obstructions, distractions, and sometimes barriers to their progression. The three inhibitors articulated were: devaluation of leader performance, Black female fatigue, and lower compensation. Black Female Leadership Performance Devalued Most participants conveyed efforts to attenuate their leadership performance. They endured challenges to their competency (71%) and suffered agentic penalty (71%), resulting in organizational backlash. Reports of institutional resistance affirmed previous studies (Lewis & Neville, 2015; Rosette et al., 2016) that documented harsher penalties for Black female leaders. These accounts also underscore the findings of Commodore et al. (2019) and Lockett and Gasman (2018), who documented agentic penalties among HBCU presidents. In addition, participants’ nonprototypicality inhibited performance. Each participant (100%) detailed at least one instance resulting in what Jackson and Wu (2015) called the “hidden hand” (p. 170) of macrosystemic racism against Black, female HBCU leaders. This finding further conforms with research by Carton and Rosette (2011) in which decision-makers deemed females less competent and incapable of leading organizations. Black Female Leaders Fatigued Participants attributed their fatigue to three factors. Those factors were: containment, structure-based inequities, and negative organizational climates. Participants (43%) referenced containment by virtue of excessive workloads, which Mirza (2018) documented as evidence of embodied intersectionality. Presidents did not comment about structural inequities, but all three administrators (43%) did. Each explained that structure was an impediment in commentary suggestive of Acker’s (2006) treatment of structure as an internalized control, indicative of an 129 inequality regime. Participants (71%) also inferred negative organizational climates (see Table 9) exacted a psychological tax, and conjectured mental taxation in describing metaphoric activity to manage the climates reported. Lower Compensation Tied to Institutional Capacity The majority of participants were paid below expectation. Surprisingly, most respondents attributed their lower salaries to institutional capacity (85%), rather than gender or an inequality regime. This finding departs from studies (Chen & Crown, 2019; Rabovsky & Lee, 2017) citing gender disparity as a primary factor in compensation. Six of seven participants associated their wage to operational limitations of their institution. This finding confirms Ezell and Schexnider’s (2010) assertion that HBCUs’ poor capacity was a source of pressure for leaders. Finally, participants were asked to offer advice to HBCU presidential aspirants. The third research question revealed two truths. First, participants’ comments reflected individual and collective self-efficacy. Second, the advice offered was germane to the current environment, one tainted by MOC, and did not address any expectation of increased equity. Research Question Three: Prescriptive Measures to Attain an HBCU Presidency The researcher acknowledges that not every Black female aspires to an HBCU presidency. However, the third research question queried prescriptive measures to attain the highest level of institutional leadership in an environment debased by Black female marginalization and career inhibition. Responses populated three categories: educational preparation, building relationships, and personal development. Findings are reviewed in the next section. 130 Educational Preparation Critical, But Not Panacea Education was mentioned as the foundational preparation for assuming a presidency. All but one participant (85%) included learning in their remarks. Beyond academic training, participants encouraged professional and occupational skill development, including experience in non-HBCU settings. However, participants cautioned that education alone did not guarantee success. Participants also encouraged building relationships. Mentors, Sponsors Key Strategic relationship building also was deemed a priority. The majority of participants (85%), even administrators who lacked mentors, extolled the value of mentors and sponsors. The benefits associated with mentoring and sponsorship cited included personal and professional support, access to information, and broadened exposure. Participants also remarked that mentors often challenged aspirants and held them accountable. Aspirants’ adoption of White male sponsors was deemed necessary to facilitate career progression, although it runs counter to Black feminist principles of self-identification and rejection of European male norms (Collins, 1989). This dependency may represent an attempt by participants to optimize existing, macrosystemic inequality regimes (Acker, 2006). Authenticity, Reflection Encouraged Finally, participants spoke about the importance of aspirants’ personal affects. Two participants (29%) prioritized authenticity in the role, a direct assault on findings of Black, female HBCU comportment that must adhere to a conservative (i.e., White) standard (Commodore, 2019). One participant promoted development of the capacity for reflection, even in chaos. This portion of the study seemed to abrogate conventional reports detailing the conservative ethos of HBCUs (Harper & Gasman, 2008). 131 Overall findings revealed a sample of Black, female HBCU leaders marginalized and inhibited as a result of their intersectionality. Williams and Melchoir (2013) asserted that marginalized groups know how inequalities affect them. The next section advances recommendations to mitigate intersectional bias and raise equity by increasing the number of female HBCU presidents. Recommendations for Practice There are three recommendations identified to address the findings of this study. Each is predicated upon the advantages of female leadership cited in Chapter Two (Beamon et al., 2012; Deszo & Ross, 2012; Frear et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2016). Each recommendation necessitates building a coalition, ideally between the two prevailing HBCU organizations, the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) and the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund (TMSF), since AABHE’s inability to support this study calls into question its capacity and motivation to address issues of equity. First, efforts to address MOC in the HBCU context are critical. Second, mixed-gender mentoring can disrupt gender norms and provide much-needed guidance to female HBCU administrators. Third, professional opportunities expressly for Black, female HBCU administrators can activate inclusion of a population often excluded from training and career information (Lloyd-Jones, 2009; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). Eradication of MOC Critical Participants, regardless of their job role, confirmed the existence of MOC, and remarked on its negative effects. These effects included: patriarchy (85%), disorientation and objectification (71%), and prejudiced evaluation (57%). Acker (2006) posited that inequality regimes can be dismantled by targeting inequality-producing mechanisms. By applying Nudge Theory (Arno &Thomas, 2016) to the male HBCU leader population, presidents in particular, 132 messaging regarding female leadership and succession planning may be implanted into the environment to guide the pursuit of equity, targeting male behavioral and choice architecture, without restraining the autonomy. The shift in culture may be evaluated biannually using attitudinal surveys, such as the Gender Role Attitudinal Survey (GRAS) (Garcia-Cueto et al., 2015), so that nudge content and dosage may be adjusted to achieve a decrease in MOC. The GRAS also should be administered to females to detect associated increases in empowerment and agency. Mixed-Gender Mentoring as Disruptive Practice While presidential participants in the study had female mentors, administrative participants had none. Forty-three percent of participants (i.e., administrators) possessed neither a mentor nor a sponsor. This finding aligned with previous research that documented same- gender practice norms (Freeman & Gasman, 2014) as well as a dearth of Black female executives available to mentor Black female HBCU administrators (Gamble & Turner, 2015). Mixed-gender mentoring would attend to the paucity of executive Black females and unlock access to a male knowledge base previously inaccessible to female administrators. Studies show that mixed-gender mentoring may increase social interaction (Germain et al., 2012; Ugrin et al., 2008) toward goal achievement and productivity. Mentor-mentee pairs could be assigned in situ, and monitored by the UNCF/TMSF coalition to promote and encourage interaction. Recommended evaluation for this pairing may be an adaptation of the Leader-Member Exchange-7 Questionnaire (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1997; Hanasono, 2017) which is designed to assess the relationship between leaders and followers. 133 Professional Development That Honors Intersectionality Last, findings indicated that preparation should include education. Although participants prized learning (85%), many expressed academics alone may be insufficient. Therefore, redress of intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders should include professional development coursework, rooted in Black feminist praxis, made available to aspirants by virtue of their mentors’ membership in either UNCF or TMSF. Completion of the coursework would certify aspirants’ entry into the HBCU presidential pipeline. Studies demonstrated the effectiveness of centering BFT in doctoral advisement of Black female students (Jones et al., 2013) and Black female educational leaders (Bass, 2012), and is recommended by Cruz et al. (2016). Limitations and Delimitations The purpose of this qualitative field research was to identify factors constituting intersectional bias among Black female senior leaders in the HBCU ecosystem and determine how those factors inhibited leadership progression. Limitations and delimitations may have impeded data collection and, consequently, research findings. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), limitations are external factors beyond the researcher’s control and beyond the scope of methodological design. The authors defined delimitations as context-dependent factors inherent in the sample population or the research design. Three major limitations must be considered. First, although participant truthfulness is presumed, there is no guarantee that participant bias (Brito, 2017) or socially desirable bias (Bergen & Labonté, 2020) did not occur. Second, although the study yielded credible, trustworthy data, the small sample size dictates that findings may not be generalizable across the entire HBCU ecosystem. Finally, continued campus closures and restricted access as a result of 134 the global COVID-19 pandemic limited participant interviewing to an online setting, precluding the opportunity for in-person observation. The major delimitation in this study is its exclusive focus on Black females in HBCU leadership. While research objectivity commends equal consideration of Black male leadership at HBCUs, the historic subjugation of Black women in higher education (Bonner, 2001; Gasman, 2007; Lockett & Gasman, 2018) and the documented dearth of scholarly analysis on Black women in leadership (Davis, 2016; Johnson & Thomas, 2012; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010) ascribed a degree of urgency to this problem of practice. In addition, adherence to Black feminist theory (Collins, 1998), which centralizes intersectionality, prioritized the standpoint knowledge of this purposively sampled group. In addition to limitations and delimitations, the study also highlighted areas of inquiry that compel further research. Recommendations for Future Research Two topics that transcend the scope of this study merit additional investigation. The first topic for future research is the psychology that activates Black male bias, even in a predominantly Black setting. Research (Lewis-McCoy, 2014; Marsh, 2011; McClellan, 2012; Woods, 2008) is scant, particularly within the HBCU realm. The work of Lemons (1997) addressed Black male sexism using a womanist lens, and Johnson (2018), in a critique Lewis- McCoy’s (2014) work on Black male privilege, calls for additional study on the subject. While not specific to the HBCU context, Kirkman’s (2020) work on perpetrators’ identification in acts benevolent and hostile sexism adds depth and perspective to this discussion. However, contemporary literature is sparse, particularly as it applies to the HBCU community. Given this study’s analysis and treatment of females, objectivity demands the future study of Black males and the commission of intersectional bias against Black females in the HBCU sphere. The 135 second area that warrants future study emerged in participants’ discussions chronicling multiple experiences of intersectional bias (see Chapter 4). Participants’ perseverance, particularly in administrative roles, warrants exploration. Some participants’ responses (e.g., Dr. Reed’s verbal assault and subsequent harassment or Ms. Sepiana’s containment) begged the question, why do you stay?; however, the researcher remained silent on the issue to protect data integrity. Sims and Carter’s (2019) addition of microaggressions to Parker and Ogilvie’s (1996) African American Women’s Executive Leadership Model affords an updated framework that may inform additional research. Smith et al. (2018) interviewed 59 Black female executives and detailed strategies to manage what they asserted was a key tactic in achieving mainstream success: overcoming invisibility. Roberts et al. (2018) expounded on the theme of resilience in their examination of 30 Black female executives who achieved mainstream success. Still, there remains a lack of serious, phenomenological scholarship on the issue specific to the HBCU network. While these and other concerns demand further study, schools of education are not exempt from addressing the matter. Implications for Equity Baccalaureate schools of education, at HBCU and PWI institutions, have a role to play in increasing the number and enhancing the high quality of Black women in the HBCU pipeline, as well as mitigating MOC. In addition to general curriculum on educational leadership, higher education pedagogy should center BFT, especially the effects of intersectionality, so that leaders understand its individual, group, and organizational consequences. In addition, male students must be exposed to curriculum and pedagogy that outlines the operationalization and effects of intersectional bias, so that men enter their professions prepared to eradicate it. The University of Southern California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education can lead the way in this endeavor. 136 USC Rossier’s mission avows to prepare educational leaders to seek equity, teaching students to value and respect cultural context. While HBCUs have no parental ties to Rossier as to UNCF and TMSF, which are largely the result of annual financial appropriations (Saunders et al., 2016), an exchange program between contexts could broaden perspectives and discourse around race, gender, and class in higher education. To ignore this educational opportunity constitutes USC’s failure to attend to a historically marginalized population’s dilemma. Conclusion Rousseau (2013) asserted that the history of Black women in the United States is linked to their utility as a unit of labor. This study, which centered the lived professional experiences of seven Black female HBCU leaders, evinced that the historic frame persists. Despite enduring marginalization and career-inhibiting interactivity, these women continued to toil “in the HBCU vineyard.” Each participant, of sterling pedigree and fortitude, continued their leadership despite episodes devaluing their leadership performance, Black female fatigue, and lower compensation. Individually, each participant reported a remarkable slate of achievements. Collectively, they harkened tropes from a darker, antebellum era. Excluded and reduced to outsider-within (Collins, 1989) status, the majority of these women lead their institutions without the benefit of full acceptance in their roles. Like the mammy stereotype (Welang, 2018) they continue to lead, appearing indestructible, despite assaults on their professional sensibilities, consciousness, and health. Like the stereotypical mule (Stewart, 2017) their labor is essential, sometimes conducted alone under pressure, criticism, and intense scrutiny. This dissertation and the recommendations found within represent a clarion call to the HBCU community. It is time to end intersectional bias. It is time to say in unison, “I am not your mule.” 137 References Abelman, R. (2013). On the horns of a dilemma: The institutional vision of church-affiliated HBCUs. Religion & Education, 40(2), 125-154. Abelman, R., & Dalessandro, A. (2009). The institutional vision of historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of Black Studies, 40(2), 105-134. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441-464. Acker, J. (2009). From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie du travail, 51(2), 199-217. Acker, J. (2012). Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(3), 214-224. Agosto, V., & Roland, E. (2018). Intersectionality and educational leadership: A critical review. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 255-285. Alberti, G., & Iannuzzi, F. E. (2020). Embodied intersectionality and the intersectional management of hotel labour: The everyday experiences of social differentiation in customer‐oriented work. Gender, Work & Organization, 27(6), 1165-1180. Albritton, T. J. (2012). Educating our own: The historical legacy of HBCUs and their relevance for educating a new generation of leaders. The Urban Review, 44(3), 311-331. Alcoff, L. M. (2017). Philosophy and philosophical practice: Eurocentrism as an epistemology of ignorance. In I. Kidd, J. Medina, G. Pohlhaus, The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice (pp. 397-406). Routledge. Alexander-Floyd, N. G. (2012). Disappearing acts: Reclaiming intersectionality in the social sciences in a post—Black feminist era. Feminist Formations, 1-25. 138 Allen, T. N., & Lewis, A. (2016). Looking through a glass darkly: Reflections on power, leadership and the Black female professional. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 9(2), 10. Allen-Collinson, J. (2011). Feminist phenomenology and the woman in the running body. Sport, ethics and philosophy, 5(3), 297-313. Alinia, M. (2015). On Black feminist thought: Thinking oppression and resistance through intersectional paradigm. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(13), 2334-2340. Alston, J. A. (2012). Standing on the promises: A new generation of Black women scholars in educational leadership and beyond. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 127-129. American Association of Blacks in Higher Education. (2021, April 3). Mission and vision. https://www.aabhe.education/copy-of-about-us American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7 th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000 Arno, A., Thomas, S. (2016). The efficacy of nudge theory strategies in influencing adult dietary behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 16, 676 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3272-x Atewologun, D., Sealy, R., & Vinnicombe, S. (2016). Revealing intersectional dynamics in organizations: Introducing ‘intersectional identity work. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(3), 223-247. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston. Bandura A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall. 139 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Barber, M. (2021). Alfred Schutz. In N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2021 ed.). Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/schutz/ Bass, L. (2012). When care trumps justice: The operationalization of Black feminist caring in educational leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 73-87. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231-272. Beale, F. (1979). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The Black woman: An Anthology. New American Library. Beaman, L., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2012). Female leadership raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls: A policy experiment in India. science, 335(6068), 582-586. Beckwith, A. L., Carter, D. R., Peters, T. (2016). The underrepresentation of African American women in executive leadership: What’s getting in the way? Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 7(4), 115-134. Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 518-533. 140 Bell, D. A. (1995). Who's afraid of critical race theory. University of Illinois Law Review, 1995(4), 893-910. Benard, A. A. (2016). Colonizing Black female bodies within patriarchal capitalism: Feminist and human rights perspectives. Sexualization, Media, & Society, 2(4), 2374623816680622. Bennett College History (n.d.) Bennett College History. Retrieved May 2, 2020, from http://www.bennett.edu/about/history/ Bergen, N., & Labonté, R. (2020). “Everything is perfect, and we have no problems”: detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 30(5), 783-792. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday Anchor. Bernstein, S. (2020). The metaphysics of intersectionality. Philosophical Studies, 177(2), 321-335. Best, R. K., Edelman, L. B., Krieger, L. H., & Eliason, S. R. (2011). Multiple disadvantages: An empirical test of intersectionality theory in EEO litigation. Law & Society Review, 45(4), 991-1025. Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender-and race-based standards of competence: lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(3), 544-557. Bilge, S. (2014). Whitening intersectionality. Racism and sociology, 5, 175. Bilge, S. (2020). The fungibility of intersectionality: An Afropessimist reading. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(13), 2298-2326. 141 Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 4: Qualitative data. In Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed., pp. 117-129). Allyn and Bacon. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6 th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Bonds, A., & Inwood, J. (2016). Beyond white privilege: Geographies of white supremacy and settler colonialism. Progress in Human Geography, 40(6), 715-733. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2002). The linguistics of color blind racism: How to talk nasty about blacks without sounding racist. Critical Sociology, 28(1-2), 41-64. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2015). The structure of racism in color-blind, “post-racial” America. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(11), 1358-1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215586826 Bonner, F. B. (2001). Addressing gender issues in the Historically Black College and University community: A challenge and call to action [Special issue]. The Journal of Negro Education, 70(3), 176-191. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3211209 Bound, J., Lovenheim, M. F., & Turner, S. (2012). Increasing time to baccalaureate degree in the United States. Education Finance and Policy, 7(4), 375-424. Bowleg, L. (2012). The problem with the phrase women and minorities: intersectionality—an important theoretical framework for public health. American journal of public health, 102(7), 1267-1273. Bowleg, L. (2013). “Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the parts back to the main ingredients”: Black gay and bisexual men’s descriptions and experiences of intersectionality. Sex Roles, 68(11), 754-767. Bowleg, L., & Bauer, G. (2016). Invited reflection: Quantifying intersectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 337-341. 142 Bowleg, L., del Río-González, A. M., Holt, S. L., Pérez, C., Massie, J. S., Mandell, J. E., & A. Boone, C. (2017). Intersectional epistemologies of ignorance: How behavioral and social science research shapes what we know, think we know, and don’t know about US Black men’s sexualities. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(4-5), 577-603. Bramesfeld, K. D., & Good, A. (2016). C’est la vie! The game of social life: Using an intersectionality approach to teach about privilege and structural inequality. Teaching of Psychology, 43(4), 294-304. Brito, C. F. (2017). Demonstrating experimenter and participant bias. In J. R. Stowell & W. E. Addison (Eds.), Activities for teaching statistics and research methods: A guide for psychology instructors (pp. 94–97). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000024-020 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the development of children, 2(1), 37-43. Brown, E., Hardy, C., & Smith, K. (2012). Challenges of identifying and selecting quality African American leaders at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. National Association of African American Studies Conference Proceedings: 1-26. Brown, J. (2021, February 20). Map of free and slave states in 1860. In Social history for every classroom: Resources for teachers. https://shed.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/2008 Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of management, 18(3), 523-545. Bürkner, H. J. (2012). Intersectionality: How gender studies might inspire the analysis of social inequality among migrants. Population, space and place, 18(2), 181-195. Burnett, C. A. (2020). Diversity under review: HBCUs and regional accreditation actions. Innovative Higher Education, 45(1), 3-15. 143 Capper, C. A., & Young, M. D. (2014). Ironies and limitations of educational leadership for social justice: A call to social justice educators. Theory into practice, 53(2), 158-164. Carastathis, A. (2014). The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory. Philosophy Compass, 9(5), 304-314. Carbado, D. W. (2013). Colorblind intersectionality. Signs: Journal of women in culture and Society, 38(4), 811-845. Carbado, D. W., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois review: social science research on race, 10(2), 303-312. Carbado, D. W., & Harris, C. I. (2018). Intersectionality at 30: Mapping the margins of anti- essentialism, intersectionality, and dominance theory. Harv. L. Rev., 132, 2193. Carton, A. M., & Rosette, A. S. (2011). Explaining bias against black leaders: Integrating theory on information processing and goal-based stereotyping. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1141-1158. Cederwall, J. &. Llewellyn, I. (2020, May 13). Top 3 U.S. web conferencing apps hit over 70% market share. Scoop Business. Retrieved from: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ BU2005/S00263/top-3-us-web-conferencing-apps-hit-over-70-market-share.htm Chen, J. J., & Crown, D. (2019). The gender pay gap in academia: Evidence from the Ohio State University. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(5): 1337–1352. Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological theory, 28(2), 129-149. 144 Chun, J. J., Lipsitz, G., & Shin, Y. (2013). Intersectionality as a social movement strategy: Asian immigrant women advocates. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 917-940. Clair, J. A., Humberd, B. K., Caruso, H. M., & Roberts, L. M. (2012). Marginal memberships: Psychological effects of identity ambiguity on professionals who are demographically different from the majority. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 71-93. Clarke, A. Y., & McCall, L. (2013). Intersectionality and social explanation in social science research. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 349-363. Clark, N., & Saleh, N. (2019). Applying critical race feminism and intersectionality to narrative inquiry: A point of resistance for Muslim nurses donning a hijab. Advances in Nursing Science, 42(2), 156-171. Collins, D. E. (2015). Three things HBCUs could do to survive and succeed. Academe, 101(5), 27-29. Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), 14-32. Collins, P. H. (1989). The social construction of black feminist thought. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 14(4), 745-773. Collins, P. H. (1989b). A comparison of two works on Black family life. Signs 14(4), 875-84. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment, 138, 221-238. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment, 138, 221-238. 145 Collins, P. H. (1991). Controlling images and Black women’s oppression. In P. H. Collins (Ed.), Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (pp. 266- 273). Routledge. Collins, P. H. (1998). It's all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation. Hypatia, 13(3), 62-82. Collins, P. H. (1998b). Intersections of race, class, gender, and nation: Some implications for Black family studies. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29(1), 27-36. Collins, P. H. (2000). Gender, black feminism, and black political economy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41-53. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi- org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4324/9780203900055 Collins, P. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge. Collins, P. H. (2020). Intersectionality as Critical Inquiry. Companion to Feminist Studies, 105-128. Collective, C. R. (1977). 'A Black Feminist Statement' (pp. 210-218). na. Commodore, F. (2019). Losing herself to save herself: Perspectives on conservatism and concepts of self for Black women aspiring to the HBCU presidency. Hypatia, 34(3), 441-463. Commodore, F., Lockett, A. W., Johnson, A. C., Googe, C., & Covington, M. (2020, January). Controlling images, comments, and online communities: A critical discourse analysis of 146 conversations about Black Women HBCU presidents. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 78, p. 102330). Pergamon. Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic minorities promoted to CEO?. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1080-1089. Cooper, A. J. (1988). A Voice from the South. Oxford University Press. Crenshaw K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine. University of Chicago Legal Forum. 1989(1), 139–167. https://chicagobound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8 Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Crenshaw, K. (1992). Whose story is it, anyway? Feminist and antiracist appropriations of Anita Hill. In T. Morrison (Ed.), Race-ing Justice, En-gendering Power (p. 402-40). Pantheon Books, 1992). Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3 rd ed.) Sage. Cresswell, J. W., & Cresswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5 th ed.). Sage Publications. Daniel, J. R. (2016). Crisis at the HBCU. Composition Studies, 44(2), 158-161. Davis, D. R. (2016). The journey to the top: Stories on the intersection of race and gender for African American women in academia and business. Journal of Research Initiatives, 2(1), 4. 147 Davis, D. R., & Maldonado, C. (2015). Shattering the glass ceiling: The leadership development of African American women in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 35, 48-64. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational researcher, 33(5), 26-31. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2 nd ed.). New York University Press. Derks, B., Ellemers, N., Van Laar, C., & De Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 519-535. Dezsö, C. L., & Ross, D. G. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic management journal, 33(9), 1072-1089. Dhamoon, R. K. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 230-243. Dlamini, E. T., & Adams, J. D. (2014). Patriarchy: A case of women in institutions of higher education. Perspectives in Education, 32(4), 121-133. Dougal, C., Gao, P., Mayew, W. J., & Parsons, C. A. (2019). What’s in a (school) name? Racial discrimination in higher education bond markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 134(3), 570-590. Dubnick, M. J. (2011). Move over Daniel: We need some “accountability space.” Administration & Society, 43(6), 704-716. 148 Dubnick, M. J. (2014). The ontological challenge. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 649-654). Oxford University Press. Duran, J. (2020). Maria Stewart: A Black Voice for Abolition. Feminist Theology, 29(1), 6-17. Eagly, A. H. (2005) Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 459-474. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business Press. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. Ensari, N., Riggio, R. E., Christian, J., & Carslaw, G. (2011). Who emerges as a leader? Meta- analyses of individual differences as predictors of leadership emergence. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 532-536. Ezell, J. L., & Schexnider, A. J. (2010). Leadership, governance and sustainability of black colleges and universities. Trusteeship, 18 (3), p. 25-28. Featherstone, L. (2004). Selling women short: the landmark battle for women’s rights at Wal-Mart. Basic Books. Ferber, A. L., & Herrera, A. O. (2013). Teaching privilege through an intersectional lens. Deconstructing privilege: Teaching and learning as allies in the classroom, 83-101. Frear, K. A., Paustian‐Underdahl, S. C., Heggestad, E. D., & Walker, L. S. (2019). Gender and career success: A typology and analysis of dual paradigms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 400-416. 149 Freeman Jr, S., Commodore, F., Gasman, M., & Carter, C. (2016). Leaders wanted! The skills expected and needed for a successful 21st century historically Black college and university presidency. Journal of Black Studies, 47(6), 570-591. Freeman, S., & Gasman, M. (2014). The characteristics of historically black college and university presidents and their role in grooming the next generation of leaders. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1-34. Fryer Jr, R. G., & Greenstone, M. (2010). The changing consequences of attending historically Black colleges and universities. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1), 116-48. Fuchs, C. (2018). Capitalism, patriarchy, slavery, and racism in the age of digital capitalism and digital labour. Critical Sociology, 44(4-5), 677-702. Gamble, E. D., & Turner, N. J. (2015). Career ascension of African American women in executive positions in postsecondary institutions. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 19(1), 82-101. García-Cueto, E., Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J., Bringas-Molleda, C., López-Cepero, J., Paíno-Quesada, S., Rodríguez-Franco, L. (2015). Development of the gender role attitudes scale (GRAS) amongst young Spanish people. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15( 1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.10.004. Gasman, M. (2007a). Envisioning black colleges: A history of the United Negro College Fund. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gasman, M. (2007b). Swept under the rug? A historiography of gender and black colleges. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 760-805. 150 Gasman, M. (2011). Perceptions of Black college presidents: Sorting through stereotypes and reality to gain a complex picture. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 836-870. Gasman, M. (2016, November 17). A great choice for university president, until she doesn’t want to be bossed. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://diverseeducation.com/article/89417/ Gasman, M., Abiola, U., & Freeman, A. (2014). Gender disparities at historically black colleges and universities. Higher Education Review, 47(1), 56-76. Gasman, M., & Hilton, A. (2012). Mixed Motivations, Mixed Results: A History of Law, Legislation, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Interest Convergence. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1-34. Gerdtz, M. (2019). Demarginalizing the intersection: Intersectionality of race and gender. Grin. Germain, M. L., Herzog, M. J. R., & Hamilton, P. R. (2012). Women employed in male- dominated industries: lessons learned from female aircraft pilots, pilots-in-training and mixed-gender flight instructors. Human Resource Development International, 15(4), 435- 453. Glass, C., & Cook, A. (2018). Do women leaders promote positive change? Analyzing the effect of gender on business practices and diversity initiatives. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 823-837. Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. In Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, 4, 162-183. Goff, P. A., & Kahn, K. B. (2013). How psychological science impedes intersectional thinking. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 365. 151 Gunnarsson, L. (2017). Why we keep separating the ‘inseparable’: Dialecticizing intersectionality. European Journal of Women's Studies, 24(2), 114-127. Guba, E. G. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Evaluation practice, 8(1), 23-43. Guy-Sheftall, B. (2006). Shared governance, junior faculty, and HBCUs. Academe, 92(6), 30-34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40253521 Hanasono, L. K. (2017). Leader‐Member Exchange 7 Questionnaire (LMX‐7) (Graen & Uhl‐ Bien, 1995). The Sourcebook of Listening Research: Methodology and Measures, 354- 360. Hannah-Jones, N., (2019, August 18). The 1619 project. In M. Elliott, J. Hughes, J. Silverstein, New York Times Magazine. New York Times Company., & Smithsonian Institution . Hannum, K. M., Muhly, S. M., Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., & White, J. S. (2015). Women leaders within higher education in the United States: Supports, barriers, and experiences of being a senior leader. Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, 65-75. Harper, B. E. (2019). African American access to higher education: the evolving role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. American Academic, 3(1), 109-128. Harper, S. R., & Gasman, M. (2008). Consequences of conservatism: Black male undergraduates and the politics of historically Black colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/199 Harris, A. P. (2020). Presumed Incompetent in the Era of Diversity. In Y. F. Niemann, G. G. Muhs, C. G. Gonzalez (Eds.) Presumed Incompetent II: Race, Class, Power, and Resistance of Women in Academia (2 nd ed., pp. 3-10. University of Colorado Press and Utah State University Press. 152 Harris, A., & Leonardo, Z. (2018). Intersectionality, race-gender subordination, and education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 1-27. Harris, J. C., & Patton, L. D. (2019). Un/doing intersectionality through higher education research. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(3), 347-3 Hartmann, S. (2002). Pauli Murray and the juncture of women’s liberation and Black liberation. Indiana University Press, 14(2), 74-77. Hatmaker, D. M. (2013). Engineering identity: Gender and professional identity negotiation among women engineers. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(4), 382-396. Haynes, C., Joseph, N. M., Patton, L. D., Stewart, S., & Allen, E. L. (2020). Toward an Understanding of Intersectionality Methodology: A 30-Year Literature Synthesis of Black Women’s Experiences in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research, 90(6), 751-787. Healy, G., Bradley, H., & Forson, C. (2011). Intersectional sensibilities in analysing inequality regimes in public sector organizations. Gender, Work & Organization, 18(5), 467-487. Heisenberg, W. Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quan- ¨ tentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Z. Phys. 43, 172–198 (1927); (1983). The physical content of quantum kinematics and mechanics (Engl. Trans.), In J. A. Wheeler & W. H. Zurek, (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement. Princeton Univ. Press. Henderson, T. L., Hunter, A. G., & Hildreth, G. J. (2010). Outsiders within the academy: Strategies for resistance and mentoring African American women. Michigan Family Review, 14(1). Higher Education Act. (1965). Pub. L. No. 89-329. 20 U.S.C. § 1061. 153 Hiraldo, P. (2010). The role of critical race theory in higher education. The Vermont Connection, 31(1), 53-59. Holder, A., Jackson, M. A., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2015). Racial microaggression experiences and coping strategies of Black women in corporate leadership. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 164-180. Horrigan-Kelly, M., Millar, M., & Dowling, M. (2016). Understanding the key tenets of Heidegger’s philosophy for interpretive phenomenological research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1-14. Horsford, S. D., & Tillman, L. C. (2012). Inventing herself: Examining the intersectional identities and educational leadership of Black women in the USA. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 1-9. Howard, E., & Gagliardi, J. (2019, September 27). [Lecture notes to National Policy Institute on Higher Education Governance]. American Council on Education. Jackson, S., & Harris, S. (2007). African American female college and university presidents: Experiences and perceptions of barriers to the presidency. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 7, 119-137. Jackson, F., & Wu, E. Y. (2015). Must we deploy drones in the twenty-first century to target under the radar discrimination against minority women at law schools at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs)? Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 31(1), 164-196. James, V. D. (2009). Theorizing black feminist pragmatism: Forethoughts on the practice and purpose of philosophy as envisioned by black feminists and John Dewey. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 23(2), 92-99. 154 Jean-Marie, G. (2006). Welcoming the unwelcomed: A social justice imperative of African- American female leaders at historically black colleges and universities. Educational Foundations, 20, 85-104. Jean-Marie, G. & Tickles, V. C. (2018). Black women at the helm in HBCUs: Paradox of gender and leadership. Advances in Education in Diverse Communities, 14(1), 101-124. Jean-Marie, G., Williams, V. A., & Sherman, S. L. (2009). Black women’s leadership experiences: Examining the intersectionality of race and gender. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(5), 562-581. Johnson, T.H. (2018). Challenging the Myth of Black Male Privilege. Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men 6(2), 21-42. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/706076. Johnson, L. N., & Thomas, K. M. (2012). A similar, marginal place in the academy: Contextualizing the leadership strategies of black women in the United States and South Africa. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(2), 156-171. Johnson, M. O., & Gandhi, M. (2015). A mentor training program improves mentoring competency for researchers working with early-career investigators from underrepresented backgrounds. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(3), 683-689. Johnson, M. T., Bruch, J., & Gill, B. (2019). Changes in HBCU financial aid and student enrollment after the tightening of PLUS credit standards. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 48(2), 4. Jones, T., & Norwood, K. J. (2016). Aggressive encounters & white fragility: Deconstructing the trope of the angry black woman. Iowa L. Rev., 102, 2017. 155 Jones, T. B., Wilder, J., & La’Tara Osborne-Lampkin. (2013). Employing a Black feminist approach to doctoral advising: Preparing Black women for the professoriate. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 326-338. Kark, R., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender and leadership: Negotiating the labyrinth. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 443- 468). Springer. Kark, R., & Waismel-Manor, R. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: What's gender got to do with it?. Organization, 12(6), 889-917. Kirkman, M. S., & Oswald, D. L. (2020). Is it just me, or was that sexist? The role of sexism type and perpetrator race in identifying sexism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 160(2), 236-247. Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128-161. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24. Lemons, G.L. (1997). To be black, male, and “feminist”‐‐making womanist space for Black men, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. Vol. 17(1), 35-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb013291 Lent, R. W. (2013). Career‐life preparedness: Revisiting career planning and adjustment in the new workplace. The Career Development Quarterly, 61(1), 2-14. 156 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of counseling psychology, 47(1), 36-49. Lewis, J. A., & Neville, H. A. (2015). Construction and initial validation of the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale for Black women. Journal of counseling psychology, 62(2), 289- 302. Lewis-Mccoy, R. H. (2014). Confronting Black male privilege. In Slatton, B. C., & Spates, K. (Eds.) Hyper sexual, hyper masculine?: Gender, race and sexuality in the identities of contemporary black men (pp. 75-84). Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited, In N. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97-128). Sage. Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23(4), 354-358. Lloyd-Jones, B. (2009). Implications of race and gender in higher education administration: An African American woman’s perspective. Advances in developing human resources, 11(5), 606-618. 157 Lockett, A. W., & Gasman, M. (2018). Envisioning equity: Women at the helm of HBCU leadership: Underserved populations at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Diversity in Higher Education, 21, 201-214. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Crossing Press. MacKinnon, C. A. (2013). Intersectionality as method: A note. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 1019-1030. Marable, M. (1983). Groundings with my sisters: Patriarchy and the exploitation of Black women. The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 11(2), 1. Marsh, W. (2011). Acknowledging Black male privilege. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 17, 61-63. Martin, P., & Barnard, A. (2013). The experience of women in male-dominated occupations: A constructivist grounded theory inquiry. Journal of industrial psychology, 39(2), 01-12. May, V. M. (2014). “Speaking into the void”? Intersectionality critiques and epistemic backlash. Hypatia, 29(1), 94-112. McClellan, P. (2012). Race, gender, and leadership identity: An autoethnography of reconciliation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 89-100. McCurdy, S. A., & Ross, M. W. (2018). Qualitative data are not just quantitative data with text but data with context: On the dangers of sharing some qualitative data: Comment on Dubois et al. (2018). Qualitative Psychology, 53(3), 409-411. McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 324-348. McDougald, E. J. (1925). The double task: The struggle of Negro women for sex and race emancipation. Survey Graphic, 6, 689-691. 158 MacKinnon, C. A. (2013). Intersectionality as method: A note. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 1019-1030. McMahon, J. M., & Kahn, K. B. (2016). Benevolent racism? The impact of target race on ambivalent sexism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 169-183. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (pp. 107-136). John Wiley & Sons. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (4 th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Cabinet. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 22, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabinet Michel, A. (2011). Transcending socialization: A nine-year ethnography of the body’s role in organizational control and knowledge workers’ transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3), 325-368. Minor, J. T. (2005) Discerning facts about faculty governance at HBCUs. Academe, 91(3), 34-38. Miron, R. (2016). Husserl and other phenomenologists. The European Legacy, 21(5-6), 467-480. Mirza, H. S. (2014). Decolonizing higher education: Black feminism and the intersectionality of race and gender. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 7(7), 1-12. Montgomery, R., & Montgomery, B. L. (2012). Graduation rates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An underperforming performance measure for determining institutional funding policies. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(2), 93-109. 159 Moradi, B., & Grzanka, P. R. (2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of counseling psychology, 64(5), 500. Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational (in)equality. In A. Diller, B. Houston, K. P. Morgan, & M. Ayim (Eds.), The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, and politics (pp. 105-122). Routledge. Morley, L. (2013). The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25(1), 116-131. Museus, S. D., & Griffin, K. A. (2011). Mapping the margins in higher education: On the promise of intersectionality frameworks in research and discourse. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(151), 5-13. Mustaffa, J. B. (2017). Mapping violence, naming life: A history of anti-Black oppression in the higher education system. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(8), 711-727. Mutari, E., Power, M., & Figart, D. M. (2002). Neither mothers nor breadwinners: African- American women's exclusion from US minimum wage policies, 1912-1938. Feminist Economics, 8(2), 37-61. Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist review, 89(1), 1-15. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Digest of Education Statistics. Historically black colleges and universities, 1976-2001. [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004062.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of Education Statistics. Fall enrollment in degree-granting historically Black colleges and universities, by sex of 160 student and level and control of institution: Selected years, 1976 through 2017 [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_313.20.asp?current=yes National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics. Fall enrollment in degree-granting historically Black colleges and universities, by sex of student and level and control of institution: Selected years, 1976 through 2017 [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Statistics.aspx National Center for Education Statistics. (2021b). Digest of Education Statistics. Historically Black colleges and universities: January 24, 2021 [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionList.aspx National Center for Education Statistics. (2021c). Digest of Education Statistics. U.S. degree- granting colleges and universities: February 15, 2021 [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hkk53un2redmc9w/AAChqxTkT1fFbbL2- PRvmHSXa?dl=0 National Center for Education Statistics. (2021d). Digest of Education Statistics. Employment by Gender in U.S. degree-granting colleges and universities: February 15, 2021 [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hkk53un2redmc9w/AAChqxTkT1fFbbL2- PRvmHSXa?dl=0 National Center for Education Statistics. (2021X). Digest of Education Statistics. HBCU Employment by Gender. March 2, 2021 [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/63xltag0858qfb3/AACZ9E40WF3rDzqCS3eQ9mTza?dl=0 Nin, A. (1961). Seduction of the minotaur. Swallow Press. 161 Njoku, N. R., & Patton, L. D. (2017). Explorations of respectability and resistance in constructions of Black womanhood at HBCUs. In L. Patton & N. Croom (Eds.), Critical perspectives on Black women and college success (pp. 143-157). Routledge. Okello, W. K. (2018). From self-authorship to self-definition: Remapping theoretical assumptions through Black feminism. Journal of College Student Development, 59(5), 528-544. Omi, M. & Winant, H. (2015). Racial Formation in the United States. (3 rd , ed., p. 105-136). Routledge. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1998). Racial formation. Social class and stratification: Classic statements and theoretical debates, 233-42. Orr, V. F. (2020, October). Centering Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Making the case for a statement for the field and beyond (pp. 3-16). University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Palmer, R. T., & Freeman Jr, S. (2020). Examining the perceptions of unsuccessful leadership practices for presidents at historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(3), 254. Parker, P.S., & Ogilvie, D.T. (1996). Gender, culture, and leadership: Toward a culturally distinct model of African-American women executives’ leadership strategies. Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 189- 214. Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315-342. Patton, L. D., Harper, S. R., & Harris, J. (2015). Using critical race theory to (re) interpret widely studied topics related to students in US higher education. In A. M. Martinez-Aleman, E. 162 M. Bensimon, & B. Pusser (Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education, (pp. 193-219). Johns Hopkins University Press. Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation . Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283. Patton, M. Q. (2002b). Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 339-380). Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4 th ed.). Sage. Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1-17. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 3 rd ed. Random House. Pich, H. (2015). Various, Beautiful, and Terrible: The Life and Legacy of Ida B. Wells-Barnett. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 59-74. Pivčević, E. (2014). Husserl and phenomenology, pp. 11-21. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Polzer, J. T., & Caruso, H. M. (2008). Identity negotiation processes amidst diversity. Cambridge University Press. Pullen, A., Rhodes, C., McEwen, C., & Liu, H. (2019). Radical politics, intersectionality and leadership for diversity in organizations. Management Decision. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex roles, 59(5- 6), 377-391. 163 Rabovsky, T., & Lee H. (2017). Exploring the antecedents of the gender pay gap in U.S. higher education. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 375–385. Reed, L. C. (2012). The intersection of race and gender in school leadership for three Black female principals. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 39-58. Roberts, L. M., Mayo, A. J., Ely, R. J., Thomas, D. A. (2018). Beating the odds: Leadership lessons from senior African American women. Harvard Business Review. Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Knowing when a survey is ready for use. In S. B. Robinson & K. F. Leonard, Designing quality survey questions (pp. 53-76). Sage. Rodriguez, J., & Freeman, K. J. (2016). ‘Your focus on race is narrow and exclusive: The derailment of anti-racist work through discourses of intersectionality and diversity. Whiteness and Education, 1(1), 69-82. Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. (2008). The White standard: racial bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 758-777. Rosette, A. S., Koval, C. Z., Ma, A., & Livingston, R. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 429-445. Rosser-Mims, D. (2010). Black feminism: An epistemological framework for exploring how race and gender impact black women’s leadership development. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 30. Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Sage. Rousseau, N. (2013). Historical womanist theory: Re-visioning Black feminist thought. Race, Gender & Class, 20(3/4), 191-204. 164 Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165-179. Ruiz Castro, M., & Holvino, E. (2016). Applying intersectionality in organizations: Inequality markers, cultural scripts and advancement practices in a professional service firm. Gender, work & organization, 23(3), 328-347. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of management review, 32(2), 549-572. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 446-455. Salter, N. P., Sawyer, K., & Gebhardt, S. T. (2020). How Does Intersectionality Impact Work Attitudes? The Effect of layered Group Memberships in a Field Sample. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-18. Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership: Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65(3), 171-181. Saunders, K.M., Williams, K.L., & Smith, C. L. (2016). Fewer Resources More Debt: Loan Debt Burdens Students at Historically Black Colleges & Universities. Washington, DC: UNCF Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute. Schiele, J. H. (1990). Organizational theory from an Afrocentric perspective. Journal of Black Studies, 21(2), 145-161. 165 Scheim, A. I., & Bauer, G. R. (2019). The Intersectional Discrimination Index: Development and validation of measures of self-reported enacted and anticipated discrimination for intercategorical analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 226, 225-235. Schein, E. H. (2017). In E. Schein & P. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership (5 th ed., pp. 152-153). Wiley. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170-183). Sage. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (p. 101–123). American Psychological Association. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1-10. Sesko, A. K., & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 356-360. Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54(9), 589-601. Settles, I. H., Warner, L. R., Buchanan, N. T., & Jones, M. K. (2020). Understanding psychology's resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 796-813. Shepherd, S. (2017). Why are there so few female leaders in higher education: A case of structure or agency? Management in Education, 31(2), 82-87. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex roles, 59(5), 301-311. 166 Silvestri, M. (2003). Women in charge: Policing, gender, and leadership. Willan. Sims, C. M., & Carter, A. D. (2019). Revisiting Parker and Ogilvie’s African American women executive leadership model. Journal of Business Diversity, 19(2), 99-112. Slay, H. S., & Smith, D. A. (2011). Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities. Human relations, 64(1), 85-107. Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2018). Interviews with 59 Black female executives explore intersectional invisibility and strategies to overcome it. Harvard Business Review. Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2019). Making the invisible visible: Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on the career experiences of executive Black women. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1705-1734. Srivastava, S. B., Goldberg, A., Manian, V. G., & Potts, C. (2018). Enculturation trajectories: Language, cultural adaptation, and individual outcomes in organizations. Management Science, 64(3), 1348-1364. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3 rd ed., pp. 443-466). Sage. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. Stein, S. (2016). Universities, slavery, and the unthought of anti-Blackness. Cultural Dynamics, 28(2), 169-187. Stewart, C. P. (2017). The mule of the world: The strong black woman and the woes of being independent'. Knots: An Undergraduate Journal of Disability Studies, 3. 167 Stripling, J. (2012, March 12). Survey finds a drop in minority presidents leading colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/who-are-college- presidents-/131138 Stripling, J. & Fuller, A. (2010). On campuses, the income gap widens at top. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/on-campuses-the-income-gap- widens-at-the-top/ Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons. Thomas, E. L., Dovidio, J. F., & West, T. V. (2014). Lost in the categorical shuffle: Evidence for the social non-prototypicality of Black women. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 370-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035096 Thomas, P. (2017, May 30). Power, responsibility, and the White men of academia. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/power-responsibility-and-the-white-men-of- academia_b_592d58bce4b08861ed0ccbce?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly 93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGTxKwmRJHfuhKjbcEf2DOq YN_O8EA21r0jEo1zFuUsQv5AvPliw_avAPJu7JFjthtr_MmhOj0R62Pm__RZaocOAUo jOdIApmyjEZKeW6Ky1_ME2P2cBCkBkNthDHVb785b81lhIhy3EqoGhu7kZs0lyJhRx L9bIRnwzOTO22K8 Tlaiss, H., & Kauser, S. (2010). Perceived organizational barriers to women's career advancement in Lebanon. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(6), 462- 496. 168 Toni, N., & Moodly, A. L. (2019). Do institutional cultures serve as impediments for women's advancement towards leadership in South African higher education? South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 176-191. Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods. Wiley-Blackwell. Truth, S., & Kennedy, A. P. (1992). Ain't I a Woman? Ugrin, J. C., Odom, M. D., & Pearson, J. M. (2008). Exploring the importance of mentoring for new scholars: A social exchange perspective. Journal of information systems education, 19(3), 343-358. United Negro College Fund. (2021, January 29). HBCUs: A value proposition. https://uncf.org/the-latest/hbcus-value-proposition Wallace, M. (2015). A black feminist's search for sisterhood. In A. Hull, P. Bell-Scott, B. Smith (Eds.) All the women are White, all the Blacks are men, but some of us are brave: Black Women's Studies (2 nd ed., pp. 5-13). The Feminist Press Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 272-293), The Guilford Press. Waring, A. L. (2003). African-American female college presidents: Self conceptions of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(3), 31-44. Waymer, D., & Street, J. (2015). HBCUs as relics or reminders race remains relevant in a post- racial society? Exploring and expanding the role of memory in public relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(2), 145-162. Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2014). Two motivations for two dimensions of mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 278-283. 169 Welang, N. (2018). Triple consciousness: The reimagination of Black female identities in contemporary American culture. Open Cultural Studies, 2(1), 296-306. Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of applied psychology, 84(5), 786. White, R. W. (1960). Competence and the psychosexual stages of development. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 97-141). University of Nebraska Press. Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The" Hawthorne effect:” What did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &Health, 26(4) 363-367. Wilder, C. S. (2013). Ebony and ivory: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s universities. Bloomsbury. Williams, J. C., & Dempsey, R. (2014). What works for women at work: Four patterns working women need to know. Stylus Publishing. Williams, K. L., Burt, B. A., Clay, K. L., & Bridges, B. K. (2019). Stories untold: Counter- narratives to anti-Blackness and deficit-oriented discourse concerning HBCUs. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 556-599. Williams, W. R., & Melchiori, K. J. (2013). Class action: Using experiential learning to raise awareness of social class privilege. In K. A. Case (Ed.), Deconstructing privilege: Teaching and learning as allies in the classroom (pp. 169–187). New York, NY: Routledge. 170 Winn, J., Bryan, K., & Tyler, A. (2018). The role of HBCUs in tackling issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In C. H. Davis, A. A. Hilton, D. Outten (Eds.), Underserved Populations at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Vol. 21, pp. 129–146). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-364420180000021009 Woods, J. (2008). The Black male privileges checklist. Renaissance Male Project. https://www.deanza.edu/faculty/lewisjulie/The%20Black%20Male%20Privilege%20Che cklist.pdf Wooll, Maggie. (2021, September 21). Mentor vs. sponsor: Why having both is key for your career. BetterUp. https://www.betterup.com/blog/mentor-vs- sponsor#:~:text=While%20mentors%20may%20help%20youinvested%20in%20your%2 0professional%20development. Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Guest editorial: Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17(1), 9-29. 171 Appendix A: Baccalaureate Historically Black Colleges and Universities School State President Founded Degrees Alabama A&M University Alabama Dr. Andrew Hugine, Jr. 1875 Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Alabama State University Alabama Dr. Joe A. Lee 1867 Associate, Bachelor, Masters Albany State University Georgia Dr. Marion Ross Federick 1903 Bachelor's and Master's Alcorn State University Mississippi Dr. Felicia M. Nave 1871 Associate, Bachelor, Masters, Doctorate Allen University South Carolina Dr. Ernest C. McNeely 1870 Bachelor's Arkansas Baptist College Arkansas Dr. Fitzgerald Hill 1884 Associate, Bachelor's Barber-Scotia College (Unaccredited) North Carolina Dr. David Olah 1867 Bachelor's Benedict College South Carolina Dr. Roslyn Clark Artis 1870 Bachelor's Bennett College North Carolina Suzanne Elise Walsh, J.D. 1873 Bachelor's Bethune Cookman University Florida Trudie Kibbe Reed, Ed.D. 1904 Bachelor's Bishop State Community College Alabama James Lowe, Ph.D 1927 Associate Bluefield State College West Virginia Albert L. Walker 1895 Associate, Bachelor's, Certificates Bowie State University Maryland Dr. Aminta Breaux 1864 Bachelor's, Master's Central State University Ohio John W. Garland 1856 Bachelor's, Master's Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science California M. Roy Wilson, M.D., M.S. 1966 Associate, Bachelor's Cheyney University of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Mr. Aaron A. Walton 1837 Bachelor's, Master's Claflin University South Carolina Dr. Henry N. Tisdale 1869 Bachelors Clark Atlanta University Georgia Dr. George French 1865(A.U.),1869 (C.C.) Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Coppin State University Maryland Dr. Anthony L. Jenkins Bachelor's, Master's Delaware State University Delaware Dr. Harry L. Williams 1891 Bachelor's, Master's Dillard University Louisiana Marvalene Hughes, Ph.D. 1869 Bachelor's Edward Waters College Florida Mr. Nathaniel Glover, Jr. 1865 Bachelor's Elizabeth City State University North Carolina Dr. Karrie G. Dixon 1891 Bachelor's Fayetteville State University North Carolina Dr. Darrell Allison 1867 Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral Fisk University Tennessee Dr. Kevin Rome 1866 Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree Florida A&M University Florida James H. Ammons 1887 Associate's Degree, Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, Doctoral Degree Florida Memorial University Florida Dr. Henry Lewis III 1879 Bachelor's Degree Fort Valley State University Georgia Dr. Larry E. Rivers 1895 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Degree Grambling State University Louisiana Frank G. Pogue, Ph.D. 1901 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Degree Hampton University Virginia William R. Harvey 1868 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral, First Professional Harris-Stowe State University Missouri Dr. LaTonia Collins-Smith (Interim) 1857 Bachelor's Degree Howard University District of Columbia Dr. Wayne Frederick 1867 Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, Doctoral Degree 172 Huston-Tillotson University Texas Dr. Colette Pierce Burnett 1881 Bachelor's Degree Jackson State University Mississippi Dr. Thomas K. Hudson 1877 Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral, Education Specialist Jarvis Christian College Texas Cornell Thomas 1912 Bachelor's Degree Johnson C. Smith University North Carolina Ronald L. Carter 1867 Bachelor's Degree Kentucky State University Kentucky Dr. M. Christopher Brown 1886 Associates, Bacholers, Master’s Degree Lane College Tennessee Dr. Wesley C. McClure 1882 Bachelor of Arts and the Bachelor of Science. Langston University Oklahoma JoAnn W. Haysbert 1897 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's Lemoyne-Owen College Tennessee Dr. Vernell Bennett-Fairs 1862 Bachelor's, Master's Lincoln University -Missouri Missouri Dr. Jerald Jones-Woolfollk 1866 Associate's Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, Master's Degree Lincoln University -Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Dr. Brenda A. Allen 1854 Bachelor's, Master's Livingstone College North Carolina Dr. Jimmy Jenkins 1879 Bachelor's Miles College Alabama Dr. Bobbie Knight 1898 Bachelor's Degree Mississippi Valley State University Mississippi Dr. Jerryl Briggs 1946 Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree Morehouse College Georgia Dr. David A. Thomas 1867 Bachelor's Degree Morgan State University Maryland Dr. David Wilson 1867 Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, Doctoral Degree Morris Brown College Georgia Dr. Kevin James 1881 Bachelor's Morris College South Carolina Dr. Luns C. Richardson 1908 Bachelor's Norfolk State University Virginia Dr. Jauvaune Adams-Gaston 1935 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Degree North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina Harold Martin 1891 Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral North Carolina Central University North Carolina Charlie Nelms 1910 Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Oakwood University Alabama Delbert W. Baker Ph.D. 1896 Associate, Bachelor's Paine College Georgia Dr. Cheryl Evans Jones 1882 Bachelor's Paul Quinn College Texas Michael J. Sorrell, Esq. 1872 Bachelor' s Philander Smith College Arkansas Walter M. Kimbrough, Ph.D. 1877 Bachelor' s Prairie View A&M University Texas Dr. Ruth Simmons 1876 Bachelor's, Master's Rust College Mississippi Dr. Ivy Taylor 1866 Associate, Bachelor's Saint Augustine's University North Carolina Dr. Christine Johnson McPhail 1867 Associate, Bachelor's Savannah State University Georgia K. Ballard-Washington, J.D. 1890 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's Selma University Alabama Dr. Alvin A. Cleveland 1878 Associate, Bachelor's Shaw University North Carolina Dr. Paulette Dillard 1865 Associate, Bachelor's South Carolina State University South Carolina Dr. George E. Cooper, Ph.D. 1896 Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Southern University and A&M College Louisiana Dr. Kofi Lomotey 1880 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's Southern University at New Orleans Louisiana Victor Ukpolo, Ph.D. 1956 Southwestern Christian College Texas Dr. Jack Evans, Sr. 1948 Associate, Bachelor's Spelman College Georgia Dr. Mary Schmidt Campbell 1881 Bachelor' s 173 Stillman College Alabama Dr. Cynthia Warren (Interim) 1875 Bachelor' s Talladega College Alabama Dr. Billy C. Hawkins 1865 Bachelor' s Tennessee State University Tennessee Dr. Glenda Baskin Glover 1912 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Texas College Texas Dr. Dwight J. Fennell 1894 Associate, Bachelor's Texas Southern University Texas Dr. Lesia L. Crumpton-Young 1927 Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Tougaloo College Mississippi Dr. Carmen Jade Walters 1869 Associate, Bachelor's Tuskegee University Alabama Dr. Charlotte Morris 1881 Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Arkansas Dr. Lawrence A.Davis, Jr 1873 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's University of Maryland Eastern Shore Maryland Dr. Heather Wilson 1886 Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, Doctoral Degree University of Texas at El Paso Texas Dr. Heather Wilson 1914 Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, Doctoral Degree University of the District of Columbia District of Columbia Dr. Allen L. Sessoms 1851 Associate's, Bacholer's, Master's University of the Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Dr. David Hall 1962 Associate, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral Degree Virginia State University Virginia Dr. Keith T. Miller March 6, 1882 Bachelor's and Master's Virginia Union University Virginia Dr. Claude Grandford Perkins 1865 Bachelor's and Doctoral Degrees Virginia University of Lynchburg Virginia Dr. Kathy C. Franklin 1890 Associate, Bachelors, Masters, Certificate Voorhees College South Carolina Cleveland Sellers, Jr. 1897 Bachelor's West Virginia State University West Virginia Dr. Anthony L. Jenkins 1891 Associate's Degree, Bacholer's Degree Wilberforce University Ohio Dr. Elfred Anthony Pinkard 1856 Bachelor's Wiley College Texas Dr. Haywood L. Strickland 1873 Associate, Bachelor's Winston-Salem State University North Carolina Dr. Elwood L. Robinson 1892 Bachelor's Xavier University of Louisiana Louisiana Dr. Ronald Verret Bachelor's and Master's Legend: Permanent Female President Interim Female President National Center for Education Statistics. (2021a). Digest of Education Statistics. Historically Black colleges and universities: January 24, 2021 [Data set]. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionList.aspx 174 Appendix B: Supplemental Definitions Afrocentric is defined as an idea, representation, or artifact pertaining to or emanating from African culture and reality (Schiele, 1990, p. 145). Baccalaureate denotes institutional authority to confer the bachelor of art’s degree, typically the culmination of completing a four-year curriculum (Bound et al., 2012, p. 375) Cabinet-level refers to executives reporting directly to an organization’s CEO, providing counsel and oversight for a specific area of responsibility (Merriam-Webster.com, 2021). Colorblindness refers to the neutralization of race by employing liberalism (i.e., individual rights and free enterprise) in defense of meritocratic outcomes and cultural attribution of racial disparities, such as normalization of racist practices (e.g., segregation) and denial of the existence of racial discrimination (Bonilla-Silva, 2002, 2015). Contextual affordances are environmental factors that facilitate or inhibit self-efficacy development and career goal persistence (Lent, 2013; Lent et al., 1994, 2000). Critical race theory enables the examination of race in dominant cultural settings through: 1) the framing of race as a social construction; 2) the normalization of racism; 3) detection of interest convergence; 4) critique of liberalism; and 5) counter-storytelling (Bell, 1980, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1998). Differential racialization refers to the racialization, or stereotyping, of people to serve the interests and needs of dominant populations (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012, p. 10). 175 Eurocentrism prioritizes Western, European writing, philosophy, culture, and critical analysis above all other epistemological canons (Alcoff, 2017, p. 397). Glass cliff is a term used describe conditions under which women, particularly women of color, are hired to lead organizations in crisis, failure, or decline (Ryan & Haslam, 2007, p. 554). Hegemony is the systemization of social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence and control of one dominant race over another (Hiraldo, 2010, pp. 54-55). Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs, comprise 100 accredited postsecondary schools, each founded before 1964, designated by Congress in 1965 as a class of institutions to educate African Americans (Higher Education Act, 1965). Homosociability describes hiring and personnel practices that prioritize advancement and promotion of same-gender over different-gender candidates (Shepherd, 2017, p. 86). Interest convergence is a tenet of critical race theory by which a measure (e.g., legislation) is pursued because it advances the self-interests of those pursuing the action (Bell, 1980; DeCuir & Dixon, 2004). Intersectionality denotes the convergence of socially constructed identities, such as race, gender, and class, that engender compounded penalty or reward based upon interconnected, overlapping layers of identity (Salter et al., 2020). 176 Leader appraisal refers to judgments about a prospective leader’s competence and qualifications, his or her effectiveness in the leadership role, or both (Gasman & Lockett, 2018; Paustian- Underdahl, 2014). Leader emergence refers to the process by which individuals compete for, assume, or are granted leadership privileges within a group or structure (Ensari et al., 2011). Leader prototyping occurs as individuals categorize leader characteristics (i.e., race and gender) which, over time, become leadership standards (Rosette et al., 2008) against which qualification for leadership is evaluated. Male superiority refers to behavioral phenomena and structures in which male influence, ideas, and authority are prioritized and valued over female contributions of equal type and value (Morley, 2013). Masculinist organizational culture (Kark & Waismel-Manor, 2005; Silvestri, 2003) galvanizes male superiority through lexicons, social interaction, and symbols, constraining women’s social capital (Eagly & Carli, 2007) and advancement (Kark & Eagly, 2010). Mission is the shared concept of an organization’s reason for existence (Schein, 2017, p. 152). Structure denotes the organization, mechanization, and systemization, of rules, procedures, learning, rituals, symbols, and relationships toward a common aim (Schein, 2017, pp. 197-199). Power is the capacity or potential to influence others (Northouse, 2019, p. 9). 177 Vision is the non-negotiable mode of organizational comportment that clarifies and governs progress toward a future, desired state (Schein, 2017, p. 328). 178 Appendix C: Interview Protocol (Time Requested of Participants: 60 minutes) Research Questions: 1. How is Black female leadership marginalized in the HBCU ecosystem? 2. How does marginalization inhibit Black female leadership progression? 3. What prescriptive measures engender success in attaining Black female HBCU leadership? Respondent Type: Black female HBCU leaders: presidents, vice presidents, associate vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, deans, and directors Introduction to the Interview: Good afternoon, (Title Name). I’m Donna Brock, and I once again thank you for confidentially sharing your career trajectory with me as part of this confidential interview series with Black female HBCU leaders. As part of my organizational change and leadership dissertation research at University of Southern California, I want to understand if and how your intersectionality—the convergence of your race, gender, and class--has impacted your career goals, the decisions you’ve made in achieving them, and your leadership progression. I know your time is at a premium, so today I’d like to ask you a few questions designed to elicit your story, your perceptions and perspectives and your thoughts about leadership. Once I have transcribed the data and cloaked your identity, you will receive a copy of the interview transcript to ensure that your responses are accurate and complete. Any changes you want to make at that time are 179 welcome and, of course, will remain confidential. I want to be selfish with your time, so let’s begin by ensuring that you are willing to share your story confidentially and voluntarily, and that you agree to have the contents of your anonymous interview recorded for transcription purposes only. [Respondent answers here.]. Do YOU have any questions before we commence? Great! Let’s get started! Respondent Eligibility Questions Key Concept Addressed Q Type (Patton, 2015) A. What is your racial classification? Sample Eligibility Demographic B. How do you classify your gender? Sample Eligibility Demographic C. Have you worked at this institution for 24 consecutive months? Sample Eligibility Background D. What is your current title and position in this institution? Sample Eligibility Background E. Is your current supervisor a male or female? Sample Eligibility Demographic Interview Questions DB: Let’s talk about YOUR career! RQ Key Concept Addressed Q Type (Patton, 2015) Potential Probes 1. Let’s imagine your institution is body of water. Tell me about how you navigate it. #1 Cognition: Self-Efficacy Experience a. What propels you through the water? b. What helps or inhibits your navigation? c. What elements or controls are you monitoring as you navigate the ocean? 2. If you had to name that body of water, what name would you give it? #1 Environment: Interaction Climate Opinion, Values a. Why did you choose that particular name? 3. Remembering that your current institution is body of water, what, if any, objects do you encounter in navigating it? #1 Environment: Interaction Climate Experience a. What, if anything, inhibits you in your current role? b. What, if anything, empowers you in your role? c. How do you manage that encounter? 180 4. Based upon your professional experiences, how would you characterize any navigational accompaniment? #1 Cognition: Self-Efficacy, Knowledge Experience a. Are you navigating alone? b. Are you navigating with select partners? c. Are you navigating in a group? Interview Questions RQ Key Concept Addressed Q Type (Patton, 2015) Potential Probes 5. Based upon your institutional experiences, describe the degree of belonging you feel? #1 Behavior: Effectance Experience, Feelings a. To what do you attribute that sense of belonging? 6. What, if anything, motivates you personally to perform in your institutional role? #1 Behavior: Motivation, Effectance Values a. If unmotivated, what inhibits your motivation? 7. Please describe your experience as a Black woman in your current role at your HBCU. #2 Behavior: Motivation Experience a. Are there instances in which your existence as a black woman was: Significant? Emotionally charged? Conflicting? 8. What career goals would you like to achieve? #2 Behavior: Motivation; Beliefs, Values a. Where do you see yourself in two years? b. Where do you see yourself in five years? c. Where do you see yourself in 10 years? 9. How would you describe the support you receive in pursuing those career milestones? #2 Environment: Contextual Affordances Experience 10. How would you describe the manner in which your supervisor(s) perceive(s) you? #2 Cognition of Interaction Climate Experience, Sensory a. How would you describe the overall tenor of your relationship with your boss? 11. What institutional structures (e.g., policies, rules, practices, codes) influence your pursuit of those career milestones?? #2 Contextual Affordances, Inequality Regimes Knowledge, Experience 12. In general, how would you characterize your institution’s standards of professional conduct? #2 Agency, Agentic Penalty Experience a. What is the expectation for how professionals in your institution behave? b. Is that standard liberating or inhibiting to you? 181 13. Please describe a situation in which your authority was challenged. #2 Agency, Agentic Penalty Experience a. 14. How do you receive information of strategic importance in your institution? #2 Interaction Climate Experience a. In general, what type of strategic information do you receive? In general, what is the timing of your receipt of strategic information? Interview Questions RQ Key Concept Addressed Q Type (Patton, 2015) Potential Probes 15. How fairly do you believe the work you produce is appraised? #2 Leader Appraisal Experience a. Are standards for completeness, quality, and volume of work equitably applied? b. Do you believe the type, quality, and level of feedback you receive is equitable? 16. As a Black female leader in your institution, how fairly do you feel your overall performance is evaluated? #2 Inferential Bias Experience a. Do you believe your performance is equitably evaluated compared to others? b. Do you believe the type, quality, and level of feedback you receive about your performance is equitable? 17. How fairly do you believe you are compensated for your professional contributions? #2 Inequality Regimes Experience 18. How would you describe the budget support you receive to execute your specific role? #3 Inequality Regimes Beliefs/Values a. To what degree are you able to perform what you believe is expected of based on funding provided by your institution? b. How, if necessary, do you manage gaps in required funding? 19. How would you describe your experience(s) with mentoring in your current role? #3 Leader Emergence Experience a. How has someone offered to “show you the ropes?” b. With whom are you most likely to discuss issues, problems, or concerns? 20. What is the best career advice you would offer to Black female leaders looking to become HBCU presidents? #3 Leader Emergence Experience DB: Is there anything you’d like to share that we didn’t get to cover? Interview Conclusion: Thank you! This has been a rich experience, and I appreciate your time and insights! Again, your responses are completely confidential and your identity will remain confidential throughout the 182 data collection process, data analysis, and after publication. I will be transcribing this interview as quickly as possible and will have a transcript back to you within 5-7 working days. Any changes or edits wish to make are invited and welcome at that time. To what email address would you prefer me to forward your confidential interview draft? [Email Address recorded and verified.] I hope the remainder of your week is productive. Again, thank you! 183 Appendix D: Information Sheet for Exempt Research 184 185 Appendix E: Institutional Artifact Registry Log All DCA Transcripts and Accompanying Notes Filed in Research Audit Log by Institutional File Number. Artifact Registry Log FILE # _____________ Institution Identifier: ____________________________________ Entry Date: __________________ Artifact: ___Mission Statement Retrieved From: _______________________________________ Date Retrieved: ______________ Document #: __________ DCA Date: _________________ DCA Transcript #: __________ ___Vision Statement Retrieved From: _______________________________________ Date Retrieved: ______________ Document #: __________ DCA Date: _________________ DCA Transcript #: __________ ___Mission Statement Retrieved From: _______________________________________ Date Retrieved: ______________ Document #: __________ DCA Date: _________________ DCA Transcript #: __________ ___Core Values Retrieved From: _______________________________________ Date Retrieved: ______________ Document #: __________ DCA Date: _________________ DCA Transcript #: __________ ___Organizational Chart Retrieved From: _______________________________________ Date Retrieved: ______________ Document #: __________ DCA Date: _________________ DCA Transcript #: __________ ___Strategic Plan Retrieved From: _______________________________________ Date Retrieved: ______________ Document #: __________ DCA Date: _________________ DCA Transcript #: __________ ___Other Retrieved From: _______________________________________ Date Retrieved: ______________ Document #: __________ DCA Date: _________________ DCA Transcript #: __________ File Notes: Participant Index Participant # Interview Date Transcript # 186 Appendix F: Supplemental References by Topic Absence of Black Female Leadership Research Parker, P.S., & Ogilvie, D. T. (1996). Gender, culture, and leadership: Toward a culturally distinct model of African-American women executives’ leadership strategies. Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 189-214. Sims, C. M., & Carter, A. D. (2019). Revisiting Parker and Ogilvie’s African American women executive leadership model. Journal of Business Diversity, 19(2), 99-112. Black Women, Subordination of Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018, January). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In S. Friedler & C. Wilson, Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-15. Christian, B. (1985). Black feminist criticism: Perspectives on Black women writers. Pergamon. Historically Black Colleges and Universities U.S. Department of Education. (1991, March). Historically Black colleges and universities in higher education desegregation. Office of Civil Rights. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9511.html Intersectional Bias Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018, January). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In S. Friedler & C. Wilson, Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-15. Perszyk, D. R., Lei, R. F., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Waxman, S. R. (2019). Bias at the intersection of race and gender: Evidence from preschool‐aged children. Developmental science, 22(3), e12788. 187 Intersectionality Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785-810. Women in Male-Dominated Professions Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(1), 109-128. Howe-Walsh, L., & Turnbull, S. (2016). Barriers to women leaders in academia: tales from science and technology. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 415-428. 188 Appendix G: AABHE Correspondence Donna Brock <dbrock@usc.edu> For Your Records: Brock/AABHE Zoom Chat 08/26/21 2 messages Donna Brock <dbrock@usc.edu> Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 6:37 PM To: Odelet West <ONWAABHE@gmail.com>, "Bonner, Fred" <fabonner@pvamu.edu>, STSmith@pvamu.edu, "Eaton, Norman" <nreaton@pvamu.edu> Bcc: "Dr. Joseph H. Silver, Sr." <SilverandAssociates@comcast.net> Good evening, Dr. West, Dr. Bonner, Dr. Smith and Mr. Norman: Thank you for your time and guidance this afternoon. I continue to be grateful for your counsel and assistance. A link to the video transcript of our proceedings has been forwarded to you under separate cover (and attached as a Google Drive link below). Please retain this for your records, if/as you deem appropriate. As promised, I shall apprise you upon confirmation of my IRB application and forward to you, by no later than Monday, Sept. 13, 2021, the short (one-paragraph) recruitment brief we discussed this afternoon. Also per our conversation, all of these efforts are in preparation for AABHE field research sample recruitment, tentatively set Oct. 18-Nov. 19, 2021. Recruitment logistics, including additional AABHE channels suggested, are detailed in the link. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any additional information or have any questions. Thank you all again! Donna Brock 404-694-4140 zoom_0.mp4 Bonner, Fred <fabonner@pvamu.edu> Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:43 PM To: Donna Brock <dbrock@usc.edu>, Odelet West <ONWAABHE@gmail.com>, "Smith, Stella" <stsmith@pvamu.edu>, "Eaton, Norman" <nreaton@pvamu.edu> Ms. Brock: Thank you for connecting with us today! We are excited about your research. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone [Quoted text hidden] This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or via return e-mail and delete this e-mail with all information from your system. 189 Donna Brock <dbrock@usc.edu> CONFIRMING RECEIPT: BROCK-AABHE Sample Recruitment Text Odelet West <onwaabhe@gmail.com> Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:40 PM To: "Bonner, Fred" <fabonner@pvamu.edu> Cc: Donna Brock <dbrock@usc.edu>, "Smith, Stella" <stsmith@pvamu.edu>, "Eaton, Norman" <nreaton@pvamu.edu>, Josh Shank <aabhe.jds@gmail.com> Thank you, Donna! I am including Josh Shank who will assist us in getting this info out We will keep you posted on the plan. Dr. Odelet Nance West Interim Executive Director AABHE Email: onwaabhe@gmail.com Phone: 219-554-9067 [Quoted text hidden] Donna Brock <dbrock@usc.edu> CONFIRMING RECEIPT: BROCK-AABHE Sample Recruitment Text Odelet West <onwaabhe@gmail.com> Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM To: Donna Brock <dbrock@usc.edu> The announcement will go to members only through the newsletter. Dr. Odelet Nance West Interim Executive Director AABHE Email: onwaabhe@gmail.com Phone: 219-554-9067 [Quoted text hidden] 190 Appendix H: Participant Recruitment Letter

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sustainable fashion leadership: The female phenomenon

PDF

Barriers in care access for the marginalized individual: a provider’s role

PDF

Averting the gaze: gender bias in the fashion industry

PDF

Cultural wealth exploration of Black female executives and its additive value in STEM corporations: a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis

PDF

Europe, we have a problem: the experience of Black female leaders in Europe

PDF

Capital allocation to Black female technology entrepreneurs

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Sustaining historically black colleges and universities: an exploration of organizational outcome achievement by leaders at public HBCUs

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Leading from the margins: an intersectional qualitative analysis of the leadership experiences of Black mothers

PDF

Exhaustion of Black women in corporate settings: a study to identify helpful interventions

PDF

Navigating the profession of spine surgery: narratives from women on the front lines

PDF

Women in leadership: how female leaders fair in America’s commercial insurance industry

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Where are the female executive leaders?

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Impact of training on leader's ability to effectively lead during a crisis

PDF

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

PDF

Beyond commitments: a qualitative examination of the persistent disparities faced by Black women in executive leadership roles post the 2020 crisis and beyond

PDF

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

Asset Metadata

Creator Brock, Donna Lynne (author)

Core Title I am not your mule: intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/27/2022

Defense Date 04/12/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Black female leader,HBCU,intersectional bias,intersectionality,marginalization,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique C. (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee member), Martinez, Brandon D. (committee member)

Creator Email DBrock@USC.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111136305

Unique identifier UC111136305

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Brock, Donna Lynne

Type texts

Source 20220428-usctheses-batch-934 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu