University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Adaptive leadership: a proactive approach to anticipating, identifying, and addressing external threats

(USC Thesis Other)

Adaptive leadership: a proactive approach to anticipating, identifying, and addressing external threats

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Adaptive Leadership: A Proactive Approach to Anticipating, Identifying, and Responding
to External Threats in Christian Higher Education
by
Justin McIntee
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
December 2025

© Copyright by Justin McIntee 2025
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Justin McIntee certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Chip Espinoza, Ph.D.
Maria Ott, Ph.D.
Rudy Crew, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
In 2011, Harvard educator and researcher Clayton Christianson predicted that higher education
would be the next industry to experience significant disruption and radical change. The cover
story of the September 2022 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education proclaimed “The
Shrinking of Higher Ed,” citing declines in enrollment and financial challenges putting the
leadership skills of college administrators to the test. This study aimed to build leaders’ capacity
to adapt to change, focus on equity, and collaborate with faculty, staff, and governing bodies.
Seeking to further the Rossier mission, this study seeks to empower leaders to be
transformational as they create cultures and systems trained on achieving more equitable
outcomes for faculty, staff, and students while institutionalizing adaptive leadership behaviors.
The study methodology was a basic qualitative study design consisting of 10 60-minute
interviews. Participants were presidents of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities
with at least two years of experience in their current role to ensure they had developed ample
expertise. To ensure diversity, at least 20% of participants were women or people of color. Last,
the institutions the participants represent had to have student enrollment between 2,000 and
8,000 students so that the universities were similar in size and faced the same challenges. This
study design was selected to understand how best to resource university presidents to build their
capacity to address their institutions' adaptive challenges.
Keywords: Adaptive leadership, permanent whitewater, reflection, mental models,
emotional intelligence,

v
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Michael Beals, PhD, for being “The Vanguard” of
encouragement to pursue my educational doctorate. Thank you for your friendship, partnership,
believing in me as a leader, and creating a place for me to flourish at work.
I am also extremely thankful to my dissertation chair, Rudy Crew, PhD, for being the
perfect fit as my chair. We both know God put us together on purpose. You have been so
generous with your time, knowledge, and encouragement throughout this process. Having you as
my chair is a top highlight of this doctoral journey. I am eternally grateful that you chose to share
your gifts and talents with me.
Additionally, Chip Espinoza, my dear friend, I could not imagine this journey without
you. I write this with tears in my eyes thinking about all the hours we spent together building this
dissertation. You are a leadership genius, and I can’t believe I get to call you friend. Thank you
for serving on my committee, challenging and encouraging me every step of the way. I still can’t
believe you almost died during this process, but I am so thankful you are thriving and here to
carry me through the finish line. Love you, my friend.
And last, but certainly not least, I express deep love, affection, and gratitude to my loving
and supportive wife, Joelle, and my two beautiful children, Estella and Quinn. Thank you for
being so understanding for the last four and a half years. There is no way I could have enjoyed
this process so thoroughly if not for your unwavering support. I am thrilled to be done with this
season so that I can spend even more time with you all.

vi
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am forever grateful to know
and serve Him. I pray that the Lord would take this work and use it for His glory. I also pray that
the Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model would help leaders be more thoughtful, patient, and
inclusive as they address adaptive challenges in their families, neighborhoods, churches, and
organizations. To God be the Glory!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.………………………………………………………………………………………….iv
Dedication.………………………………………………………………………………………...v
Acknowledgements.………………………………………………………………………………vi
List of Figures.……………………………………………………………………………………ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study…………………………………………………………..1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………………….1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions…………………………………………….4
Importance of the Study……………………………………………………………….......4
Overview and Theoretical Framework and Methodology…………………………….......6
Explanation of Terms …………………………………………………………………....11
Organization of the Study.……………………………………………………………….13
Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………………………………...14
External Threats.………………………………………………………………………... 14
Leadership.……………………………………………………………………………….16
Organizational System Diagnosis and Action…………………………………………...17
Diagnosis and Action of Self………………………………………………………….....24
Chapter Three: Methodology……………………………………………………………………28
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………28
Study Design.….…………………………………………………………………………28
Participants/Sample Section……………………………………………………………...30
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………………..30
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………..31

viii
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………….....31
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………………………..32
The Researcher…………………………………………………………………………...33
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………..34
Chapter Four: Findings……………………………………………………………………….....36
Participants.………………………………………………………………………………37
External Threats……………………………………………………………………….....37
Findings: Research Question One…………………………………………………….....39
Findings: Research Question Two……………………………………………………....51
Chapter Five: Recommendations………………………………………………………………..57
Limitations and Future Research………………………………………………………...64
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….....64
References………………………………………………………………………………………..69
Appendix A: Interview Protocol………………………………………………………………...76

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change ......................7
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework Part 1..........................................................................................8
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework Part 2........................................................................................10
Figure 4: Reshaping Mental Models through Service Design Practices........................................20
Figure 5: Productive Zone of Disequilibrium................................................................................23
Figure 6: Five Components of Emotional Intelligence at Work....................................................26
Figure 7: Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model ...............................................................................57

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Background of the Problem
This study explored the need for leaders in faith-based higher education to increase their
adaptive capacity to address external threats to their institutions. Researchers have found that
70% of organizational change initiatives fail (Bielinska-Kwapisz, 2014; Burnes, 2011; Burnes &
Jackson, 2011), and several studies indicate that effective leadership is a critical factor (Errida &
Lotfi, 2021; Jones et al., 2019). This study explicated the essential adaptive qualities of leaders in
faith-based colleges and universities as they address external threats and seek to effectively
transform their institutions.
For over 40 years, researchers have been forecasting complexity, change, and unforeseen
issues threatening organizations and the call for increased levels of leadership. Through the
analogy of whitewater rafting, Peter Vaill (1990) described the challenges leaders must address,
for which he coined the phrase “permanent whitewater.” Whitewater events can be full of
surprises, messy and ill-structured, extremely costly, and generate novel problems. He
maintained that, to navigate these trials—and lead through permanent whitewater, executives
must become effective learners. P. M. Senge (2006) addressed the unpredictable pace of change,
stating that the solution involves increasing organizational learning capacity. Heifetz et al. (2009)
came up with the term “adaptive challenges” to describe unforeseen challenges that require
people to find new ways to adapt.
In 2011, Harvard educator and researcher Clayton Christensen predicted that higher
education would be the next industry to experience significant disruption and radical change
(Christensen & Eyring, 2011). This prediction has come to fruition. The cover story of the
September 2022 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education proclaimed “The Shrinking of

2
Higher Ed” (Fischer, 2022). The article cited disturbing data that will put the leadership skills of
college administrators to the test. For example, Fischer (2022) stated that nearly 1.3 million
students have not returned to college since the pandemic. She also described recent financial
challenges facing leaders of higher educational institutions, including inflation driving up
operating costs, federal stimulus funds running out, and a volatile stock market creating fewer
endowment dollars. These recent complications will likely be compounded by projected
enrollment declines due to a 16% birth rate decrease between 2007 and 2020, which will begin to
negatively impact prospective student numbers starting in 2025 (Grawe, 2022). These
disruptions will force leaders to reconsider education delivery, identify new revenue streams,
undertake faculty cost-cutting, and understand the emerging educational needs of this next
generation (Thompson & Miller, 2018).
The context of this study was the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU),
which consists of over 185 faith-based colleges and universities, including more than 30
campuses in 19 countries and 150 in the United States and Canada. CCCU institutions are
accredited colleges and universities grounded in the Christian faith. Founded in 1976, the CCCU
is a leading national voice of Christian higher education. The mission of the CCCU is to advance
the cause of Christ-centered higher education and help institutions transform lives by faithfully
relating scholarship and service to biblical truth.
CCCU is not exempt from unprecedented external and internal challenges. CCCU
institutions face the same issues around enrollment declines, inflation, and reduced federal
dollars as well as issues specific to Christian higher educational institutions. Cultural and societal
norms are being questioned, resulting in legal and moral interpretations of issues based on
traditional Christian values upon which many faith-based universities are founded, such as the

3
definition of marriage, gender identity, and human sexuality (Reynolds & Wallace, 2016).
Additionally, in the last 10 years, several significant racialized incidents have incited hate in
America. The tragic killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police on May 25,
2020, was caught on video, enraging people across the country. Subsequently, debates around
discrimination and racism have permeated college campuses, creating complex challenges for
administrators. As campuses become more diverse, concerns about respecting the student
population and advancing social justice are becoming increasingly critical (Luna De La Rosa &
Jun, 2019). Indeed, as Stachowiak (2015) stated, there is a “dangerous disconnect between
knowing about diversity and understanding diversity to act responsibly in a diverse world.”
College administrators must understand this distinction in order to develop a strategy that creates
healthy campus climates for diversity, which in turn links to educational outcomes (ParedesCollins, 2013).
Due to the ongoing complexity of unforeseen challenges, two trends are emerging in
higher education: an increase in both presidential turnover and the number of colleges and
universities closing. The American College President Study produced by the American Council
on Education (Melidona et al., 2023) recently discovered that the average tenure of a college
president has declined from 8.5 years to 5.9 years. The study states that the abrupt presidential
exits increase underscores the job challenges. Additionally, of the 1,075 respondents to the
survey, 25% said that they plan to leave their jobs in the next 2 years. Another sobering reality of
higher education’s myriad challenges is that over 45 nonprofit colleges and universities have
closed, merged, or announced closures. Seventeen colleges and universities closed in 2023, and
another nine have announced their closure in 2024.

4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This study aims to build leaders’ capacity to adapt to change, focus on equity, and
collaborate with faculty, staff, and governing bodies. Seeking to further the Rossier mission, this
study seeks to empower leaders to be transformational as they create cultures and systems trained
on achieving more equitable outcomes for faculty, staff, and students while institutionalizing
adaptive leadership behaviors. Additionally, leaders within the CCCU will benefit from this
research as they address increasingly diverse student populations and a looming enrollment cliff
beginning in 2027. I will also apply the findings of this study to equip leaders and transform the
culture in my organization at Vanguard University. To this end, the research questions that
guides this study were:
1. How do university presidents within the CCCU diagnose their adaptive capacity and
mobilize the system and themselves to address external threats?
2. How do university presidents within the CCCU maximize diversity in diagnosing and
mobilizing people to address external threats to their institutions?
Importance of the Study
There are four primary reasons this study is critically important. First, the dynamics of
the CCCU and higher educational institutions require skilled leadership. Heifetz et al. (2009)
maintained that distinguishing between authority and leadership is essential. Many people
occupy positions of senior authority without ever leading their organizations through adaptive
change. Power is typically granted to one or more people, assuming you will do what they say. If
you do what your boss says, they are happy with you. But Heifetz et al. (2009) argued that
adaptive leadership beyond authoritative management is required. This model requires
employees to have the courage to tell managers what they want and need to hear, which can help

5
identify and solve organizational challenges. However, many employees are afraid to speak up
because they do not trust their supervisor. Recent survey data revealed that 75% of employees
quit because of their direct supervisor. The research produced from this study aims to equip
leaders with the skills required to successfully lead their institutions through the organizational
changes necessary to emerge intact from the complex problems facing higher education
institutions today. Additionally, the research produced by this study will cultivate a pipeline of
future leaders for the next generation.
Second, the CCCU needs leaders that can lead institutions to be more diverse, inclusive,
and equitable. The American College President Survey data from 2022 (Melidona et al., 2023)
stated that university presidents are still predominantly older, White (76%) males (67%). These
data signal an urgent need for university presidents to build adaptive capacity to challenge their
own values, beliefs, and behaviors while also leading their institutions to adapt toward being
more diverse, inclusive, and equitable. The findings and recommendations of this study will
challenge university presidents to have the courage to learn new skills and increase adaptive
capacity to engage their institutions in identifying and addressing the systemic issues that hinder
the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Third, CCCU institutions must thrive because they produce productive members of
society. Certainly, Christian colleges and universities are not perfect; however, at their best, they
honor the original intent of the university to shape the human soul, pursue moral good, and love
the right things (Wehner, 2022). Further, they foster intellectual humility, which is an openness
to learning and correction. Functioning in its purest fashion Christian colleges and universities
teach students to pursue truth with integrity. This work does not just prepare students to find a

6
job and do well in a career; it sets them up to navigate the winding road of life and flourish in
their communities.
Last, CCCU makes a significant economic contribution to the United States. Its economic
impact report stated cited $60 billion in annual economic impact in the United States (Econsult
Solutions, 2017). The CCCU comprises over 140 colleges and universities in the United States,
with 445,000 students, 72,000 faculty, and 3.5 million alums. Additional data points from the
report include the generation of $9.7 billion in federal tax revenue, 340,000 jobs, and $17.8
billion in salary and benefits. Last, CCCU graduates have the lowest student loan default rates of
6.3% compared to 11.5% nationally. If CCCU colleges and universities close, the economy will
be negatively affected.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The problem of practice of this study was to address the growing gap between the
increase of complex problems in the CCCU and people with the skills required to meet the
challenges of leadership today.
The theoretical framework for this study was the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of
Organizational Performance and Change (Burke, 2018). Litwin hypothesized that different
leadership styles could create organizational climates that appeal to different motives or needs.
Development of the model began in the 1970s and 80s in collaboration with Citibank and later
with British Airways. The model requires open system thinking in which the external
environmental factors serve as inputs and individual and organizational performance serve as
outputs. The Burke-Litwin Change Model has several throughputs that categorize
transformational and transactional elements. The transformational factors include mission and
strategy, leadership, and organizational culture. Changes to transformational aspects typically

7
derive from changes in external environmental factors and, consequently, require significantly
new behavior from all employees. Transactional factors include structure, management practices,
systems (policies and procedures), work unit climate, task requirements and individual
skills/abilities, motivation, and individual needs and values. These factors involve the
institution’s daily operations. Change is considered continuous improvement. The Burke-Litwin
Change Model helps leaders adequately diagnose organizational dynamics and create change that
improves performance.
Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change (Burke, 2018)

8
The first reason for selecting this model is that external factors are the primary input into
the model and are central to the study. The external environment of Christian higher education is
changing rapidly, consistently putting leadership skills and abilities to the test. Second,
leadership is central to the transformational factors in the model. This study examines leadership
behaviors responding to external factors that create unforeseen issues.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework Part 1
Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework and includes two theories: the Burke-Litwin
Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change (Burke, 2018) and Adaptive
Leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009). As external threats emerge in an organizational environment,

9
Burke-Litwin identifies three transformational factors critical to organizational performance and
change: mission/strategy, leadership, and culture. This study specifically focused on leaders as
transformational factors and examined their behavior in addressing external threats to their
organization.
In life-and-death situations, the medical field uses two core processes: diagnosis and
action. While organizational leaders are not making life-and-death decisions, they are
responsible for the health of organizations, processes, and people. As leaders examine the
external threats of their environment, they must be able to diagnose the organization’s ability to
adapt and formulate a plan to take action on the problems identified. Further, leaders must
diagnose their ability to lead through the adaptive process before taking action.
According to Heifetz (2009), the most critical skill of an adaptive leader is diagnosis.
Often, leaders are rewarded for being decisive and acting quickly to solve problems. Once the
leader acts, doing the diagnostic work required to identify patterns developing in both the
organization and the leader can be challenging. Being proactive about the diagnostic process
requires leaders to create margin amid emails, phone calls, meetings, and daily tasks. Heifetz
(2009) used the analogy of getting off the dance floor and onto the balcony to describe the need
for leaders to step back from daily activities and gain the perspective needed to improve
diagnosis.

10
Figure 3
Conceptual Framework Part 2
Figure 3 shows the conceptual framework in more detail. Heifetz (2009) stated that
influential adaptive leaders have a diagnostic mindset in that they seek to understand what is
happening inside them and how they change over time. The six aspects of this diagnostic mindset
are seeing yourself as a system, identifying your loyalties, knowing your tuning, broadening your
bandwidth, understanding your roles, and articulating your purposes. Adaptive leaders must act
on their identified areas of improvement, which requires more will than skill. There are five
action steps: stay connected to your purposes, engage courageously, inspire people, run
experiments, and thrive.
Leaders often act on solving organizational problems without investing the time to
adequately diagnose the situation. The three steps of diagnosing adaptive problems are

11
diagnosing the system, the adaptive challenge, and the political landscape (Heifetz, 2009). The
four action steps are making interpretations, designing effective interventions, acting politically,
and orchestrating conflict.
The methodology of this study was qualitative. Participants of this study included the
president on 10 Council for Christian Colleges & Universities; the total number of interviews
was 10. These institutions had to have evidence of a strategic plan and a student population
between 2,000 and 6,000 students.
Explanation of Terms
This section explains terms derived from Heifetz et al. (2009), the conceptual framework
of and their use throughout the study.
See yourself as a system: Interests, fears, and loyalties interact and affect behaviors and
decisions. Understanding yourself as a system can help make the personal changes required to
lead adaptive change.
Identify your loyalties: Loyalties include feelings of obligation toward others that can
conflict when leading through adaptive challenges.
Know your tuning: Derived from the analogy of how harp strings are tuned, tuning refers
to things that trigger disproportionate responses in you. Tunings can include unmet personal
needs, carrying others’ hopes and expectations, and your tolerance for chaos, conflict, and
confusion accompanying adaptive change.
Broaden your bandwidth: Bandwidth refers to a leader’s adaptive capacity and the selfimposed limits that impede growth.

12
Understand your roles: Roles and behavior depend on values and context within the
situation. Distinguishing between the function and self provides emotional strength to filter
personal attacks when leading through adaptive change.
Articulate your purposes: The heart of adaptive leadership is providing meaning to life
beyond your ambition.
Stay connected to your purposes: Your purposes inspire and direct your actions.
Engage courageously: There are many constraints to leading adaptive change, including
fear of incompetence, uncertainty about the right path forward, and fear of loss.
Inspire people: Inspiration is the capacity to move people by reaching in and filling their
hearts with deeper sources of meaning.
Run experiments: This requires addressing adaptive challenges not as a solution but as an
iterative process of testing a hypothesis, observing, learning, making corrections, and possibly
trying something else.
Thrive: Requires adaptive responses that distinguish what is essential from expendable
and innovative so that the organization can bring the best of its past into the future.
Diagnose the system: The mental act of disengaging from daily activities to gain a clearer
view of the organization’s structures, culture, patterns, and habitual ways of responding to
problems.
Diagnose the adaptive challenge: an adaptive challenge is a gap between the values
people stand for and the reality they face.
Diagnose the political landscape: Understanding varying constituency expectations to
mobilize people to solve adaptive challenges more effectively.

13
Make interpretations: Interpretations take the form of questions, processing ideas
frameworks while engaging individuals and groups at different times.
Design effective interventions: Effective interventions mobilize people to tackle an
adaptive challenge.
Act politically: Hold the tension of constituent loyalties, expectations, and pressures.
Orchestrate conflict: Design and facilitate the process of working through differences
productively while distinguishing from resolving differences for them.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. The first chapter introduces the
study, the context and background of the problem, the purpose of the project, the research
questions, the importance of the study, the theoretical framework, and the study’s methodology.
Chapter two is a review of the literature and an explanation of the conceptual framework for the
analysis. Chapter three focuses on the method, which includes the research questions, design
overview, setting, researcher, data sources, participants, instrumentation, data-collection
procedures, data analysis, validity and reliability, ethics, and limitations. Chapter four provides
pertinent details of the findings from the qualitative interviews. Chapter five presents
recommendations based on the findings and recommendations for future research.

14
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The problem of practice for this study explored the need for leaders in faith-based higher
education to increase their adaptive capacity to address internal and external threats facing their
institutions. This chapter presents a literature review to support the conceptual framework (see
Figures 1, 2, and 3) centered primarily on the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational
Change (Burke, 2018) and adaptive leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009). The critical aspects of the
conceptual framework from Burke-Litwin include external threats and the transformational
factor of leadership. A leader’s work to diagnose their system and themselves is included
(Heifetz et al., 2009). This literature review explains the concepts required to improve both their
leadership and the system’s adaptive capacity.
External Threats
The Burke-Litwin Change Model places external threats at the top in order to signal that
forces outside of the organization will impact organizational performance if not given adequate
attention by leadership (Burke, 2018). For decades, researchers have warned that new leadership
skills will be required to address external threats facing organizations. Vaill (1990) coined the
term “permanent whitewater” to describe the increase in pace, complexity, unpredictability, and
confusion inside and outside organizations. More recently, Lund and Anderson (2023) conducted
a study on public administration and its ability to lead through turbulent times. Ansell et al.
(2021) characterized turbulent times facing organizations by using terms such as surprises,
inconsistencies, unpredictability, and uncertainty. These external threats force leaders to solve
problems with little to no experience, subsequently requiring the suspension of current mental
models as well as new knowledge and behaviors to be effective (Heifetz, 2009; Lund &
Anderson, 2022; Vaill, 1990).

15
There is no shortage of external threats presenting challenges for university presidents.
West Virginia University is the latest institution to address significant declines in state funding
and enrollment (Korn, 2023). The Board of Governors announced a reduction of 28 academic
programs and 128 faculty positions to address a $45,000,000 budget deficit, sparking a vote of
no confidence from the faculty senate. Referring to the rise in antisemitism, conflict among
students regarding the war in Gaza, and attacks on her leadership by students, faculty, and staff,
on January 2, 2024, Harvard University President Claudine Gay wrote in her letter of
resignation, “It has become clear that it is in the best interests of Harvard for me to resign so that
our community can navigate this moment of extraordinary challenge with a focus on the
institution rather than any individual” (Gay, 2024). A recent study of university presidents stated
that the top request for training is in managing racial justice issues (Melidona et al., 2023). These
recent articles represent a small sample of the myriad external threats that university presidents
and higher educational institutions must address.
Christian colleges and universities are not exempt from challenging times, either.
Alliance University closed in 2023 (Belz, 2023), 140 years after its founding, citing a loss of
accreditation due to financial challenges related to declining enrollment, ongoing budget deficits,
and lack of innovation. In fact, at least 18 Christian colleges and universities have closed to
since the pandemic (Sillman, 2023) due to enrollment and financial challenges. The American
College President Survey conducted in 2023 (Melidona et. al, 2023) found that presidents needed
more training in diversity and equity issues. Emerson College is the most recent example of a
university attributing its drop in enrollment to pro-Palestinian protests (Pisani, 2024), reinforcing
the importance of a president’s ability to manage a complex array of diversity, equity, racial, and
social justice issues that can have a direct impact on the financial stability of their institution.

16
Leadership
A central component of this study is building the adaptive capacity of Christian higher
education leaders to address external threats. Transformational (Burke, 2018; Burns, 1978) and
adaptive (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997) leadership are the two concepts in focus. Transformational
leadership is the most broadly studied leadership theory, while adaptive leadership is building a
foundation of empirical research. Burke (2009) stated that transformational leadership (TL) is
required for organizations to address external threats. Burns (1978), the founder of TL, deemed
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration key factors (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). A meta-analysis of 39 TL studies determined
that TL leaders were perceived as more effective leaders with better work outcomes than those
who only exhibited transactional behaviors (Northouse, 2009). Transformational activities focus
on intrinsic needs, strengthening commitment, and empowering followers to achieve objectives
(Yukl & Becker, 2006), which help leaders through adaptive challenges. Charisma is another
dimension of TL that strongly predicts positive leadership outcomes (Bass, 1990; Simons, 1999).
Additionally, the literature suggests that trust (Bass, 1990) and credibility (Yukl & Becker,
2006), must be present for charisma to be compelling (Simons, 1999).
Adaptive leadership is a follower-focused, practical approach to helping others address
problems created by changing external environments at several levels, including self,
organizational, community, and societal (Northouse, 2009). An essential claim of AL is that
leaders fail because they treat adaptive challenges as technical problems, but adaptive challenges
require a change in beliefs, values, habits, and loyalties while technical problems are addressed
through organizational structures, processes, and current know-how. Studies focused on the
adaptive leadership of doctors during the unforeseen challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic have

17
reinforced the importance of doctors’ ability to distinguish between adaptive challenges and
technical problems. The COVID-19 pandemic created a continuous learning environment for
health care leaders to address an emerging virus and create and maintain a safe and engaging
work environment (Santra & Alat, 2022). Indeed, the pandemic created adaptive challenges for
every industry, including higher education. Empowering followers was vital in higher education
as leaders had to quickly transform working conditions and operationalize new plans that
required engaged employees (Channing, 2021). Furthermore, leaders must develop adaptive
capacity and skills to identify and address systematic adaptive challenges around diversity,
equity, an inclusion. The following sections examine the requirements for leaders to build
adaptive capacity to lead themselves and their organizations to address the challenges created by
the external environment.
Organizational System Diagnosis and Action
In many organizations, leaders receive praise for taking action and decisively solving
problems. This quick-fix mentality can lead to undervaluing the importance of adequately
diagnosing problems (Friedman, 2007). Adaptive leadership requires resisting the urge to take
action, stepping out of the tyranny of the urgent, and committing to developing the diagnosis
skill. This section attends specifically to the diagnosis process because most leaders are action
oriented. The three critical aspects of the diagnostic process include observing patterns and
events around you, interpreting observations, and designing interventions to address the
identified adaptive challenges (Abukalusa & Oosthuizen, 2023). Heifetz and Linsky (2002) used
the metaphor “getting on the balcony” to describe the observation process of identifying adaptive
challenges. This process requires leaders to balance action with ongoing perspective-taking and
reflection by getting off the dance floor and onto the balcony, assuming a bird’s eye view to

18
identify patterns. Friedman (2002) described getting “distance from the action” by stating that
leaders must step outside of the systems they lead to understand what is happening in those
systems. Reactivity to daily challenges thwarts progress toward fundamental change, making the
observation process critical to becoming proactive in anticipating and identifying adaptive
challenges. Findings from a study conducted by Nicolaides and McCallum (2013) provided
examples of “getting on the balcony” that help a leader identify gaps in goals and performance,
discuss and understand mental models, and see patterns of distress in the system. Stepping
outside of the system to diagnose the systems is critical to the observation process of an adaptive
leader.
John Dewey’s (1938) work on reflection and thinking introduced the importance of
observation, interpretation, and intervention. Rodgers (2002) offered some clarity on the work of
Dewey by identifying four criteria:
1. Reflection is a meaning-making process that moves the learner from one experience to
the next with a more profound understanding of its relationships and connections to
other experiences and ideas.
2. Reflection is a systematic, rigorous, disciplined way of thinking rooted in scientific
inquiry.
3. Reflection needs to happen in a community with others.
4. Reflection requires attitudes that value the intellectual growth of oneself and others.
These four criteria reinforce Heifetz et al.’s (2009) process for diagnosing organizational
systems in several ways. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) described the adaptive process of
observation, interpretation, and intervention as iterative. This process encourages reflection
because meaning-making develops as more information is gathered and processed, and action is

19
taken. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) encouraged an experimental approach to creating interventions,
arguing that solutions are limited to the information available at implementation. During the
implementation of interventions, ongoing reflection allows changes to occur as new information
emerges in the process. Observation is inherently subjective, but the process becomes more
objective as diverse perspectives and experiences are taken in to consideration. Adaptive
leadership creates a culture that values diverse perspectives and collective intelligence and does
not depend on a few geniuses at the organization’s top. Respecting diverse perspectives requires
a shift in the mindset of traditional leadership ideas and the distribution of authority to
stakeholders across the organization (Senge et al., 2008). This disciplined, rigorous, systematic
thinking is central to adaptive leadership.
Adaptive challenges require people to challenge their values, beliefs, and behaviors
(Heifetz, 2009), which manifest as cognitive representations known as mental models (Jones et
al., 2011). Mental models are built on personal life experiences, perceptions, and world
understandings and are the basis of reasoning and decision-making. Theory X and Theory Y
(McGregor, 1960) are two mental models. Leaders who have a Theory X perspective think
people generally dislike work, avoid responsibility, and need direction. Leaders who have a
Theory Y perspective typically think people like work, rise to responsibility, and embrace selfdirection. The mental models of Theory X and Theory Y have a direct effect on employee
satisfaction with the leader, with Theory X having negative effect and Theory Y having a
positive affect (Gürbüz et al., 2014). Mental models also form in groups, teams, or organizations
(Dionne et al., 2010). Mental models at the team or organization level can be examined by
focusing on shared or unshared beliefs (Strandvik et al., 2014). Different mental models emerge
as a leadership team discusses an organizational external threat and the strategy to address it..

20
Two mental models that could arise from this example are a preference to spend time solving
urgent internal issues instead of focusing on external threats that may or may not occur. A study
conducted by Vink et al. (2019) proposed three types of service design practices that help leaders
take action to reshape mental models (See Figure 4).
Figure 4
Reshaping Mental Models through Service Design Practices

21
Figure 4 provides practices leaders can use to reshape mental models: sensing surprise,
perceiving multiples, and embodying alternatives. Each service design practice has a definition,
components, and enabling conditions. Sensing surprise is experiencing a bodily sensation that
challenges an actor’s existing mental model. The components include an unexpected event, new
information received through the senses, and feelings of shock and awe. Perceiving multiples is
becoming sensitive to alternative mental models through interaction with other actors. The
components are several interpretations of one situation recognized, discussion with different
actors, and feelings of conflict, uneasiness, or confusion. The enabling conditions include diverse
actors, openness and safety of actors, visual and tangible tools, and skilled facilitation to support
sharing. Embodying alternatives means enacting different mental models to understand their
implications. The components are physical testing of other ways of working, the process of
iteration and adaptation, and feelings of uncertain optimism or frustration. The enabling
conditions are different contexts to explore possibilities, supportive physical materials, and the
possibility for repetition and ongoing change in working methods.
The process of an adaptive leader relies on diversity (Heifetz et al., 2009). As
organizational problems become more complex, leaders must take a collaborative approach to
problem-solving by leveraging multiple perspectives (Nelson & Squires, 2017). A recent study
on adaptive leadership proposed that cultural competency positively influences adaptive capacity
and skills (Azevedo & Jugdev, 2022). Creating synergy from diversity is a central adaptive skill
that leverages multiple perspectives in addressing adaptive challenges. Leaders can move beyond
cultural dilemmas and create solutions that combine opposing views when leveraging creative
synergy from diversity. Inclusive leadership is another approach to engaging diverse perspectives
while promoting belonging, maintaining uniqueness, and contributing to problem-solving and

22
outcomes (Randel et al., 2018). This approach to managing diversity has led to increased levels
of performance and innovation (Javed et al., 2019). Leaders must embrace diversity, harness
different perspectives, and develop cultural competency to maximize their adaptive capacity.
Regulating distress is another activity important to adaptive leadership. The leader’s role
is to create enough discomfort that people feel the need to change and to create a safe
environment in which people can change (Heifetz et al., 2009). The adaptive process creates the
need for change, which can be unsettling. Distress can help drive change, but too much can be
unproductive. Distress can produce conflict, frustration, or fear of loss as people process a
change in their values, beliefs, and behavior (Schulze & Pinkow, 2020). According to Heifetz et
al. (2009), adaptive leaders help individuals and teams manage a productive zone of
disequilibrium (PZD) to process change and act. Figure 5 shows the PZD.

23
Figure 5
Productive Zone of Disequilibrium
Technical problems start with a high level of disequilibrium. The current competency of a
leader can solve technical issues, thus quickly reducing disequilibrium. As the organization
identifies an adaptive challenge, the disequilibrium is low because people do not understand the
challenge or do not want to address it. As people address the adaptive challenge, the intensity of
disequilibrium increases. The dotted line in Figure 5 represents work avoidance, which decreases
as the leader maintains disciplined attention to the adaptive challenge. Disequilibrium decreases
with successful interventions.
The PZD is a narrow range of disequilibrium between the threshold of change, where
motivation exists to address the adaptive challenge, and the tolerance limit, where adaptive work
begins to cease because of too much stress in the system. The “limit of tolerance” is strongly

24
influenced by the quality of the holding environments (Seibel et al., 2023) or adaptive spaces
(Sarid, 2021). Success with holding environments influences the strength of social bonds, which
include shared language, values, connection, and trust in an organization. Uhl-Bien and Arena
(2018) utilized three terms central to adaptive spaces: connecting and conflicting, acknowledging
human interaction, and managing tension as essential to organizational adaptation. Leaders can
hold environments and use adaptive spaces to regulate the distress generated by bringing
together diverse perspectives, reconsidering mental models, and challenging the beliefs, values,
and behaviors that adaptation requires.
As leaders build adaptive capacity to lead organizations through external threats in higher
education, they must be able to diagnose the organizational system and take action. Adaptive
leaders’ activities include “getting on the balcony” to recognize and address patterns within the
organization, understanding mental models, embracing diverse perspectives, and regulating
employees’ distress. The following section discusses leaders’ ability to diagnose their values,
beliefs, and behaviors, and adjust as they lead through adaptive challenges.
Diagnosis and Action of Self
People are complex, with various values, interests, preferences, tendencies, aspirations,
and fears. Heifetz et al. (2009) stated that having a better understanding of your complexities and
seeing yourself as a system can help make changes necessary to lead adaptive change
successfully. Many concepts discussed in the previous section apply to a leader diagnosing the
values, beliefs, and behaviors that inhibit their capacity to lead through adaptive challenges.
Getting on the balcony, understanding mental models, and regulating distress apply to the leader
before they can effectively help others engage in adaptive change. In this case, “getting on the
balcony” means stepping away from the urgent demands of daily activities to reflect on internal

25
thoughts and patterns that get in the way of engaging courageously in change. As Dewey stated,
this reflection must occur in the community to be effective (Rodgers, 2002). A leader must have
trusted people to process their thoughts before taking action. Leaders also develop mental models
that must be understood and identified to determine whether a shift in thinking is necessary. This
process also occurs through reflection. As leaders engage with adaptive challenges, they must
manage their distress. As Friedman (2002) explained, leaders must have a non-anxious presence
to effectively lead through change.
As leaders build adaptive capacity to lead themselves and others through adaptive
challenges, their emotional intelligence directly influences individual adaptive performance
(Balti & Karoui Zouaoui, 2024). Adaptive performance is the ability and willingness to adjust
and adopt new behaviors in response to changing circumstances (Charbonnier-Voirin & Roussel,
2012) and is also a critical factor in job performance (Jundt et al., 2015). Goleman (1998) offered
a model to understand five components of emotional intelligence at work (see Figure 6). This
model provides insight into the concepts leaders must assess to increase adaptive performance as
they lead through complex organizational challenges.

26
Figure 6
Five Components of Emotional Intelligence at Work
Ideally, leaders are proactive at deepening their self-awareness (Goleman, 2014) through
reflection (Rodgers, 2002), allowing them to understand themselves better as they engage with
adaptive challenges. However, disorienting dilemmas (Mezirow, 1991) can create opportunities
to work on their internal adaptive capacity. Disorienting dilemmas occur when an external event
causes a sense of internal imbalance, challenging leaders’ core beliefs and assumptions about

27
themselves and the world around them. The current landscape in higher education is saturated
with disorienting dilemmas such as declining enrollment, budget crises, and ongoing social
justice issues. Whether reactive or proactive, transformative learning (Dirkx et al., 2006) occurs
when a person engages in critical reflection of their core beliefs as adaptive challenges challenge
them; as the leader seeks to lead others to address adaptive challenges courageously, they must
engage in the difficult work of assessing their core beliefs as they expect others to do the same.

28
Chapter Three: Methodology
Research Questions
The problem of practice for this study explored the need for leaders in faith-based higher
education to increase their adaptive capacity to address internal and external threats facing their
institutions. On this subject, Heifetz and Linsky (2002) have made two essential claims. First,
leaders fail primarily due to addressing adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems.
The critical distinction between adaptive challenges and technical problems is that a leader can
solve the latter through existing knowledge and experience but the former requires changing
values, beliefs, and behaviors. Second, leaders must be proactive in anticipating and identifying
adaptive challenges. Therefore, this study had aimed to provide recommendations for university
presidents to build their adaptive capacity to lead their institutions through the unforeseen
challenges of tomorrow. This chapter details the research questions, design, participants, data
collection, data analysis, validity, reliability, and researcher bias.
Two central research questions guided this study. Central research questions are broad
questions designed to explore a study’s central concepts (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
research questions guiding this study were:
1. How do university presidents within the CCCU diagnose their adaptive capacity and
mobilize the system and themselves to address external threats?
2. How do university presidents within the CCCU maximize diversity in diagnosing and
mobilizing people to address external threats to their institutions?
Study Design
This section describes the study design selected to understand how best to resource
university presidents to build their capacity to address their institutions’ adaptive challenges.

29
This basic qualitative study focused on the process, meaning, and understanding of a problem
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The foundational philosophical worldview of this study type is
constructivism: the researcher is interested in constructing meaning and understanding how
participants make sense of their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) through individual
interviews or observations. Creswell and Creswell’s (2016) eight characteristics of a qualitative
design were incorporated into this study; they are:
1. Natural setting: Research conducted in the field through face-to-face interaction.
2. Researcher as a critical instrument: Qualitative data collected by the researcher
through reviewing documents, observing behavior, or conducting interviews. The
researcher is the person who gathers and interprets the data.
3. Multiple sources of data: Interviews, observations, documents, and audio-visual
information are generally collected and reviewed by the researcher.
4. Inductive and deductive data analysis: The researcher works inductively to determine
themes, patterns, and categories. Then, the researcher concludes if there is enough
evidence to support each theme or if additional data need to be collected. Inductive
and deductive thinking continues throughout the analysis process.
5. Participants’ meaning: Research focuses on the meaning participants hold about the
problem, not the meaning the researcher brings or the meaning found in the literature.
6. Emergent design: This research process is emergent. As the researcher collects data,
plans and processes can change. A key concept of qualitative research is learning
about the problem from the participants and addressing the research to get
information.

30
7. Reflexivity: Qualitative researchers are mindful of their background, culture, and
experiences and how they can shape the interpretation and development of themes.
8. Holistic account: The researcher utilizes multiple perspectives and factors to create a
broad picture of the problem.
Participants/Sample Selection
Participants for this study were presidents of the Council of Christian Colleges and
Universities (CCCU). Purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) focuses on selecting
participants based on excellent insight. For this study, purposeful sampling meant choosing
university presidents, as they have the most position power and the greatest ability to effect
change within the organization. Criterion-based selection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was used to
determine attributes to bring further focus to the study. The university presidents selected for this
study had to have at least two years of experience in their current role to ensure that they had
developed ample expertise. To ensure diversity, I aimed to have at least 20% of participants be
women or people of color. Last, the institutions the participants represented had to have student
enrollment between 2,000 and 8,000 students. This criterion aimed to work with universities that
were similar in size and faced the same challenges. Convenience sampling (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015) leveraged my network to identify and secure participants for this study.
Instrumentation
This study featured a semi-structured (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) interview protocol,
which provides the structure to ask every participant the same questions focused on key concepts
from the conceptual framework while granting the flexibility to ask probing questions to
understand specific responses further. The interview protocol ensures that the problem of
practice, research questions, concepts, and interview questions are aligned. Bogdan and Biklen

31
(2007) stated that the interview protocol should address four issues. First, the purpose of the
inquiries, motive and intentions are shared. Second, the researcher shares the information with
participants who has the final say over the study's content. Third, disclose the payment exchange
for the interview. Fourth, detail the logistics of time, place, and number of participants. Here are
the seven predetermined questions that answer the two research questions.
1. As a university president, what keeps you up at night?
2. What process do you use to identify external threats to your institution?
3. What do you do to build your capacity to address external threats?
4. How do you approach a challenge for which you do not know the solution?
5. What do you do to maximize diversity in addressing unforeseen challenges?
6. What advice would you give your successor about addressing unforeseen challenges?
7. Before we conclude, is there anything else you want to share that would be helpful?
Data-Collection Procedures
I collected data for this study through 10 60-minute qualitative interviews (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018) online using Zoom video conferencing technology. I provided the same
interview protocol document and asked the same questions for each participant. The interviews
were recorded and transcribed on Zoom to ensure all data were collected. I recorded the audio
for all interviews. I also took notes during the interview. A separate document that includes each
participant’s name, institution, date, location, and questions for the interview, with space to take
notes for each question, was used for each interview.
Data Analysis
This section describes the process for data analysis of the data collected through the 10
interviews with university presidents in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities. Data

32
analysis aims to find data from the collection process that answers the research questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The process becomes deductive as the researcher searches for
evidence supporting the themes. The themes come from the researcher, the participant, or the
literature. I selected Atlas TI computer software to assist with the data analysis. I imported the
interview transcripts into Atlas TI upon interview completion. The data analysis process starts
while data collection is happening. This occurs through the researcher taking notes during and
after interviews to capture emerging themes and categories from the data collection.
Furthermore, data analysis for this study included the five-step process outlined by Creswell and
Creswell (2018):
1. Organize and prepare data: This step includes uploading the interview transcripts into
the Atlas TI software.
2. Read data: The researcher reviews the data to gain a holistic perspective on the data
collected.
3. Code data: This process requires examining chunks of data and ascribing a word or
phrase that characterizes that small data segment.
4. Create themes and categories: This requires reviewing codes and batching them into
groups with similar meaning, then creating categories or themes from the groups of
codes.
5. Representing themes and categories: Finally, evidence is produced from the codes to
create support for each theme or category.
Validity and Reliability
Ensuring the validity and reliability of the themes generated from this study was
essential. Qualitative validity requires that the researcher take specific steps to maximize the

33
accuracy of the research findings. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), eight strategies
increase the credibility and trustworthiness of research findings. This study utilized triangulation
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), which requires the examination of multiple data sources to justify
discovered themes. I conducted interviews with 10 participants, creating triangulation. Member
checking was another strategy used in this study. This process requires producing a summary of
themes identified from the interviews, sharing the themes with participants, and seeking
confirmation for accuracy and agreement (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I sent the findings to
each participant for accuracy review and to make necessary adjustments. Using articulated
descriptions that help participants understand the findings strengthened the validity. Last, being
transparent about researcher bias helps validity. The following section discloses the bias I
brought into the data collection and analysis processes.
Ensuring the reliability of a qualitative study is also essential. To this end, I used the
following steps (Crawford & Lynn, 2020): first, document all procedures and as many steps as
possible for the procedures in the study; and, second, create an interview protocol so others can
follow the guidelines. Additional steps to increase the reliability of this study included reviewing
interview transcripts to eliminate apparent mistakes made during transcription and ensuring that
the definition of codes remains consistent throughout the coding process.
The Researcher
I occupy several roles related to this study, including vice-president of university
advancement at a private, faith-based, liberal arts university; president of a university foundation;
chair of a church elder board; and board member at a K-8 school. Each of these roles involves
power structures of influence with individuals, authority over employees, and control of
organizational budgets. As I reflect on the “Intersecting Wheel of Privilege, Domination, and

34
Oppression” adapted by Morgan (2018), I am a White, male, heterosexual, able-bodied,
credentialed, upper-middle class, gentile, all of which are above the line of domination and
privilege. This combination of roles, power structures, and positionality relative to my topic
creates personal subjectivity. While my experiences provided a framework to understand the
challenges between leaders, their values, employee behavior, and organizational performance,
my privilege/dominant positionality could have created a lack of understanding and empathy
while examining leaders, employees, and organizational cultures. As a researcher in the study, I
was mindful of embracing my subjectivity, acknowledging my bias, and seeking to understand
the positionalities of others. Reflecting on my positionality aided in the process.
Ethics
According to Tuck and Yang (2014), social science research lacks the depth to ensure
that research is thoroughly ethical, meaningful, and valuable for the individuals or groups in the
studies. Therefore, the researcher must be thoughtful about whom the research will serve, who
will benefit, and who will endure harm. Additionally, the researcher must be mindful of the
implications of the research. Understanding these obligations, I partnered with the dissertation
committee to ensure that the study had a range of perspectives and that I understood the
limitations of my perspective. University of Southern California (USC) will post the approved
dissertation to the USC library and disseminate it to the institutions participating in the study.
According to Samikan (2022), the researcher must complete the IRB process in
partnership with the dissertation chair before participant recruitment and data collection for the
study. To this end, I created an informational sheet to navigate participant consent and
confidentiality issues. Before their engagement, participants received this document, which
articulates the purpose of the study, participant role, type of risk, rights of the participant, and

35
promise of confidentiality. I avoided power dynamics by selecting faith-based higher educational
institutions with no professional affiliation. Last, obtaining IRB approval required CITI
certification and a sound plan developed with the dissertation chair.

36
Chapter Four: Findings
The problem of practice for this study explored the need for leaders in faith-based higher
education to increase their adaptive capacity to address internal and external threats facing their
institutions. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) made two essential claims on this subject. First, leaders
fail primarily due to addressing adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems. The
critical distinction between adaptive challenges and technical problems is that a leader can solve
the latter through existing knowledge and experience. Still, the former requires changing values,
beliefs, and behaviors. Second, leaders must be proactive in anticipating and identifying adaptive
challenges. Therefore, this study aims to provide recommendations for university presidents to
build their adaptive capacity to lead their institutions through tomorrow’s unforeseen challenges.
The conceptual framework for this study draws upon two theories: the Burke-Litwin
Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change (Burke, 2018) and Adaptive
Leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009). In managing emergent external threats to an organizational
environment, the Burke-Litwin Model identifies three transformational factors critical to
organizational performance and change: mission/strategy, leadership, and culture. This study
focused explicitly on leaders as transformational factors and examined their behavior in
addressing external threats to their organization.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How do university presidents within the CCCU diagnose their adaptive capacity and
mobilize the system and themselves to address external threats?
2. How do university presidents within the CCCU maximize diversity in diagnosing and
mobilizing people to address external threats to their institutions?

37
This chapter reviews the participants in the study, the findings from the interviews as they apply
to each research question, and a summary.
Participants
Participants for this study were presidents of the Council of Christian Colleges and
Universities (CCCU). The university presidents selected for this study had at least 2 years of
experience in their current role to ensure they had developed ample expertise. To ensure
diversity, at least 30% of participants had to be women or people of color. Last, the institutions
the participants represented had student enrollment between 2,000 and 8,000 students. This
criterion ensured that the universities were similar in size and faced the same challenges. Ten
interviews were conducted, and two of the 10 participants were either women or people of color.
Findings
External Threats
This study based its conceptual framework in the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of
Organizational Change (Burke, 2018). The Burke-Litwin Model places external threats at the top
of the model to signify that forces outside of the organization, if not adequately addressed by
leadership, will impact performance. Peter Vaill (1990) reinforced this point through his work on
what he dubbed “permanent whitewater,” an analogy for the increase in pace, intensity,
unpredictability, and confusion created by external mark factors. As such, the assumption that
external threats are an issue for university presidents to both build adaptive capacity and
maximize diversity is embedded in the two research questions.
This study concluded that all 10 university presidents are experiencing significant threats
that require their attention. Presidents shared challenges that were external, internal, and
regional. Below is a list of the challenges and comments presidents offered about them.

38
External challenges:
• Customer perception of the value of a college education: many prospective
students ask, is college worth it? This is due to the rising cost of college
education, lack of career preparation in college curriculums, and starting
salaries in the job market.
• Affordability: many prospective students apply to college but determine they
can’t afford to attend or persist through graduation.
• Staying on the mission as Christian universities amid cultural challenges:
there are growing pressures for faith-based universities to be inclusive in
hiring practices and acceptance of students.
Internal challenges:
• Financial: enrollment declines and inflation resulted in difficulty balancing
budgets.
• Missional: aligning faculty and staff with mission amid a diverse view of
cultural challenges.
Regional challenges:
• Free education: certain states offer free tuition to low-income families.
• Aggressive pricing: competition in certain regions offers education at a price
point that isn’t sustainable over time for many universities.
• Low-income demographics: some universities are located in a region with
low-income demographics, resulting in lower net tuition revenue.
• Affordable housing for faculty and staff: the cost of living in some regions
makes recruiting quality faculty and staff difficult.

39
Heifetz et al. (2009) found that a primary reason leaders fail is that they treat adaptive
challenges as technical problems. Technical problems can be solved by utilizing current
knowledge and solutions, while adaptive challenges require changing values, beliefs, and
behaviors (Heifetz et al., 2009). The majority of the challenges that these presidents shared are
adaptive challenges. The following section presents thematic findings from the study on how
leaders can build their adaptive capacity to address adaptive challenges.
Findings: Research Question One
How do university presidents within the CCCU diagnose their adaptive capacity and
mobilize the system and themselves to address external threats?
Theme One: Reflection and Emotional Intelligence
The coding process clarified several components when participants addressed how they
diagnose their adaptive capacity.
Reflection
The importance of leaders prioritizing time to reflect and examine themselves or their
organizations dates back to the work of John Dewey (1938). Rogers (2002) built on this idea by
asserting that reflection is a rigorous, disciplined way of thinking rooted in scientific inquiry and
performed in community with others. Abukalusa and Oosthuizen (2023) connected reflection to
diagnosing adaptive capacity by identifying three critical aspects—observing events and patterns
around you, interpreting observations, and designing interventions to address adaptive
challenges.
Participants shared several examples of reflection as a factor in diagnosing adaptive
capacity. Six out of 10 participants discussed the importance of scheduling frequent
opportunities throughout the year to reflect upon and process the challenges, events, and patterns

40
around them. Many participants scheduled time for themselves alone and separately with their
executive team. These scheduled times took personal quiet time in the morning, 2 to 4-hour
meetings, and single or multi-day offsite retreats.
Continuous learning was another component of the participant’s commitment to
reflection and observation. Indeed, continuous learning emerged as a core desire. Nine out of 10
participants discussed the importance of learning about issues from all levels of the organization
by asking questions, listening, and reporting back to constituents during the process. Several
participants referred to this process as going on a “listening tour.” One participant described this
process of listening and reporting back to faculty and staff as “turning the light onto issues” that
needed to be addressed in the organization. Another participant asked, “How could I possibly
provide meaningful vision and direction for our institution without dialogue from our faculty and
staff?” Specifically, listening to faculty and staff was helpful when it came time to understand
challenges, determine solutions, and mobilize faculty and staff in executing plans to solve
problems.
Emotional Intelligence
In a recent study, Balti and Karoui Zouaoui (2024) concluded that emotional intelligence
directly influences adaptive performance when leaders address external threats facing their
institutions. Since this research question seeks to understand how CCCU presidents build
adaptive capacity, the connection between emotional intelligence and adaptive performance is
defined as the ability and willingness of a leader to adjust and adapt new behaviors in response to
changing circumstances (Charbonnier-Voirin & Roussel, 2012). Goleman (2014) offered a
model to understand five components of emotional intelligence at work; they include self-

41
awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. Several of these components
were evident in this study.
Self-Awareness
According to Goleman (2014), two hallmarks of self-awareness are realistic selfassessment and a self-deprecating sense of humor. One participant in the study discussed the
challenges associated with the expectation that university constituents be subject matter experts
on many topics, including, but not limited to, academics, enrollment, development, budget,
student life, and culture. This participant stated, “I am not a subject matter expert on everything.”
This realistic self-assessment empowered the participant to mindfully reject the pressure to
answer challenging questions without a thoughtful and thorough answer. The participant
developed the self-confidence to state in these situations, “Let me give some thought to that
question, gather data, and I will come back to the next meeting with a thorough response.” This
self-awareness was a building block in establishing trust with constituents at this institution.
One participant demonstrated self-awareness leading to increasing adaptive capacity by
anticipating a looming crisis facing the institution. In this case, the participant stated, “There is a
crisis coming, and I am going to have to reinvent my leadership, and it probably take the rest of
my life to accomplish that.” This leader had the self-confidence to offer a vulnerable selfassessment and admit that a reinvention of their leadership was required to lead the institution
into the next season. The self-assessment included taking inventory of current skills and building
a plan to develop new skills to lead through the looming crisis.
Motivation was another aspect of emotional intelligence that emerged from this study.
Goleman (2014) defined motivation as a strong sense of calling that leads to a passion to work
for reasons beyond money or status. Eighty percent of the participants spoke directly about their

42
“calling” as a primary motivation for leading through the challenges facing their institutions. One
participant shared, “I have such a strong sense of calling here that I have this deep belief and
conviction that God will give me what I need, when I need it, to lead this institution.” He added:
“There will come a day when I will stand before the Lord and give an account for my leadership
of this institution during this time, and I want to be found faithful.” This sentiment speaks
directly to a sense of a calling motivated by passion and not money or status. The other 20% of
participants acknowledged that their faith in God is essential to their leadership, but these
comments did not connect to motivation. One hundred percent of the participants talked about a
strong belief in God and trust in Him, which is unsurprising as these presidents led faith-based
institutions.
Self-Care
A vital component of the conceptual framework of this study is the leader’s ability to
understand themselves. Heifetz et al. (2009) stated that leaders must understand themselves and
act in areas needing improvement to effectively lead their institution through adaptive
challenges. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) recommended a few steps to build personal adaptive
capacity: staying connected to your purposes, engaging courageously, and inspiring people.
These three action steps emerged in this study.
Self-care is an umbrella term that emerged through conversations with participants. One
prevalent aspect of shared self-care is spending quiet time alone with God, which aligns with
Heifetz’s (2009) concept of staying connected to your purposes. Various comments by
participants related to spending time with God, including: “I need to constantly be in tune with
what God is doing in my life”; “If I am going to fulfill God's call on my life and my giftings, I
must have time alone with God daily. This is not easy with a full daily schedule, but it is a

43
priority”; and “Time alone with God every morning provides space to think, reflect, and pray.” A
few participants discussed taking personal retreats to be alone with God. However, the
challenges of practicing such self-care amid demanding schedules was a theme among these
comments.
Having an inner circle of people that you trust and with whom you can share difficult
situations was another emergent theme within self-care. This inner circle of participants includes
spiritual accountability groups, mentorship, and outside counsel. One participant said, “I
recognize I need people around me.” Another participant stated, “I need some disciplined
structure to ensure I am taking care of my mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual health.”
While Northouse (2018) presented action steps that help leaders more effectively build
adaptive capacity in a way that is not necessarily according to a particular order or hierarchy,
staying connected to your purpose clearly came first for participants in this study. Spending time
with God was a priority for most participants. Spending time with God and staying connected to
their purpose allowed them to engage courageously and inspire people with a more profound
sense of purpose.
Theme Two: The President's Cabinet Shares Responsibility for the University’s Future
Having the president’s cabinet share responsibility for the university’s future builds
adaptive capacity and prepares the institution to address external threats. Every president shared
that they were either currently leading or had led their cabinet through a process to forge shared
responsibility for the university’s future. Six presidents had been in their current roles for less
than three years, while four presidents had been in their role for more than three years and had
effectively aligned cabinet members in sharing responsibility for the university’s future.
Regardless of the president’s tenure at the institution, all presidents agreed on the critical role of

44
such collective work. One participant explained, “The strength of cabinet unity in sharing the
responsibility of the university’s future is critical to success.”
Senge (2006) and Heifetz et al. (2009) addressed the importance of leadership teams
sharing responsibility for an institution's future. Organizations rely on structure, titles, and
clearly defined teams to accomplish goals. However, titles and hierarchies can lead to
territorialism, reduce loyalty to the organization, and inhibit problem-solving that requires
multiple departments (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). High-performing leadership teams model
behaviors that include raising issues in other departments. Executive leaders share responsibility
for cross-functional problems, and employees at all institutional levels think about challenges
beyond their assignments (Heifetz et al., 2009).
Senge (2006) referred to making decisions based on the organization's best interest as
“merit.” Merit is one of two core values that help overcome the primary diseases of
organizational hierarchy, as Senge (2006) referred to it. “Diseases of organizational hierarchy”
are behaviors that prohibit leadership teams from sharing responsibility for the institution’s
future. Senge (2006) described contributing behaviors as decision-making based on bureaucratic
politics, building individual reputations, climbing the corporate ladder, or protecting your role.
Mental Model: “Stay in your lane”
One participant referred directly to the work of Senge (2006) with regard to the
importance of understanding prominent mental models that emerge at the cabinet meetings.
Mental models include worldviews, thoughts, and reasoning influencing our behaviors (Senge,
2006). This participant explained, “As a new president, I realized the cabinet mental model was
‘stay in your lane,’ which meant that each cabinet member prioritized the work of their
departments over identifying and addressing strategic priorities of the university.” Other

45
participants didn't refer to this “stay in your lane” mental model directly. However, 80% of
participants spoke directly about the dysfunction of the cabinet team early in their presidency.
Several examples of this dysfunction were discussed. Thirty percent of participants shared that
when their cabinet members prioritized the work of their responsibility in the meeting agendas,
the sole focus was reporting out about their work. Furthermore, when a cabinet member would
ask questions related to another cabinet member’s area, the question was met with defensiveness.
The inability to speak into each other’s area of responsibility was a result of what a participant
referred to as “turf wars, silos and a divided cabinet.” One participant said to their cabinet when
they had finally had enough of the division, “How can we be so mad at each other when we have
only been working together for a short time?” However, two participants said their divided
cabinet was not noticeable. Their cabinets were nice to each other but did not support, help, or
work with each other. Regardless of how cabinet members treated each other, the common theme
of this dysfunction was the inability to do strategic work together. Looking back to the research
question, the failure to do strategic work together makes it nearly impossible to build adaptive
capacity and mobilize the university to address external threats.
Mental Model: Shared Responsibility for the Future of the University
Most participants recounted coming to a point at which they needed to be proactive in
transitioning their cabinet from “staying in your lane” to cultivating a shared responsibility for
the university’s future. Participants did not use the word “proactive” directly, but their behavior
implied a change in direction from reacting to the dysfunctional behaviors of the cabinet to
leading the team toward working together on strategic issues. For example, one participant said,
“We have significant rebuilding and restructuring that needs to be done to stabilize the
university. I realized I need more data, conversations, and interface across the team.” At this

46
point, the participant proactively began to build a plan to take the team in a different direction.
As mentioned by several participants, a primary ingredient in cultivating a shared responsibility
in the university’s future is a cabinet that focuses on shared goals or scorecards. One participant
stated, “If I only care about my areas, then I don’t care about how the cabinet performs.” Another
participant said, “Cabinet members represent institutional goals above their divisional goals.”
Shared goals require cabinet members to work together to solve cross-functional issues that may
hinder achieving a shared goal. “It’s not the job of the Chief Financial Officer to balance the
budget; it's all of the cabinet” was an example provided by two participants. One participant
elaborated,
If it is determined that additional revenue needs to be generated through an increase in
traditional undergraduate enrollment, then it is not just the job of the enrollment vice
president. The provost should look for ways to be more transfer friendly. Or the cabinet
can work together to improve student retention.
Last, a participant said, “Cabinet ownership of shared goals is key.” Several tactics emerged to
strengthen cabinet ownership and to improve their ability to share responsibility for the
university’s future.
Participants engaged in several activities to strengthen the cabinet’s ability to share the
responsibility of the university, including relationship building, retreats, establishing norms and
covenants, setting goals, and creating scorecards. “Strength of team unity is consequential to
success,” stated one participant. Several participants spoke about building solid relationships
among cabinet members as critical to working toward unity. Three participants talked about
reading and discussing a book together to facilitate a better understanding of one another
personally and professionally. Investing time in strengthening relationships with one another

47
resulted in an increase in grace, patience, and willingness to work with each other, participants
reported. Increasing shared responsibility for the university’s future was also realized by
implementing shared norms. One participant described shared norms as a set of predetermined
behaviors embraced by every cabinet member, creating expectations on how they will get their
work done together. Another participant talked about creating “cabinet covenants,” a document
that outlines cabinet commitments to the university, each other, faculty, staff, and students. Each
cabinet member signed the cabinet covenant document expressing willingness to abide by it.
Both tactics intended to clarify expectations and accountability for each cabinet member. Every
participant spoke to the importance of establishing meeting rhythms to create space for sharing
the responsibility for the university’s future. Quarterly or annual offsite retreats were discussed
as the primary way cabinets strengthened their connection and reflected on progress toward
shared goals. One participant stated, “A healthy cabinet reflects and learns together,” speaking to
the work done during offsite retreats.
In summary, the interviews make clear that the health of the president’s cabinet impacts
the institution's adaptive capacity. Many participants shared the qualities and behaviors of a
divisive cabinet team solely focused on divisional goals. Such a cabinet team could not solve
cross-functional problems or focus on strategic work together. One participant spoke about the
unintended consequences of this type of team: “We had this cancer at the top, and it just went
down into the system.” This participant spoke about a cabinet that was unwilling to solve
problems together, which created silos throughout the organization. The direct impact of this
issue was an inability to position the institution to do the adaptive work required to solve the
institution’s thorniest problems. Ample discussion addressed the activities participants had
implemented to lead their cabinet teams toward a sense of shared responsibility for the

48
institution's future. This work increased adaptive capacity throughout the cabinet team, sharing
goals and working together on the most formidable issues.
Theme Three: Elephants in the Room Are Named
Another critical element to building adaptive capacity and mobilizing the system to
address external threats is a leader’s ability to create a healthy space to talk about the elephants
in the room. “Naming elephants in the room” refers to healthy debating around ideas that
improve decision-making and strategic direction. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) and Senge (2006)
discussed the types of discussion that occur when strategic directions are determined. Heifetz et
al. (2009) presented three components: the actual discussion that takes place in the meeting, the
thoughts in the minds of those in the meetings that are never shared, and the conversations that
happen outside the meeting about the content of the meeting that should have been shared during
the meeting. Senge (2006) described this behavior with the term “openness,” which is the cure to
“the disease of gameplaying” prevalent in business meetings, where people describe an issue
differently than they do after a meeting. Having thorough and honest conversations is critical to
improving ownership of decisions and strategic direction.
First, several participants shared examples of the cabinet team’s inability to name the
elephants in the room. One participant stated:
What I experienced in the past was walking out of a cabinet meeting, and two or three
cabinet members would peel off and start talking about another cabinet member because
they would agree in the room. They found their community to disagree with and started
to fracture the team.
Another participant shared the analogy of “Old Faithful,” the most predictable geyser in
Yellowstone National Park. “As I began to break the patterns of the former divisive cabinet,

49
anger, and frustration began to surface regularly,” speaking about naming the elephants
consistently in the room with the cabinet. Other participants discussed the unhealthy
relationships among cabinet members that contributed to their inability to engage in productive
disagreement. As just two examples of participants speaking about the poor relational behavior
of cabinet members, one remarked, “We discuss frustrations around each other, but we don’t go
to each other to solve them,” and another offered, “I find it difficult to do collaborative work
because we jump to conclusions about each other”
Naming elephants in the room surfaced regularly in conversations as critical to
cultivating a shared responsibility for the university's future among members of the cabinet team.
The phrase most used was “embracing disagreement.” One participant said, “I expect us to
disagree because if everybody at the table agrees, someone isn’t telling the truth.” One way that a
participant chose to improve the cabinet’s ability to disagree with each other or to speak their
mind is to “practice disagreement.” This participant stated,
We built in practice moments, where in the middle of a discussion, I would say, ok, who
disagrees right now? Who has a different viewpoint? We will never get the very best
product or outcome if we always agree with each other.
Several participants spoke about not leading cabinet meetings so they could be less focused on
driving the agenda of the meeting and more focused on generating healthy dialogue and debate
about the agenda items. Additionally, several participants spoke about trust among cabinet
members being an essential component of healthy disagreement. One participant said, “It comes
back to the culture cabinet. Do we trust each other enough in our relationships to disagree?”
Another participant stated, “We need to trust each other enough to disagree.” Three participants
talked about the cabinet reading and discussing Stephen Covey’s book The Speed of Trust as a

50
helpful tool to improve trust. One participant captured the importance of being able to name and
address elephants in the room. “When we make a decision, because we have debated it,
disagreed, and hashed it out, we are more likely to walk away with arms locked around the
decision.”
Mastering the ability to name elephants in the room and address them allows institutions
to build adaptive capacity and be equipped to address external threats. Building vital
interpersonal relationships and trust contributes to a cabinet team’s ability to debate and disagree
well, leading to better outcomes and decisions. One participant provided a compelling rationale
for cabinets to commit to working together to create the best outcomes.
Faithfulness to God is our top institutional priority. We can ask God all day long for His
favor to rest upon this place, but if we misbehave, God could still bless us. But why don’t
we ensure that we are found faithful first and foremost and trust in doing the right things
first? God’s favor will be poured out? Let’s get things in the right order.
This participant shared that this approach has helped the cabinet align and reduced tension when
making difficult decisions. For purposes of this dissertation, this quote provides inspiration and a
pathway for Christian colleges and universities to secure the best outcomes in the work of
president cabinets: Be faithful to God first and foremost. Treat each other with love and respect.
Engage wholeheartedly in identifying and addressing challenges. God will be honored.
Conclusion
Three themes were identified to answer the research question: How do university
presidents with the CCCU diagnose their adaptive capacity and mobilize their system and
themselves to address external threats? The first theme addresses the importance of reflection
and emotional intelligence to diagnosing adaptive capacity. Of the five components of emotional

51
intelligence, self-awareness was the most prevalent. The importance of the university president’s
self-care was also discussed. The second theme is the foundational significance of the president’s
cabinet sharing responsibility for the university’s future to building the institution’s adaptive
capacity and increasing its ability to prepare employees to address external threats. Participants
discussed the importance of understanding mental models and using them to understand the
challenges at their institutions. The final theme is that elephants in the room must be named to
build adaptive capacity—which is to say, describing the work of healthy debate around ideas that
improve decision making and strategic direction. The next section addresses the themes that
emerged from the second research question.
Findings: Research Questions Two
How do university presidents within the CCCU maximize diversity in diagnosing and
mobilizing people to address external threats to their institutions?
As university presidents within the CCCU address external threats to their institutions,
maximizing diversity is critical to diagnosing issues and mobilizing people. Heifetz et al. (2009)
stated that adaptive leadership relies on diversity to thoroughly elucidate issues and generate
engagement in working on solutions. Nelson and Squires (2017) elaborated that, as
organizational problems become more complex, a more collaborative approach to problemsolving is required, and multiple perspectives must be leveraged. In a recent study, Azevedo and
Jugdev (2022) discovered that cultural competency increased adaptive capacity by moving
beyond cultural dilemmas and creating solutions that combine opposing views when leveraging
creative synergy from diversity. Randel et al. (2018) cited inclusive leadership as another
approach to engaging diverse perspectives while promoting belonging, uniqueness, and
contributing to problem-solving and outcomes. Many participants in this study affirmed the

52
importance of harnessing people’s uniqueness to improve problem-solving. One participant
shared, “Each of us has a unique perspective to aid in furthering our mission.” In this spirit,
Javed et al. (2019) drew a connection between inclusive leadership, engaging diverse
perspectives, and increased performance levels, innovation, and outcomes. Leaders must
embrace diversity and harness different perspectives to maximize their adaptive capacity and
mobilize people to address external threats facing their institutions.
The interviews produced two categories of discussion related to how CCCU presidents
maximized diversity in diagnosing their adaptive capacity and mobilizing people to address
external threats facing their institutions. The two categories that emerged are (1) the importance
of alignment around the organization's Christian identity, mission, and core values; and (2)
diversity of thought.
Theme One: Synergy Through Christian Identity, Mission, and Core Values
On thread of discussion that emerged from the interviews focused on creating the synergy
that maximizes diversity centered on aligning faculty, staff, and students on the institution’s
Christian identity, mission, and core values. Most participants discussed diversity through the
institution’s Christian identity influencing its mission and core values. This discussion is
summarized by several participant statements such as “We view everyone as unique image
bearers of God” and “Diversity is a mosaic of individuals that comprise this community. We
have something unique to bring, and that diversity is important.” Many participants referred not
only to racial or ethnic diversity but also to socioeconomic diversity. They also spoke about the
diversity of family backgrounds and personality types. One participant described the behaviors
of their community at its best:

53
This community is best understood when there is a profound respect for every member.
When we are willing to listen to each other, listening while wanting to learn, not listening
waiting to respond. We focus on how we listen to voices that are different from our own
and how that makes us a better place?
Several participants talked about the importance of structures and programs; however, the spirit
of the institution’s Christian identity, mission, and values must be evident in the community.
A few participants spoke about creating synergy with diversity at the senior leadership
level by embracing institutional values. “It is my priority to connect our senior leaders
relationally,” said one participant. Another emergent perspective arose out of a cluster of
remarks from participants: “Senior leadership is a level playing field. None of us is better than
the other”; and “God has called all into these roles collectively to accomplish something bigger
than any of us. We recognize none of us can do this work alone. We desperately need each
other.” Yet another participant stated, “Faithfulness to God is our top institutional priority.” And
another, “I desire that our leadership team is so committed to ensuring this place is faithful to
our Christ-centered mission.” This faithfulness to the Christ-centered mission includes treating
one another with love and respect: “This inclusive approach has allowed the institution to make
dramatic changes across the campus,” stated one participant.
Theme Two: Importance of Diversity of Thought
Another narrative that emerged regarding building adaptive capacity and mobilizing
people to address external threats is the importance of diversity of thought and healthy debate.
One participant stated, “When I think of diversity, I also think about the diversity of thought,
gifts, and experience to aid where the university needs to go.” Several approaches to diversity of
thought were discussed, the most common among them was engaging perspectives throughout

54
the organization. “It starts with active listening,” stated one participant. “I expect myself and our
teams to solicit feedback and input of all types constantly. Without it, you can’t formulate a plan,
strategy, or vision.” Another participant framed the need for diversity of thought this way: “How
do you build a map of a place we have never been to before? Because this is a constant for us.”
Building a map to a place we have never been before requires engagement from everyone in the
institution. Another participant reinforced the need for diverse perspectives, stating;
I can’t be a subject matter expert on all aspects of the university. I am facing a broad
range of issues that need addressing. It would be arrogant to think that I don’t need
diverse perspectives to build a broad perspective required to process the issues coming at
me regularly adequately.
A few participants spoke about the importance of diversity on the cabinet team:
At the cabinet table, I want gender, ethnicity, and age diversity. I want a representation of
people in their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. When this is accomplished, it is beautiful
because you have the wisdom, energy, and a broad range of perspectives.
Another participant spoke about seasons when their cabinet was less diverse. They leaned into
appointing people to the cabinet as special advisors to increase diverse perspectives. One
participant talked about the importance of diversity going beyond expanding perspectives. “I
truly believe the Kingdom of God needs to be represented,” speaking to their faith-based
perspective that God created a world of gender, ethnic, and age diversity. They wanted this
desire to be reflected in their institution.
Randel et al. (2018) discussed inclusive leadership as a practical approach to engaging
diverse perspectives while promoting belonging and improving problem-solving and outcomes.

55
A beautiful example of this concept emerged in the study. The setting was the participant's first
board of trustee meeting. The participant recalled:
There were a bunch of chairs against the wall. The expectation was that the vice
presidents sit against the wall in silence and be only able to speak unless called upon. The
president and the board sit at the board table.
The participant continued, “The message this sent to cabinet members was, you’re on the
outside. You’re not part of the fiber of the leadership of this institution. You’re a second-class
citizen. That is what it felt like to me.” This participant acted by saying, “No, sorry. Pull up your
chair. You are part of this team. You are important. You are valued.” This act of inclusion was a
tactic, among others, that led to the participant stating, “Our cabinet is 1,000% aligned. It’s the
greatest team I have ever been on, and I have been on some great teams.” This participant
modeled inclusive leadership for their team and set the expectation that senior leaders would
model this behavior as well. Of the inclusive leadership of the cabinet team, this participant
concluded: “With that as the foundation, with God’s help, we feel like we can tackle anything.”
Certainly, as a leader welcomes diversity of thinking into issues, it can be messy. Thus,
an environment of healthy debate must be established. Several participants spoke to the essential
elements: “Conversations should include curiosity, understanding, empathy and, hopefully,
love.” And, “The goal is to develop relationships and still disagree with each other.” Another
participant said, “Our goal is to invite diversity of thought that doesn’t threaten their
convictions.” A leader who can manage the tension that welcomes diversity of thought and
creates healthy debate can unleash the creativity and innovation needed to to tackle complex
challenges.
Conclusion

56
Two themes emerged as participants discussed how to maximize diversity in diagnosing
and mobilizing people to address external threats facing their institutions. The first theme
acknowledged that synergy is created with diversity when people leaned into the Christian
identity, mission, and values of their institutions. Participants talked about each person being
uniquely created by God; therefore, their institutions must embrace diversity. Subsequently,
synergy can be created through “unity amid diversity,” as a participant put it. Harnessing
diversity of thought also increases an institution’s ability to diagnose and mobilize people to
address external threats. In sum: when diverse views are valued, the creativity required to
address complex issues leads to innovative solutions.

57
Chapter Five: Recommendations
Based upon the literature review, research questions, and findings, I developed the
Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model (Figure 7), which provides six recommendations that can
help university presidents build their institutions’ adaptive capacity to address external threats.
Figure 7
The Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model
Adaptive Leadership Praxis Pyramid
The Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model is a pyramid whose six building blocks take the
form of recommendations. The prevailing discussion during the interviews concerned the

58
importance of the president’s cabinet sharing responsibility for the university’s future. The
dominant view of participants was that cabinet members must prioritize shared goals that focus
on positioning the institution for future success over divisional and career goals. Therefore, this
concept occupies the block at the top of the pyramid. Each building block works toward the
president’s cabinet ability to share responsibility for the university’s future. The foundational
block of the model is to be proactive. Each recommendation is intended to build on one another.
Therefore, the second recommendation, schedule reflection, builds upon the block be proactive.
The third recommendation, exercise emotional intelligence, builds upon be proactive and
schedule reflection. The fourth block, understand mental models, builds upon be proactive,
schedule reflection, and exercise emotional intelligence, and so on. As the leader moves up the
building blocks of recommendations, their adaptive capacity increases as does their ability to
mobilize the university to address external threats. The conceptual framework of this study is
integral to the application of The Adaptive Leader Praxis Model. The conceptual framework
states that as a leader engages with addressing external threats, they must examine themselves
and their organizational system. Thus two components rise to the top: diagnosis and action.
Therefore, as the leader engages with each building block of the Adaptive Leadership Praxis
Model, they must diagnose themselves and their system. Once the leader diagnoses the current
state of each building block, an action plan must be developed to strengthen their adaptive
capacity and ability to mobilize their institution to address external threats.
The circle that encapsulates the pyramid represents the constant state of “permanent
whitewater” that leaders navigate. Permanent whitewater explains the increase in pace,
complexity, and uncertainty that all presidents of Christian colleges and universities face.
Leaders in Christian higher education are very aware that the sector is undergoing significant

59
change, for which “permanent whitewater” provides a clear and relatable analogy. Peter Vaill’s
(1996) Learning as a Way of Being, a follow-up book on “permanent whitewater,” argues that
leaders and their institutions must continuously learn if they are to survive the turbulent
circumstances. “Learning as a way of being” is a basic tenant of this model. The Adaptive
Leadership Praxis Model first requires the leader to continuously be willing to learn about
themselves and make necessary changes prior to expecting those they lead to do the same. In
some cases, leaders need to unlearn as well. In today’s fast-paced, changing environment, what
made a leader successful may be the very thing that keeps them from being successful in the
future; in other words, “what got you here, won’t get you there” (Ibarra, 2015).
The Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model offers six recommendations: be proactive,
schedule reflection, exercise emotional intelligence, understand mental models, name elephants
in the room, and create a shared responsibility for the organization’s future.
Recommendation 1: Be Proactive
Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines being proactive as “acting in anticipation of
future problems, needs, and changes.” The foundational building block in the Adaptive
Leadership Praxis Model requires the leader to be proactive. Being proactive:
1. Assists the leader in cultivating a mindset for themselves and the people they lead to
anticipate permanent whitewater and embrace the work required to navigate change.
2. Requires the leader to think about the future, plan and prepare for what lies ahead.
3. Enables the leader to take action today to create a better tomorrow.
Leaders must be proactive as they function in an atmosphere of constant change. Many of the
participants in this study described situations in which they were constantly reacting to patterns
of behavior that were hindering the efficiently working together. There came a moment when

60
they realized the importance of taking a proactive approach to creating change that would
improve their ability to move forward. If a leader is to build their adaptive capacity, they must
take a proactive approach to anticipating, identifying, and addressing the internal and external
threats facing their institution.
Recommendation 2: Schedule Reflection
Continuous learning requires reflection (Ambrose et al., 2010). Therefore, building block
two in the Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model is to schedule reflection. As university presidents
navigate permanent whitewater and decide to be proactive, scheduling reflection is a natural next
step. Participants in this study agreed that the customer perception of value of a college
education, affordability, and staying on mission amid cultural challenges are significant issues
facing their institutions. Scheduling regular time to reflect allows for processing and directing
one’s own thinking prior to determining direction. This step should occur at the individual and
team level. Heifetz (2009) presented a skill of “getting off the dance floor and going onto the
balcony,” a mental activity that involves stepping away from the demands of the day and asking,
“What is going on here?” Getting on the balcony reminds a leader to distance themselves from
the fray to gain a clearer view of reality and derive clarity on the bigger picture. Many
participants in the study discussed creating a discipline of prioritizing time in the morning to
think and reflect personally and using team retreats as a way to reflect as a group. Regardless of
the approach, scheduling time for reflection is an essential activity for university presidents to
navigate permanent whitewater.
Recommendation 3: Utilize Emotional Intelligence
Building block three is to utilize emotional intelligence. Goleman (1999) analyzed 88
companies including British Airways and Lucent Technologies and discovered that the most

61
effective leaders had a high degree of emotional intelligence. Five components of emotional
intelligence should be utilized to build adaptive capacity of the leader and their institution: selfawareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. Hallmarks of these
components include realistic self-assessments, comfort with ambiguity, openness to change,
optimism even in the face of failure, organizational commitment, cross-cultural sensitivity, an
ability to find common ground and build rapport, and effectiveness in leading change (Goleman,
1999). The primary component that emerged in the study is self-awareness. Participants
demonstrated realistic self-assessment about their strengths and limitations, which they applied
to selecting cabinet members or calling on internal experts to address various challenges their
institution is facing. While self-awareness was the primary component in the interviews, leaders
must utilize all five components of emotional intelligence to maximize their leadership.
Recommendation 4: Understand Mental Models
Building block four of the Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model is to understand mental
models. A primary claim of adaptive leadership is that leaders fail because they treat adaptive
challenges as technical problems (Heifetz et al., 2009). Adaptive challenges require people to
understand and, often times, change their values, beliefs, and behaviors, while technical
problems can be solved through organizational structures, processes, and current knowledge.
Understanding mental models is key to processing and identifying values, beliefs, and behaviors.
Mental models are cognitive representations built on personal life experiences and perceptions
that are the basis for reasoning and decision-making. Mental models that are understood and
harnessed can be used to drive clarity that can lead to personal and organizational breakthrough.
One participant shared a mental model that emerged at the president’s cabinet. The mental model
represents a set of shared values, beliefs, and behaviors by the president’s cabinet that was

62
named, “stay in your lane.” “Stay in your lane” meant that each cabinet member prioritized the
work of their departments over identifying and addressing the strategic priorities of the
university. This value diminished collaboration, and provoked silos, turf wars, and ultimately,
dysfunction. Once the participant was able to name this mental model, they could engage the
cabinet in a process that leads to a preferred future.
Recommendation 5: Name Elephants in the Room
Building block five is to name elephants in the room. Naming elephants in the room is a
metaphor that describes the work of healthy debate around ideas that improve decision making
and strategic direction. A defining characteristic of an adaptive organization is the ability to
address tough issues that nobody wants to talk about (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). This difficult
work requires courage; if neglected, it can severely impede adaptive capacity, which is why this
block is near the top of The Adaptive Praxis Model. It is one thing to identify the “stay in your
lane” mental model, but if it is not named with the president’s cabinet, change will not happen.
However, once the elephant in the room is named, the university president can lead the cabinet
through healthy debate that can result in deeper understanding of the mental model and
agreement on a solution. Participants in the study discussed behaviors that occurred when
elephants in the room were not named and steps they took remedy these situations. After cabinet
meetings, two or three cabinet members would “peel off into an office, shut the door, and talk
about the things that they wouldn’t share in the meeting.” This behavior was referred to as, “the
meeting after the meeting.” As one participant put it: “Cabinet members found community to
disagree with and it fractured the team.” One participant spoke about practicing disagreement as
a way to improve their ability to name elephants in the room. The cabinet would be in a
discussion and a statement would be made and the president would stop the discussion and say,

63
“There is no way everyone agrees with this statement. Let’s talk about this right now.” This
began work called “operationalizing disagreement,” which acknowledged that cabinet members
speaking their minds is both expected and the only way to ensure that the best decisions are
made. This practice is an essential building block to increasing adaptive capacity and mobilizing
the institution to address external threats.
Recommendation 6: Create a Shared Responsibility for the Organization’s Future
The final building block of the Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model is to create a shared
responsibility for the organization’s future. Higher education institutions have organizational
charts, clearly defined departments, roles, and goals that are essential to business operations. But
these structures can create silos, turf protecting, and limitations to the organization’s ability to do
the cross-functional work needed to adapt to change. Institutions where people share
responsibility for the organization’s future, in addition to departmental goals, have the highest
capacity to adapt to change (Heifetz et al., 2009). Speaking about working toward cabinet
sharing responsibility of the university’s future, one participant stated, “the strength of team
unity is consequential to success.” Several tactics emerged in this study to enhance shared
responsibility for the university’s future. (1) Establish a cabinet covenant: Lead the cabinet
through a conversation that results in creating expectations about how to behave with one
another and establish a series of cabinet commitments to the board of trustees, one another,
faculty, staff, and students. (2) Create shared goals: Shared goal achievement requires cabinet
members and their departments to work together. (3) Review scorecard regularly: This process
creates accountability and transparency, which enhances commitment to the shared goals. Lastly,
utilize the Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model. This is ongoing work, so practice the building
blocks of being proactive, scheduling reflection, exercising emotional intelligence, understanding

64
mental models, and naming the elephants in the room. If done well, the president’s cabinet will
increase its adaptive capacity and more effectively mobilize their institution to address external
threats.
Limitations and Future Research
Although these findings begin to shed light on how university presidents can build
adaptive capacity, some limitations should be considered and future research should be
conducted. First, there are limitations to the sample. Of the over 300 colleges and universities in
the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, only 10 universities are represented in this
study. Additionally, the diversity of the sample is limited. A goal in the data collection was to
secure 30% of participants who were women or people of color; however, only 20% were
women or people of color. Exploring the research questions with additional diverse participants
would be an insightful undertaking. Also, the interviews were limited to 60 minutes, which
limited the discussion, data collection, and findings for two research questions. Future research
should include quantitative data collection from senior leaders at the institutions of the
participants in the current study. Lastly, further empirical research should be considered to
explore the relationship between diversity and the adaptive capacity of organizations.
Conclusion
The problem of practice for his study explores the need for leaders in faith-based higher
education to increase their adaptive capacity to address external threats to their institutions. In
2011, Harvard educator and researcher Clayton Christianson predicted that higher education
would be the next industry to experience significant disruption and radical change. The cover
story of the September 2022 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education proclaimed “The
Shrinking of Higher Ed,” citing declines in enrollment and financial challenges putting the

65
leadership skills of college administrators to the test. This study has aimed to build leaders’
capacity to adapt to change, focus on equity, and collaborate with faculty, staff, and governing
bodies. Seeking to further the Rossier mission, this study will also empower leaders to be
transformational as they create cultures and systems trained on achieving more equitable
outcomes for faculty, staff, and students while institutionalizing adaptive leadership behaviors.
The theoretical framework for this study is the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of
Organizational Performance and Change (Burke, 2018). The model requires open system
thinking in which the external environmental factors serve as inputs and individual and
organizational performance serve as outputs. The Burke-Litwin Change Model has several
throughputs that categorize transformational and transactional elements. The transformational
factors used for this study include mission and strategy, leadership, and organizational culture.
This study specifically focuses on leaders as transformational factors and examines their
behavior in addressing external threats to their organization.
The conceptual framework includes two theories: the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of
Organizational Performance and Change (Burke, 2018) and Adaptive Leadership (Heifetz et al.,
2009). According to Heifetz (2009), the most critical skill of an adaptive leader is diagnosis. As
leaders examine the external threats of their environment, they must be able to diagnose the
organization’s ability to adapt and formulate a plan to act on the problems identified. Further,
leaders must diagnose their ability to lead through the adaptive process before acting.
The research questions for this study were:
1. How do university presidents within the CCCU diagnose their adaptive capacity and
mobilize their systems and themselves to address external threats?

66
2. How do university presidents within the CCCU maximize diversity in diagnosing and
mobilizing people to address external threats to their institutions?
Primary findings that emerged from the data collection were reflection, emotional intelligence,
naming the elephants in the room, and creating a shared responsibility for the institution’s future
with the president’s cabinet. The most essential finding that emerged to building adaptive
capacity and mobilizing the system to address external threats is creating a shared responsibility
for the organization’s future at the cabinet level. To this end, the leader, individuals, and the
organization must practice reflection. Vaill’s (1990) “permanent whitewater” describes the
increase in pace, complexity, unpredictability, and confusion within organizations. Reflection
allows time and space to process the myriads problems, opportunities, emotions, and thoughts
about required changes brought about by “permanent whitewater.” Regular reflection by a leader
can increase emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2014). The two forms of emotional intelligence
that emerged in this study are self-awareness and self-care. Next, through reflection, mental
models (Senge, 2008) can be identified that may hinder or help the leader and/or organization
solve complex problems. As mental models are identified, a leader must foster environments in
which it is safe and encouraged to name the elephants in the room. Doing so fosters space in
which ideas can be debated, disagreement can occur, and creativity and innovation can flourish.
Both the leader and the institution needs every employee to share responsibility in the
institution's future. At this point, the institution can optimize adaptive capacity and mobilize
employees to address external threats and complex problems. However, whether it is the leader,
individuals, or the institution, going through the steps of practicing reflection, embracing
emotional intelligence, identifying mental models, and operationalizing disagreement all increase

67
the likelihood that the individual and the organization will want to share responsibility for the
future of the institution.
Implications of the Study
This study has several practical implications for university presidents, senior leaders,
members of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, and at my own institution. The
Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model can be used to further develop the adaptive capacity of
university presidents, senior leaders, and members of The Council of Christian Colleges and
University. I plan to develop a training course that will improve the adaptive capacity of these
leaders by strengthening their ability to maximize each of the six building blocks in the model.
Furthermore, I intend to put the Adaptive Leadership Praxis Model to work at my own institution
in 2025. I have been in dialogue with my president and our cabinet about my findings and there
is openness to begin processing the model and acknowledgement of its usefulness at our cabinet
upon completion of the current study. I also plan to present the model at future Council for
Christian Colleges and Universities conference.
Additionally, I plan to test the opportunity to broaden the application of the Adaptive
Leadership Praxis Model beyond the purpose of the president’s cabinet, creating a shared
responsibility for the university’s future. The first initiative with which I plan to test the model is
to create a shared responsibility for embracing diversity at our institution. Several participants
spoke about dignity and respect being steeped in their mission, but there is much work to be done
for Christian colleges and universities to advance the work of embracing diversity within their
institutions. My most significant reflection at the conclusion of this study is that maximizing
diversity is an adaptive challenge. Heifetz and Linskey (2002) claim the primary reason leaders
fail is because they try to solve adaptive challenges with technical solutions. Most leaders hire a

68
chief diversity officer, establish a task force, and implement education, yet fail to engage with
values, beliefs, and behaviors of those in their institutions. The Adaptive Leadership Praxis
Model provides a framework that allows the leader to ask and probe in a way that creates a
different discussion. Most importantly, the model can be a tool for leaders to encourage people
to examine what could be different, to imagine what could be different. I believe that the
building blocks of the model can facilitate productive conversations to better understand
ourselves and others that lead to mutual respect and appreciation. The building blocks of being
proactive, schedule reflection, exercise emotional intelligence, understand mental models, and
name elephants in the room can deepen our understanding of the important role embracing
diversity plays in our neighborhoods, communities, and organizations.

69
References
Abukalusa, K., & Oosthuizen, R. (2023). Organisational adaptive leadership framework through
systems thinking. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 34(3), 245–257.
https://doi.org/10.7166/34-3-2955
Ansell, C., Sorensen, E., & Turfing, J. (2021). Covid19 as a game changer for public
administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent
problems. Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960.
Azevedo, A., & Jugdev, K. (2022, Winter). Applying cultural intelligence to develop adaptive
leadership. Organization Development Journal, 40(4), 56–70.
Balti, M., & Karoui Zouaoui, S. (2024). Employee and manager’s emotional intelligence and
individual adaptive performance: The role of servant leadership climate. Journal of
Management Development, 43(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2021-0117
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A. (2014). Triggers of organizational change: Duration, previous changes,
and environment. Journal of Change Management, 14(3), 405–424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2014.885461
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Building the economy and the common good: The national impact of Christian higher education
in the United States. (2017). https://www.cccu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CCCUNational-Impact-FINAL-2.pdf.
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change theory and practice. 5th ed. Sage.
Burnes, B. (2011). Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we do about it? Journal of
Change Management, 11(4), 445–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.630507

70
Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and failure in organizational change: An exploration
of the role of values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2010.524655
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper Perennial.
Channing, J. (2021). Tackling higher education adaptive leadership challenges. The Department
Chair, 32(2), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/dch.30409
Charbonnier-Voirin, A., & Roussel, P. (2012). Adaptive performance: A new scale to measure
individual performance in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
29(3), 280–293.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of
higher education from the inside out. Jossey Bass.
Crawford, L. M., & Lynn, L. K. (2020). Interviewing essentials for new researchers. In Research
design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 147–159). Sage.
Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1938). How we think. Collier Books.
Dionne, S. D., Sayama, H., Hao, C., & Bush, B. J. (2010). The role of leadership in shared
mental model convergence and team performance improvement: An agent-based
computational model. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1035–1049.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.007
Dirkx, J. M., Mezirow, J., & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning,
context, and process of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education,
4(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344606287503

71
Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021). The determinants of organizational change management success:
Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business
Management, 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790211016273
Fischer, K. (2022, September 2). The shrinking of higher ed. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed?sra=true
Friedman, E. (2007). A Failure of nerve: Leadership in the age of the quick fix. Church
Publishing.
Gay, C. (2024, January 2). News by President Gay. Harvard University.
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news-gay/2024/personal-news/
Goleman, D. (2014). What makes a leader? In R. Taylor & M. Youndt (Eds.), Contemporary
issues in leadership (pp. 21–35). Taylor and Francis Group.
Grawe, N. D. (Spring, 2022). Changing demographics and the agile college. CCCU Magazine.
Gürbüz, S., Şahin, F., & Köksal, O. (2014). Revisiting of theory X and Y a multilevel analysis of
the effects of leaders’ managerial assumptions on followers’ attitudes. Management
Decision, 52(10), 1888–1906. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2013-0357
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linksy, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Harvard
Business School Publishing.
Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124–
134.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Harvard Business School Publishing.

72
Javed, B., Naqvi, S. M. M. R., Khan, A. K., Arjoon, S., & Tayyeb, H. H. (2019). Impact of
inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety.
Journal of Management and Organization, 25(1), 117–136.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.3
Jones, J., Firth, J., Hannibal, C., & Ogunseyin, M. (2019). Factors contributing to organizational
change success or failure (pp. 155–178). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-
2.ch008
Jones, N., Ross, H., Lynam, T., & Perez, P. (2011). Mental models: An interdisciplinary
synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1),
https://ro.uow.edu.au/smartpapers
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Jundt, D. K., Shows, M. K., & Huang, J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance in
organizations: a review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 53–71.
Korn, M. (2023, September 15). West Virginia University slashes majors and cuts staff despite
protests. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/west-virginiauniversity-slashes-majors-and-cuts-staff-despite-protests-4d237966
Luna De La Rosa, M., & Jun, A. (2019). The unfinished business of social justice in Christian
higher education. Christian Higher Education, 18(5), 356–369.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2019.1633833

73
Lund, C. S., & Andersen, L. B. (2023). Professional development leadership in turbulent times:
Public administration symposium: Robust politics and governance in turbulent times.
Public Administration, 101(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12854
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
Melidona, D., Cecil, B. G., Cassell, A., & Chessman, H. M. (2023). The American college
president: 2023 edition. American Council on Education.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, T., & Squires, V. (2017). Addressing complex challenges through adaptive leadership: A
promising approach to collaborative problem solving. Journal of Leadership Education,
16(4), 111–123.
Nicolaides, A., & McCallum, D. C. (2013). Inquiry in action for leadership in turbulent times.
Journal of Transformative Education, 11(4), 246–260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614540333
Paredes-Collins, K. (2013). Cultivating diversity and spirituality: A compelling interest for
institutional priority. Christian Higher Education, 12(1–2), 122–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2013.739436
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., &
Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through
belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review,
28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002

74
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.
Samikan, A. (2022). Obtaining IRB approval. USC LMS. https://2sc.Rossieronline.Usc.Edu
/Ap/Courses/2381/Sections/39242190-Df20-4597-Ab3e36f18aa1287b/Coursework/Module/A31f9d1f-868c-4a55-83c1-
C3ff90a839da/Segment/D997b0af-D06e-482e-A20d-E280bf1faf5a.
Santra, S., & Alat, P. (2022). Adaptive leadership of doctors during COVID-19. Leadership in
Health Services, 35(2), 246–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-08-2021-0073
Sarid, A. (2021). Crossing boundaries: Connecting adaptive leadership and social justice
leadership for educational contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1942995
Schulze, J. H., & Pinkow, F. (2020). Leadership for organisational adaptability: How enabling
leaders create adaptive space. Administrative Sciences, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10030037
Seibel, M., Kaufman, E. K., Cletzer, D. A., & Elliott-Engel, J. (2023). Advancing adaptive
leadership through adaption-innovation theory: Enhancements to the holding
environment. Journal of Leadership Studies, 17(1), 23–29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21841
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Crown Publishing Group.
Senge, P., Smith, B., Kursachwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution:
How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world.
Doubleday.

75
Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity & transformational leadership. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89–104.
Stachowiak, D. (2015). Re-envisioning diversity in higher education: From raising awareness to
building critical consciousness among faculty. Thought and Action, 31(2), 117–128.
Strandvik, T., Holmlund, M., & Gronroos, C. (2014). The mental footprint of marketing in the
boardroom. Journal of Service Management, 25(2), 241–252.
Tuck, E., & Yang, W. (2014). R words: Refusing research. Sage.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical
synthesis and integrative framework. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
Vaill, P. (1990). Managing as a performing art. Jose-Bass Publishers.
Vink, J., Edvardsson, B., Wetter-Edman, K., & Tronvoll, B. (2019). Reshaping mental models –
Enabling innovation through service design. Journal of Service Management, 30(1), 75–
104. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-08-2017-0186
Yukl, G. A., & Becker, W. S. (2006). Effective empowerment in organizations. Organization
Management Journal Linking Theory & Practice: EAM White Papers Series, 3(3), 210–
231. www.omj-online.org

76
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
This section provides the interview protocol that the researcher will use for the 10
interviews that will take approximately 60 minutes each to conduct. This interview protocol has
been adapted from Crawford and Lynn (2020).
Date of interview:
Location of interview:
Start time: End time:
Name of interviewee:
Recording mechanism:
Introduction:
Thank you for taking your time to meet with me today. This interview will contribute
information for a research study intended to build the adaptive capacity of university presidents
within the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. You have signed an informed consent
form, but, as a reminder, you may decline to answer any question you do not wish to answer or
withdraw from the interview at any time. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes.
With your permission, I will be making an audio recording of the interview and Dr. Chip
Espinoza will take notes, and I may take notes as well. Do you have any questions before we
begin?
Interview Questions:
1. As a university president, what keeps you up at night?
2. What is your process with identifying external threats to your institution?
3. What do you do to build your capacity to address external threats?

77
4. How do you approach a challenge for which you don't know the solution?
5. What do you do to maximize diversity in addressing unforeseen challenges?
6. What advice would you give your successor about addressing unforeseen challenges?
7. Before we conclude, is there anything else you want to share that would be helpful?
Possible probes:
1. Please tell me more about…
2. How did you know…?
3. What kind…?
4. What was the best approach among those you named?
Conclusion:
Thank you for your time today. I very much appreciate your contributing to this study. My next
steps will be to complete my additional interviews, analyze the data through a coding process,
create themes, and then member check the themes from my analysis. May I contact you if I need
any clarifications

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In 2011, Harvard educator and researcher Clayton Christianson predicted that higher education would be the next industry to experience significant disruption and radical change. The cover story of the September 2022 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education proclaimed “The Shrinking of Higher Ed,” citing declines in enrollment and financial challenges putting the leadership skills of college administrators to the test. This study aimed to build leaders’ capacity to adapt to change, focus on equity, and collaborate with faculty, staff, and governing bodies. Seeking to further the Rossier mission, this study seeks to empower leaders to be transformational as they create cultures and systems trained on achieving more equitable outcomes for faculty, staff, and students while institutionalizing adaptive leadership behaviors. The study methodology was a basic qualitative study design consisting of 10 60-minute interviews. Participants were presidents of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities with at least two years of experience in their current role to ensure they had developed ample expertise. To ensure diversity, at least 20% of participants were women or people of color. Last, the institutions the participants represent had to have student enrollment between 2,000 and 8,000 students so that the universities were similar in size and faced the same challenges. This study design was selected to understand how best to resource university presidents to build their capacity to address their institutions' adaptive challenges.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

PDF

Navigating the evolving leadership landscape: chief executive officer adaptation in a postpandemic era

PDF

European higher education fundraising: a Spanish field study

PDF

Underutilization of employer-funded higher education: a gap analysis

PDF

Toward a surplus of leaders: how church members understand volunteer church leadership

PDF

Decision making: closing opportunity gaps for dual enrollment and advanced placement in the California Central Valley

PDF

The lack of Black women in higher education executive leadership in four-year colleges and universities

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

PDF

Toxic leadership and U.S. Army special forces: a qualitative, phenomenological Study

PDF

Leadership of ports and terminals in the global south and Oceania and the use of technological innovation during the crisis

PDF

An exploration of teacher wellness and leadership practices for support in Hawai'i public schools

PDF

We see it, we want it, we dream it, we work hard, we thrive when we run it: Black female lower school principals thriving in independent schools

PDF

Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model

PDF

Rural school equity in California: a leadership perspective

PDF

Analyzing effects of institutional design on student success outcomes between 2-year and 4-year institutions

PDF

Closing the safety gap for airlines in emerging markets using the gap analysis model

PDF

Student-athletes and leadership: a case study of the impact of collegiate athletics on social change behavior and leadership development

PDF

Leadership brilliance: superintendents of color revolutionizing and empowering educational excellence across America

PDF

Diversity management in local government: a gap analysis

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

Asset Metadata

Creator McIntee, Justin (author)

Core Title Adaptive leadership: a proactive approach to anticipating, identifying, and addressing external threats

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-12

Publication Date 01/08/2025

Defense Date 12/17/2024

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

Tag adaptive leadership,emotional intelligence,mental models,OAI-PMH Harvest,permanent whitewater,reflection

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crew, Rudolph (committee chair), Espinoza, Chip (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email jmcintee@usc.edu,justin.mcintee@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399F7VB

Identifier etd-McInteeJus-13720.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-McInteeJus-13720

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights McIntee, Justin

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250109-usctheses-batch-1231 (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.

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