University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Activating student engagement in shared governance

(USC Thesis Other)

Activating student engagement in shared governance

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Activating Student Engagement in Shared Governance
By
Alen Robert Andriassian
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
August 2024

© Copyright by Alen Robert Andriassian 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Alen Robert Andriassian certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. Kaneesha Tarrant, Committee Member
Dr. Artineh Samkian, Committee Member Name
Dr. Julie Slayton, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study examines my leadership as the Associated Student Government Advisor in activating
student leaders to engage in student government, with my long-term goal of empowering
students to be socio-politically conscious leaders. In this qualitative action research study, I
utilized Heifetz et al.’s (2009) concept of a “holding environment” to create trust with student
leaders using personal stories to create the “ties that bind [us] together” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p.
155). My research question, How, if at all, do my actions as an advisor of the Associated Student
Government (ASG) foster student leaders’ socio-political consciousness and prepare them to be
active/engaged participants in the shared governance structure? With observations, jottings,
personal reflections, and (critical) self-reflections, I found that I was able to move the student
leaders from a place of disengaged in shared governance to engaged in shared governance. I
think I was able to assist the student leaders to model the behavior of reporting out on shared
governance meetings in ASG meeting, encouraging their fellow members to attend shared
governance meetings, and provide me with their perspectives on what supports them to be
successful in shared governance and what does not. While I raised their consciousness to varying
degrees regarding the role they might play in addressing the systemic challenges facing
community college students, I was not able to cultivate socio-political consciousness. Although I
discussed issues about systemic racism, hegemony, historically entrenched inequities, I was
limited in my ability to teach students on these issues. As I work toward this long-term goal, I
will need to consider bringing in additional support in this area.

v
Dedication
To my family, mentors, and friends, I could not have achieved this without your love and support
over the years. To my mother Hilda, and my father Robert who was been watching me from
heaven most of my life, thank you for your sacrifices and instilling in me the values of care and
love. To my brother Martin, thank you for your steadfast support through life’s storms which has
given me the structure and support to always keep moving forward. To my wife Tenny, thank
you for your unwavering love, support, and endless encouragement which has empowered me to
achieve my dreams. And finally, to my children Ella and Alexander, you give me hope for the
future of our family. Always remember that the same way you believe that dad can do anything,
so can you.

Acknowledgements
To my committee: Dr. Jule Slayton, Dr. Artineh Samkian, and Dr. Kaneesha Tarrant.
I am thankful and grateful to each of you for your support and helping me get through to
the finish line. This journey took longer than expected, but each of you supported me through
career promotions, health challenges, and helped me eliminate my imposter syndrome. I could
have taken the easier route and completed my dissertation sooner by choosing a dissertation
committee that would have would not have challenged me the way each of you did. I am forever
grateful that I chose the three powerhouse educators that I did. Dr. Slayton, I am forever grateful
for your wisdom, empathy, kind heart, and for teaching me how to always hold myself
accountable.

Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Historically Entrenched Inequity ........................................................................................ 5
Context................................................................................................................................ 7
Role..................................................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework................................................................................................................. 10
Holding Environment........................................................................................................ 12
Servant and Adaptive Leadership ..................................................................................... 13
Student Centered Teaching............................................................................................... 15
Critical Reflection............................................................................................................. 15
Research Methods......................................................................................................................... 16
Participants and Settings................................................................................................... 17
Actions.............................................................................................................................. 19
Data Collection/Instruments Protocol............................................................................... 21
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 25
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 26
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 28
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 29
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 30
Finding 1: Holding Environment...................................................................................... 31
Finding 2: Developing a Deeper Connection to Shared Governance by Surfacing Values,
Perspectives, and Ideas ..................................................................................................... 51
My Growth........................................................................................................................ 66
Afterword...................................................................................................................................... 71

Current Standing ............................................................................................................... 72
Lessons Learned................................................................................................................ 73
References..................................................................................................................................... 76

List of Tables
Table 1: Action Plan 30

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 22

1
Activating Student Engagement In Shared Governance
In the summer of 1995, at the age of 18-years-old, I walked onto the campus of Glendale
Community College (GCC) without truly knowing why I was there or where I was going with
my life. Up until that point, my youth was defined by emotional pain and loss. My mother, who
was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in her early 20s, died at the age of 34 years old. I was
only 8-years-old. Two years later my aunt, who was the next closest motherly figure to me, died
at the age of 32 from colon cancer. My father remarried and he and my stepmother developed a
dependency on alcohol. With alcohol came a host of other household problems including: DUIs,
accidents, domestic violence, foreclosure, eviction, and divorce. To make a long story short, our
family went through many struggles and although my father and I had a good relationship, my
brother was my primary support system. 
I had little desire to continue my education after high school, but with the encouragement
of my father and brother, I enrolled at the local community college that my brother attended,
GCC. During my first 2 years, I would go to class, get Bs or Cs, hang out with friends, and play
cards and gamble with classmates. I was a relatively good gambler. I would spend most of my
free time hustling playing cards instead of studying for my classes. One day, Hazel Ramos, the
sister of my friend and former high school cross country and track teammate Brian, approached
me. She walked up to me and said, “Hey Alen, what are you doing playing cards? Why don’t
you join the student government?” As I have reflected on why Hazel approached me that day, I
have asked myself, what qualities did she see in me? Was it that she knew I worked out twice a
day each morning and evening and was dedicated to being an athlete? Was it that I was always
respectful? Or was it that she saw unutilized potential as I wasted my time playing cards? I
believe it was a combination of all these reasons. When she asked me the question, I thought to

myself, why don’t I join student government? I asked myself, what am I going to do, be an old
man playing cards at GCC? I always had great respect for Hazel as a leader and student advocate
and the fact that Hazel saw potential in me caused me to reevaluate my leadership potential. I
remembered that during high school I had been intrigued by student government, but I was too
afraid to run for a student government position and not get elected. I already doubted my
academic abilities, I didn’t want to potentially be publicly rejected by losing an election. In high
school I belonged to the cross country and track teams. I felt a sense of belonging in high school
that was missing at GCC. As I evaluated all these thoughts, I decided to run for the Senator of
Finance for the Associated Students of Glendale Community College (ASGCC). Since I was a
business major, I was interested in the intricacies of budgeting. I campaigned hard and I was
elected as a senator. The organization had an immediate impact on my life. From the first
welcome reception event I attended, something in me changed. I was surrounded by students
who had direction. I had a support system of two ASGCC Advisors, a place to go, and a group of
20 new friends. Over time, I realized the more I put in ASGCC the more I got out. Through my
participation in student government, I found a sense of belonging, pride for my school, and
developed self-efficacy. I served as senator for two terms and then was elected ASGCC
President and Student Trustee for the GCC Board of Trustees. The more time I invested into the
organization and the college, the more my desire to give back to others grew.
After completing my Associates of Arts at GCC, I transferred to Loyola Marymount
University (LMU) as a business major. In my second semester of my first year at LMU, my
father passed away from a sudden heart attack. I took incompletes in my classes and came home
to help my brother with the family business. The more I worked the less I wanted to return to

finish my degree. My brother encouraged and supported me to go back and finish, which I did at
the conclusion of the summer.
Student involvement theory (Astin, 1984) indicates that students who are engaged on
campus (e.g., are active in clubs, student government, fraternities, athletics, and peer mentoring,
and who interact with faculty/advisor) are more likely to persist in a 4-year college/university.
The stronger the bond with the faculty/advisor and the greater the level of engagement, the
greater the chances for student success (Astin, 1984, 1999). I could have been a student in
Astin’s study.
Upon completing my Bachelor of Arts in business management, I applied for two jobs,
one at Warner Brothers (WB) for a global trainee position, and the other at GCC as the
coordinator of student life. I was fortunate to be offered both positions, and I was leaning
towards taking the job at WB. During the final stages of the interview process at WB, I vividly
remember one evening at WB when I was sitting on a white Coach leather couch and a WB
manager was explaining to me the responsibilities of the job and my mind tuned out. I could see
his lips moving, but I could not hear anything. All I heard in my head was, “You can do more
with your life.” Then I thought, what more would I want than to work at Warner Brothers? I
would be financially successful, and my career trajectory had no limits. That was the moment my
life changed forever, and everything became clear to me. That very second, I realized that if
others had not guided, mentored, encouraged, supported, included, and believed in me, I would
not have even been sitting on that couch. When my mother passed, I stopped caring about my
education. Throughout high school, I never believed I was intelligent enough or had the ability to
be successful in my life. All those doubts disappeared as I became a student leader. I felt a sense

of debt to give back to other students who needed support just like I did. The next day, I called
and accepted the job at GCC. 
What drew me to work in the community college system was the opportunity to advise,
develop trust, create community, and empower community college students to become involved
on campus. Over the past 20 years I have advised over 1000 students and created lifelong
relationships. Mentees have praised me for my efforts, and my self-perception has been that I am
an outstanding student government advisor and mentor because I truly care about the students’
well-being and academic success. I set high standards and treat everyone equally expecting that
they all can achieve whatever they desire if they work hard enough.
I never doubted myself until I began my dissertation process. Setting out to study myself
through the action research process caused me to second guessing everything I had accomplished
over my 24 year career in higher education. I had to ask myself whether I had been operating
from the mindset of meritocracy. I wondered whether, as a mentor and advisor, I drew out
students who were like me, who possibly had a strong work ethic and could be predisposed to
leadership. I had to consider whether I view others through a colorblind mindset. I was
confronted with the distinction between equality and equity and had to recognize that completely
disregarding the role that race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and ability played in college
students’ ability to overcome personal and institutional obstacles was irresponsible. I came to
understand that by assuming everyone was the same and would be able to meet my high
expectations without proper support systems perpetuated meritocracy and led to the reproduction
of marginalization of members from historically marginalized communities. I had not taken the
time to slow down my thoughts and evaluate the environment around me to examine inequalities
and inequities that existed at my college and higher education in general.

Perhaps the most disturbing self-discovery was that I saw myself as being Armenian
American, while the world saw me as White. Throughout my life I did not think White people
accepted Armenians as White and saw myself as a member of a marginalized group, while
blindly accepting the benefits of my skin color, and my gender and sexual orientation, with
complete disregard for systematic and structural inequities that the students I advised
experienced as members of historically marginalized groups. Leadership is based on how others
perceive you (Bolman & Deal, 2016). To others, I was a White, heterosexual male,
administrator, but my ignorance blinded me from what I represented and my positionality.
Throughout my life I had treated everyone the same and not realized the privileges I had
been afforded. As I evolved as a leader, educator, and person, I became now more aware of my
privileges, as a White, heterosexual male administrator in a position of power. I also realized I
had a responsibility to set a high standard for students and provide them with support and
encouragement, that students’ needs varied by their experiences, and that many of them came
from historically marginalized groups and may have experienced systematic and structural
inequities.
I argue in this study, that engaging students in leadership opportunities and activating
their engagement in shared governance is a component to student success. I would not have
completed this dissertation if it were not for one major shift that happened in my life that has
allowed me to achieve all my academic and career success.
Historically Entrenched Inequity
Community Colleges make up the largest higher education system in California
(California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2024). With 116 colleges throughout the
state, and nearly 2 million students, community colleges make up the largest higher education

system in the nation (California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2024). Fifty one
percent of all California State University students started at a community college, and 29% of all
University of California students began their education at California community college
(California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2024). Based off data from the (California
Community College Success Metrics, 2021–2022), 72% of students successfully completed their
courses. On average 67% of California community college students were retained from one term
to the next. Although much of these data seems promising, less than half of the students who
begin their community college education actually complete a degree, certificate, or transfer to a
4-year institution. Additionally, only 13% of California Community College students receive an
Associate’s Degree within 2 years and 31% over 3 years. From the number of students who
declare transfer to a 4-year university as their goal, only 10% of students transfer in 2 years and
19% after 4 years. These low success rates are extremely concerning when you transpose the
data to the students that are failed by this system. For example, 90% of students do not complete
their intended goal to transfer from a 2-year college in 2 years and 81% still have not completed
by 4 years.
In 1988, California Governor George Deukmejian signed Assembly Bill 1725 into law.
The law created a shared governance system that granted faculty input in decision making in the
California Community College system. Therefore, every community college in California is
required to utilize shared governance as a major part of the decision-making process in how a
college functions. Without a shared governance model, senior level administrators could have the
sole authority in making decisions for each institution, void of faculty, staff and students. Kezar
and Holcombe (2017) refer to shared governance as a system where the faculty and
administration have specific areas of “delegated authority” in the decision-making process. Since

the inception, shared governance membership evolved to include additional constituency groups
other than faculty. The current makeup of shared governance committees throughout the district
includes faculty, staff, administrators, and students. The shared governance process allows
students the opportunity to advocate for issues and affords them the right to an equal vote as any
other constituency at each level of the process.
Context
The Southern California community college where I conducted this study was a part of a
multi-college district. At the time of the study, it had approximately 14,000 credit students
(receive a course grade and college credit), with 65% of students being part time, while 35% of
students were full time. The student ethnicity/race breakdown was as follows: 54% Latinx, 19%
White, 9% Asian, 8% Black, and 10% other.
At my college, the Associated Student Government (ASG) is the official student
organization that represents the students. The Board consists of 17 students elected by the
student body. There are approximately 24 shared governance committees, most of which had two
student representative positions. The ASG student leaders were required to attend nine shared
governance meetings per semester to receive monetary stipends for their service. The ASG
president appointed all the ASG board members to 2–4 shared governance committees that met
monthly, quarterly, or once a semester. The student leaders were voting members of each of the
governance committees and were responsible for providing the student voice at the meeting.
After each meeting, ASG student leaders were expected to provide a report at the weekly ASG
meeting. ASG student leaders were provided up to three stipends per semester for representing
students.

At my institution, the shared governance process was inconsistency in the level of
support and encouragement students receive from the committee chairperson and membership.
Some chairs actively sought out student leader involvement by asking them their perspectives,
making sure there were ASG representatives attending the meetings, and taking the time to
develop a relationship with the student leaders, while other committee chairs rarely engaged the
student leaders, or even sent meeting invites, agendas, or minutes for meetings. The governance
committees were structured to conduct business if quorum was met by having 50% +1 members
present. The college president played a pivotal role in supporting open dialog and involvement
from committee members based on their own behavior (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). In addition
to shared governance committees, the ASG president and vice president were included as one of
the constituency groups who met monthly with senior staff. By including the ASG student
leaders as one of the groups that met with senior staff, it validated the ASG as a constituency
group, which reinforced that the students’ voices were heard.
Role
At the time of this study, I was the Acting Vice President of Student Services (VPSS) at a
community college located in Southern California. Over the 10 years of my tenure at the
institution, I held the following titles, Associate Dean of Student Life, Dean of Student Services,
Dean of Student Life and Outreach (Academic Affairs), Acting VPSS, and my current role, as
VPSS.
In my role as Dean, one of my main responsibilities was to supervise the ASG as the
ASG advisor. From all my responsibilities, the role of ASG advisor was the one that motivated
me the most as it afforded me the privilege to help change the lives of students. When I first
arrived at my college there were only 5 students who ran for ASG Board positions. The student

leaders were not engaged and were involved primarily to take advantage of the benefits
associated with being a Board member ( e.g., monetary stipend, scholarships, office space, and
letters of recommendation). Throughout my time as an ASG advisor, I advocated and hired
additional staff to support ASG student leaders. Collaboratively with the student leaders and
staff, we created a culture of inclusivity, leadership, and community within the ASG. The
participation in the ASG increased over time and the ASG elections consistently had over 30
candidates running for 17 positions. When I began the study, the ASG was limited to the
preparation of the student leaders to plan events, utilize their budget, advocate for local
community college issues, learn how to utilize parliamentary procedure, and develop as a leader.
As an advisor, I played a limited role in supporting students in their involvement in shared
governance committees. Prior to this study, I left the responsibility to the student leaders to
coordinate the details of when and where the shared governance meetings were scheduled with
the chair of the committee. I had been complicit by allowing students to fend for themselves in a
system that was not structured in a way that elicited student involvement or perspective.
Therefore, if student leaders were not present and the chair did not notify the member, the ASG
president, or my team, never knew, and the student voice was not represented. I believed that
some faculty, staff, and administrators were comfortable in proceeding without the voice of
student leaders, as student participation might have created differing views, an alternate decision,
and ultimately impeded their desired outcome. My goal was to position the ASG student leaders
to engage the members of the governance committee and challenge our college to better meet the
needs of their students from historically marginalized groups. Additionally, I focused on
leadership development and advocacy with student leaders. Entering the dissertation process, I
had reflected on the recent social movements, and national climate, I had reevaluated my

responsibility as an advisor to encourage and support ASG student leaders to become sociopolitically conscious. Thus, the goal of my dissertation was to answer the following research
question: How, if at all, do my actions as an advisor of the Associated Student Government
(ASG) foster student leaders’ socio-political consciousness and prepare them to be
active/engaged participants in the shared governance structure?
In the remainder of this dissertation, I will discuss my conceptual framework and data
methods, followed by my findings and retrospective takeaways. All together this will describe
how I addressed my ability to engage students to be active and engaged participants in shared
governance.
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is, as explained by Maxwell (2013), a tentative theory made up
of a combination of theory, personal experiences, assumptions, expectations, and empirical
literature. My revised conceptual framework, represented in Figure 1, is my new tentative theory
based on my actions in the field and data analysis. My theory is rooted in my long-term goal to
support student leaders to be socio-politically conscious when they are members of shared
governance committees. For the purposes of my research, I defined socio-politically
consciousness as the viewing of life, our environment, through different lenses (Divakalala &
Bal, 2024). This includes the challenges we face in our lives and society as a whole, and how we
work to build a more equitable and inclusive society (Divakalala & Bal, 2024). I continue to
believe that I must create the conditions that allow student leaders to focus on shared governance
and to develop or deepen their socio-political consciousness. As a result of data analysis, I have
expanded this idea of creating ties to include a “holding environment [that] consists of all of
those ties that bind people together and enable them to maintain their collective focus on what

they are trying to do” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 155). I have also included my use of personal
stories to connect with each student leader on an individual and personal level.
Within this holding environment I can work with student leaders to “surface and discuss
the particular values, perspectives and creative ideas” (Heifetz, p. 155) to afford them the
opportunity to deepen their knowledge of and commitment to shared governance and surface
their understanding of the existence of structural racism within society and how it relates to our
college.
In addition to creating the holding environment, I continue to believe that it is essential
that I introduce students to servant and adaptive leadership theory. In doing so, I can help them
develop or deepen their understanding of the leadership techniques they might employ in
anticipation of and during governance meetings to promote changes that address the historically
entrenched inequities that exist at our college.
I must also engage in teaching and advising practices that reflect elements of servant and
adaptive leadership to accomplish my long-term goal. I believe that, by deploying these
practices, I will be able to establish a system of support that is essential for ASG leaders for them
to develop socio-political consciousness and actively participate as members of the shared
governance process. I have supplemented this theory to include Rodgers’s (2002) assertion that
teachers make students learning central, and that our own teaching is subordinate. My revised
theory holds that being a student focused teacher will allow me to engage in a discussion with
student leaders to promote active participation and dialogue.
In addition, my theory still holds that my use of critical self-reflection while working
with ASG leaders will help me determine their level of learning so that I am able to determine
what support and training I need to provide.

Figure 1 
Conceptual Framework: Socio-Politically Conscious Leadership
Holding Environment
My revised conceptual framework now includes Heifetz et al.’s (2009) concept of a
“holding environment.” Consistent with the data, I believe that utilizing my personal stories will
allow me to create “ties that bind” me to the students and enable them to maintain their collective
focus on their work. I further believe that establishing a holding environment allows me to create
safety/structure for ASG board members to concentrate on shared governance. My theory also
holds that I can work with student leaders to “surface and discuss the particular values,
perspectives and creative ideas” (Heifetz et al., p. 155) in this space that will allow them the
opportunity to deepen understanding and commitment in shared governance and surface their

understanding of the existence of structural racism within society and how it relates to the
college.
Servant and Adaptive Leadership
I still believe that utilizing servant and adaptive leadership practices allows me to develop
ASG student leaders into socio-politically conscious leaders who actively engage in shared
governance. Although, not the focus of my findings, I enacted servant leader practices and I still
believe they are an essential part of my advising as the most basic form of leadership. I relate
most to servant leadership because it is founded in the principles of serving others, removing
social inequities, healing, and empathy (Northouse, 2016). Using servant leadership behaviors, I
will continue to seek to achieve “greater self-actualization” and to create a “ripple effect” in
students to produce future servant leaders (Northouse, 2016, pp. 236–237). Although not the
focus of my analysis, I do believe I modeled servant leadership practices such as listening,
empathy, healing, persuasion, and building community. I focused on a “deep commitment to
listening intently” to the ASG student leaders (Spears, 2010, p. 27). Through listening, I was able
to comprehend the challenges they faced as students and as leaders and how they could utilize
servant and adaptive leadership practices to overcome them (McClellan, 2007). In addition to
listening, I demonstrated empathy by standing in the shoes of each individual student who faced
inequities (Northouse, 2016). By incorporating healing into my interactions with students, I
worked to make the students whole from the trauma and challenges they faced in their lives
(Spears, 2010). Although this was difficult for me to quantity in the field, and I still believe this
to be an important component to my new theory of action. Through discussions with ASG
student leaders, I shared my personal struggles, to create dialogue and get them to open up about

their trauma. I still believe that as the student leaders believe they are being cared for, it will
propel them to choose to lead (Keith, 1995).
I used adaptive leadership practices to provide ASG student leaders with a more direct
approach to stand up and express their concern and demand action by college leaders. Although
not the focus of my findings, I utilized the principles of adaptive leadership such as getting on
the balcony and successful adaptation. I worked with the ASG student leaders to show them the
value of what Heifetz et al. (2009) describe as getting on the balcony. That is, I showed them the
larger picture and taught them that, prior to acting, one must prepare for battle. Although we
discussed structural inequities at our college, I was not able to extend the conversation to how
the institution perpetuates the inequities and the roles they played in their reproduction. I still
believe that a second principle of adaptive leadership, successful adaptation while disrupting an
organization’s values (Heifetz et al., 2009), is a useful for ASG leadership to create a highly
functioning shared governance structure. Although not reflected in the data, I still believe that for
student leaders to make change, they will need to displace, reregulate, and rearrange the current
system (Heifetz et al., 2009).
In addition to engaging in servant and adaptive leadership practices, based on my data, I
believe it is essential to teach servant and adaptive leadership practices directly to student
leaders. I believe it is important to begin with servant leadership practices and then shift gears to
a more direct approach of adaptive leadership. This is consistent with the activities I undertook
during this action research study. I encouraged and empowered the ASG students to utilize
adaptive leadership as the next step in fighting for equity. Through workshops on servant and
adaptive leadership, I dialogued with the ASG student leaders about these practices. I taught the
student leaders that the faculty, staff, and administration can provide them with false solutions as

a diversion (Heifetz, 1998). I shared content about adaptive leadership practices and modeled
these leadership styles while encouraging them to actively practice in shared governance
meetings. Additionally, I evaluated the shared governance process, and determined how to
develop better communication between the chairperson of the committee and the student
representatives, how to empower the ASG student leaders to advocate for students, and how to
support the chairperson in creating a welcoming environment for ASG leaders, through the
creation of best practices.
Student Centered Teaching
My revised conceptual framework has evolved to include Rodger’s (2002) theory of
being student centered in my approach to teaching student leaders. Rodgers affirms that the
teacher should be focused on the learner morn than themselves. My revised theory holds that as a
student focused teacher I was able to create opportunities for the ASG student leaders to be
engaged, and actively participate in the content being taught. Based off feedback I received from
the student leaders after my first training, I changed my approach from being teacher centered to
being student centered. My theory holds, that engaging the students in dialog is a highly effective
way of delivering the content in a way that students can engage and receive the teachings.
Critical Reflection
I will continue to engage in (critical) reflection to evaluate my actions as an ASG advisor.
Critical reflection allowed me to evaluate my leadership and mentoring assumptions and
determine whether they are accurate (Brookfield, 2017). Through critical reflections I assessed
whether my assumption that by modeling servant and adaptive leadership, ASG student leaders
will replicate the same behaviors in the shared governance process. Although not the focus of my
analysis, I still believe it is necessary for me to identify any implicit assumptions I make as an

ASG advisor and how it affects my mentoring and advising of student leaders. These
assumptions can be based on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual
orientation, among other identity markers. By identifying and evaluating my assumptions as an
advisor, it will allow me to be a better mentor and leader for my ASG student leaders
(Brookfield, 2017). As I continue to grow as an ASG Advisor, I will need to examine the three
different types of assumptions described by Brookfield (2017), paradigmatic, prescriptive, and
causal assumptions and how they affect my advising. I will utilize Brookfield’s (2010) four
lenses to examine my assumptions: viewing through the eyes of ASG student leaders, the
perspectives of my colleagues, my own experiences, and literature, data, and evidence. The use
of critical reflections by journaling and evaluating conversations with student leaders, allowed
me to critically reflect and evolve as an advisor.
Research Methods
This study focused on how I was able to create a “holding environment” with student
leaders to develop trust, their socio-political consciousness, and activate their engagement in
shared governance. Additionally, my study also centered around me being a student-centered
teacher in how I delivered the knowledge to students during the workshops I provided.
Additionally, I utilized leadership practices and critical reflection to support and teach students to
use servant and adaptive leadership practices in governance committee meetings. This study was
guided by my research question: How, if at all, do my actions as an advisor of the Associated
Student Government (ASG) foster student leaders’ socio-political consciousness and prepare
them to be active/engaged participants in the shared governance structure at my institution?

Participants and Settings
My action research occurred at a community college in Southern California, where I
utilized a purposeful sampling approach. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe purposeful
sampling as an approach to identifying participants and settings where the researcher is
interested in gaining knowledge, exploring, and understanding. I selected a sample population
that afforded me the opportunity to gain that insight. Through this approach I examined my
behaviors, actions, and advising techniques as it relates to ASG student leaders. I interacted with
ASG student leaders in their board meetings, workshops, group and one-on-one meetings as I
engaged in the action research cycle. 
Participants
During this study, ASG was made up of 10 senators, four executives, one vice president,
and one president. Although I worked with the entire Board, for my action research, I focused
my efforts on two members of the Executive Board, Claudia and Roberto.1 Roberto was the ASG
President, and Claudia was the Vice President. They were both in their second year of leadership
in the ASG. Roberto had the ability to lead but was often timid in his approach to advocating. He
valued his own perspectives and desires, however, prioritizes the perspectives of his board, his
advisors, and the college president over his own. In the Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano
typology (2017), Roberto would be classified as a socializing knower. He questioned the
structure, but often accepted the power structure for what it was and perceived himself as not
having the ability to challenge it. I think I was able to make some progress with supporting
Roberto from moving from a socializing knower toward a self-authoring knower by encouraging
him to author his own ideas, beliefs, and values (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017).
1 For the purposes of my research, I created the pseudonyms for each of the participants.

Claudia had strong perspectives on social justice. She operated with an all or nothing
approach and could be perceived by her fellow student leaders as standoffish. Claudia was what
Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) would describe as an instrumental knower. She
was rigid in her thought process and often closed off. Since I did not know Claudia very well at
the beginning of the study, I had to build a sense of trust to develop rapport with her. I utilized
personal stories and creating a safe holding environment to allow us to build “ties that bind us.”
As I worked the Claudia, I we discussed servant leadership practices to develop relationships to
work collaboratively with other student leaders, faculty, staff, and administrators who shared
similar concerns. Additionally, I exposed her to adaptive leadership practices such as viewing
from the balcony, for her to see the bigger picture.
As I engaged both Roberto and Claudia, I focused on collecting data about myself as an
ASG advisor in relation to them. After meeting with each of them individually, I did (critical)
self-reflection and utilized what I learned about myself to be a better support them and to activate
their involvement in shared governance and move towards socio-political consciousness.
I specifically selected these two student leaders as the participants because they were
students who I believed could be mentored, advised, and were willing to challenge themselves to
be more engaged leaders. The dynamic between me and Roberto was already built on trust.
Roberto held me accountable and challenged me on a regular basis. My relationship with Claudia
was newly forming and she was reserved and cautious. My long-term goal was to engage student
leaders in socio-politically conscious leadership, and although these ASG student leaders were
aware of some inequities at their institution, at the time I began the study, they were not able to
make connections between the inequities that existed at our college and the existing inequities
even at the state level. Through workshops, group and one-on-one discussions, I had honest

discussions with these student leaders about my actions, guidance, mentorship, and how my
workshops affected them. As a result, they assisted me in becoming a more student-centered
teacher. I also utilized jottings, observations/descriptive reflections, field notes, and (critical)
reflections to determine how my actions impacted the ASG student leaders. These approaches
allowed me to alter my practices throughout this study and to adapt to their needs to support
them in their advocacy efforts. 
Settings of Actions 
The settings in which I chose to engage the ASG student leaders and conducted data
collection included the weekly ASG Board meetings, the ASG Executive meetings, workshops,
consultation with college leaders and one-on-one meetings with student leaders. Under normal
circumstances, I would have included going to lunch with the student leaders, having informal
meetings in the ASG office area, and participating in college events, but due to the pandemic,
none of these were viable options as we were all at home working remotely. The only forms of
interaction we had available were Zoom meetings, phone conversations, and texting. For the
purpose of this study, I engaged them in our one-on-one meetings, and the ASG Board
meetings.
Actions
Consistent with my conceptual framework I worked with student leaders to equip them
with leadership practices to activate them to be engaged leaders in shared governance with the
intent that they become more socio-politically conscious. Although I was not able to engage
them to become more socio-politically conscious leaders, I still hold this to be my long-term
goal. In my interactions, workshops, one-on-one meetings, and during ASG board meetings, I
worked with ASG student leaders to teach them about servant and adaptive leadership

Throughout this process, I collected jottings, observations/descriptive reflections, field notes, and
(critical) reflections that guided me to reflect on my actions as an advisor and if I was
galvanizing the student leaders’ approach to advocating in shared governance. Additionally, I
conducted three workshops on shared governance, servant leadership, and adaptive leadership
practices.
As described in my conceptual framework, to the encourage Claudia and Roberto to
become activated in shared governance, I worked to create a holding environment, using
personal stories. Additionally, once I was able to establish an environment of safety and security
with the student leaders, then I was able to assist them to surface and discuss their values and
perspectives on shared governance.
Table 1 describes how I began the series of workshops focusing on the principles of
servant and adaptive leadership. In the training on adaptive leadership, I shifted from servant
leadership to adaptive leadership. We discussed how to advocate for issues they value as student
leaders, for them to stand up to the institution, express their concern, and demand change.
Additionally, drawing from adaptive leadership practices, I explained the benefits of getting on
the balcony and viewing the institution and the faculty, staff, and administrators from afar to
determine the best course of action.
Table 1
Action Plan
Month 1 (April) Month 2 (May) Month 3 (June)
Week 1
Workshop 1: Best Practices for
Advocating in Shared
Governance and Introduction to
Servant and Adaptive Leadership
Week 2
Week 1
ASG Board Meeting (1)
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 1
ASG Board Meeting (1)
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)

ASG Board Meeting (1)
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 3
ASG Board Meeting (1)
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 4
Workshop 2: Utilizing Servant
Leadership in Shared
Governance (includes role
playing)
ASG Board Meeting (1)
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 2
Cycle Break—Analysis
Week 3
Workshop 3: Utilizing
Adaptive Leadership in
Shared Governance
(includes role playing)
ASG Board Meeting (1)
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 4
ASG Board Meeting (1)
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 2
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 3
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 4
One on One Meetings (2)
Jottings (3)
Descriptive Reflection (3)
Critical Self-Reflection (1)
Week 5
Cycle Break–Analysis
Data Collection/Instruments Protocol
The purpose of this action research study was focused on me as the subject of inquiry to
better understand my practices as an ASG advisor (Herr & Anderson, 2015). I collected and
analyzed data on myself in my role as advisor and my actions in supporting student leaders to be
activated members on shared governance meetings. The data collection consisted of jottings,
observations/descriptive reflections, field notes, and (critical) reflections. The combinations of

these data collection allowed me to examine how I taught and advised student leaders. Through
feedback from the ASG student leaders I was able to reformulate my approach each week as I
would meet with Claudia and Roberto. In the following section, I will explain each of the data
collection approaches.
Jottings
As I conducted observations throughout my weekly interactions with ASG student
leaders, I wrote jottings. This included weekly ASG board meetings, one-on-one meetings with
ASG leaders, and participation in shared governance. The jottings were written during the
meetings to document observations, which included the environment, and the reactions and
behaviors of ASG student leaders. The jottings contained enough details for me to use them as
the foundation of my descriptive reflections. For example, Roberto attended our one-on-one
meeting on Zoom with his camera on. He was seated on his couch and put on a hat because his
hair was not styled. He seemed to be tired and yawned throughout the meeting. I also created a
depiction of activities during these interactions with ASG student leaders and provide a detailed
description of how the students behaved, what the behaviors caused or did not cause reactions
from other student leaders. Finally, I also reviewed my own actions as a participant researcher,
by examining my own behaviors, assumptions, environment, and specific words that I used. In
one of my one-on-one meetings with Claudia, I noted that I transitioned too quickly to another
topic, or that I need to listen more. After completing my jottings, I utilized them to conduct
descriptive reflections. 
Descriptive Reflections
I completed weekly descriptive reflections of my interactions with ASG student leaders
during ASG board meetings, one-on-one meetings, and participation in shared governance. I

wrote weekly descriptive reflections following each ASG board meeting (once per week) and
after reviewing my jottings. I wrote weekly descriptive reflections (two per week) after each oneon-one with ASG student leaders each week. In each of the descriptive reflections, I discussed
the environment, how students chose to participate and engage or not, by reading the room for
the sense of inclusion of the student perspectives, whether my viewpoints and advice were being
taken into consideration, and whether I observed progress from week to week. I recreated what
was occurring within the confines of my study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). I set out to apply
Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007), six aspects of fieldnotes, which include: portraits of subjects,
reconstruction of dialogue, description of physical setting, accounts of events, depiction of
activities, and the observer’s behavior. An example of this would be when I conducted my
workshops on the different leadership types. I noted that we were on a Zoom call, that certain
ASG members did not have their camera on, that one of the student leaders was extra cheery
during the training, and that I noted that I felt that nervous at the beginning of the training. As I
created the portraits of the subjects, I considered what the ASG student leaders were wearing,
their habits, how they spoke, and how they acted. I also identified and reconstructed the dialogue
by summarizing conversations, in one-on-one meetings and during ASG meetings, by
transcribing the students’ words as much as possible, their gestures, body language and facial
expressions. At times it was difficult to do so as all our meetings were on zoom during the ASG
Board meetings and workshops and some participants had their cameras off or utilized a virtual
background. The combination of my jottings, and weekly descriptive reflections allowed me to
write (critical) self-reflections.

(Critical) Self-Reflections
I wrote one critical reflection per week beginning in week 1. I conducted 4 weeks of
critical reflection, which completed the first cycle of my plan. In the first week of month 2, I
conducted data analysis. I resumed critical reflection in week 2 of month 2 and conducted critical
reflections through week 3 of month 3. I wrote 11 critical reflections during the 3-month data
collection period. Although my intentions were to conduct critical self-reflections, I do not think
they were truly critical. As a teacher, I was more concerned with my work rather than my overall
goals, therefore making them surface reflections rather than critical reflections (Larrivee, 2014).
I was able to reflect on the deeper analysis of what happened, but I did not evolve to the “why”
of the things that happened. I think to some extent my long-standing role as an ASG Advisor
created a false sense that the way I had done things worked and to some degree, I think I could
be/was defensive in my thinking. Specifically, I believed that the way I conducted leadership
workshops were at a high level because of my years of experience. I felt that my tenure as a
long-standing advisor made me closed off to potential criticism.
I utilized my weekly jottings, and descriptive reflections to conduct accurate and wellinformed critical reflections. I evaluated my actions as an ASG advisor through (critical)
reflections and adjusted my techniques accordingly.
Documentation and Artifacts 
The documentation and artifacts that were collected for this action research study
included the jottings, observations/descriptive reflections, field notes, and (critical) reflections.
Additionally, I created PowerPoint presentations, notes, agendas from meetings, and training
materials utilized in workshops to evaluate the decisions I make and the qualities of resources I
selected for the purposes of analysis.

Data Analysis
The purpose of data analysis is to utilize multiple forms of data collected in a systematic
way to make sense of what data were collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2017). In my study, I used
the data collected from jottings, observations/descriptive reflections, field notes, and (critical)
reflections to determine whether my actions as an ASG advisor were making an impact on ASG
student leaders. I engaged in two types of data analysis, data analysis while I was in the field,
and data analysis once I left the field. I began by analyzing my actions while in the field. This
required a more deductive approach in terms of scope and intensity of the analysis. An example
of my analysis while in the field was when I reflected on the feedback from Roberto and Claudia
shared with me during our one-on-one meetings about being a teacher centered presenter. I
analyzed the data as I in the field and used the lessons learned to evolve into a student center
teacher. Herr and Anderson (2015) refer to data analysis in an action research study as making
meaning while taking action. The continuous cycle of analysis allowed me to evaluate the data
and choose which actions I continued and which ones I adjusted (Herr & Anderson, 2015). The
first cycle of action was from week 1 of month 1 through week 4 of month 1 (4 weeks in total).
At the conclusion of week 4 was a cycle break which allowed me to conduct analysis. The
second cycle of action began in week 2 of month 2 through week 3 of month 3 (6 weeks total).
The end of week 3 of month 3 concluded the second cycle of my study and I conducted my
seconded analysis in week 4 of month 4 of my action plan. Each data analysis stage allowed me
a week to conduct my data analysis. Additionally, I managed my data by utilizing coding to
structure my data and make it easily accessible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2017).
Second, I engaged in a more inductive approach after leaving the field to conduct data
analysis. Once I left the field, I took a step back and analyze the data from start to finish. I

utilized what Corbin and Strauss (2008) describe as analytic tools to question my data. I asked
questions that would allow me to become more familiar with my data, allow me to gain insight,
and to think outside of the box (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I also used constant comparisons to
analyze data by comparing one set of data from an incident with data from another incident
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). When I met with Roberto and Claudia, I would evaluate the progress
they made in their level of engagement and understanding of the importance of shared
governance. Using constant comparison, I arranged the data into categories or themes (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). Additionally, I used an open coding process and developed a priori and empirical
codes. Some examples of the codes include Servant Leadership, Adaptive Leadership, and
Holding Environment. According to Miles et al. (2014), coding is an ongoing process that allows
you to reshape your perspective. I created a priori codes before the research was conducted and
empirical coding while examining the data (Harding, 2013). This is how I began my first coding
cycle. As themes developed, I created a codebook. The codebook allowed me to aggregate the
codes to develop analytic codes. This allowed me to develop themes and patterns, which
subsequently revealed the findings of my study. Through analytic memos I saw a pattern of trust
that was evident in my analysis and developed into the findings of the creation of a holding
environment.
Limitations and Delimitations
As I conducted my research I was confronted by several limitations and delimitations that
hindered my progress toward my goal. Limitations are things that I was not able to control.
Delimitations are things that I was able to control that bound this study.

Limitations
The first limitation was due to the pandemic. Being relegated to an online working
environment took a toll on ASG student leaders, me, and my colleagues as we were not able to
interact in the same manner as we were used to. I was not able to converse with the ASG student
leaders in their office areas, attend events with students, have them drop in for an unscheduled
office visit, or enjoy a meal together. Additionally, each semester we conducted two ASG
leadership retreats, attended student government conferences, and lobbied in Sacramento and
Washington D.C. These interactions allowed me bonding time with the ASG student leaders and
allowed them to see me outside of the administrative role, in casual clothing, and in a relaxed
environment where we could have fun together. The level of connection that we were all
accustomed to was simply not able to be duplicated in an online environment. Another limitation
was that I was not able to interact with my faculty, staff, and administrator colleagues who
assisted me in developing the student leaders. By having conversations in the quad or between
meetings, I often learned about how my students were participating or not participating in shared
governance meetings. These informal interactions often led to my colleagues asking to attend
ASG board meetings, requesting funding from the ASG, or simply sharing their perspective of
the student leaders.
Delimitations
A delimitation that existed in the in-person interactions with student leaders as well as the
remote environment was the power dynamic between me as a Vice President at the college and
the student leaders. The differences in power were only magnified in the remote environment,
because of our limited interactions, and because I was in a higher position than I previously was
as a Dean. Due to the pandemic and my additional responsibilities, my time was even more

limited, and my positionality as a White male in a senior leadership role made me less available
and approachable. Also, because I did not physically share the same space with the student
leaders added to this delimitation.
Another delimitation that occurred was during one meeting that I accidentally broke my
original protocol of only conducting meetings on zoom. Claudia happened to be on campus and
asked if we could have the one-on-one meeting in person, while masked and socially distanced.
We did, and that meeting was a breakthrough meeting where I was able to gain her trust and
where she broke down and opened up to me. This meeting made me realize the effect of being in
a remote environment more apparent to me.
Additionally, this was my first action research study, and I was only a novice in data
collection, and analysis. This was also the first time I was conducting research connected to
activating ASG student leaders in shared governance. 
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure credibility in my research study, I utilized validity checks to eliminate threats
(Maxwell, 2013). I examined how I might be wrong in my interpretations of the data to ensure I
was not ignoring the data to fit my narrative of what I believed to be true (Maxwell, 2013). I
would regularly check in with my colleagues in my department to ensure I was correct in my
interpretations. I ensured that the data I collected in my (critical) reflections was full of rich data
to provide a clear picture of what was accurately happening (Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, to
prevent misinterpretations of the data collected, I conducted member checks. The member
checks included the soliciting of feedback from colleagues, participants, while reviewing
literature, to confirm that my interpretation of the ASG student leaders’ actions, and perspectives
was accurate (Maxwell, 2013). Using observation data through jottings, descriptive reflections,

and critical reflections, I triangulated the data by speaking with colleagues to verify what I
believe to be true was accurate (Maxwell, 2013; Herr & Anderson, 2015). In my one-on-one
meetings with the ASG student leaders, I utilized democratic validity to determine whether the
leadership approaches were effective for the ASG student leaders in their advocacy efforts (Herr
& Anderson, 2015). Additionally, in my one-on-ones, I enacted catalytic validity to reorient
myself and the ASG student leaders to the reality of what was transpiring and determine if the
course of action was effective and evaluate what changes needed to be made to ensure the
desired outcomes (Herr & Anderson, 2015). 
To ensure trustworthiness, I examined my biases and subjectivity as an ASG advisor
through my jottings, observations/descriptive reflections, field notes, and (critical) reflections
(Herr & Anderson, 2015). Through discussions with my chair Dr. Slayton, I evaluated my
positionality as I am perceived as a White, male, in a role of authority and power. I also actively
evaluated my biases of the importance I place on being a student government member and my
perceptions on the reasons a student should become an ASG student leader. 
 Although biases and subjectivity were to be naturally present in my research, I critically
examined my actions as a researcher to ensure credibility in my study (Herr & Anderson, 2015;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2017). Through dialog with Dr. Slayton, I regularly examined the pattern of
students that joined student government and whether my biases played a role in the student
leaders I would gravitate towards.
Ethics
In conducting my action research study there were several ethical issues that could arise.
The first ethical concern I experienced was the role duality of my position as a senior level
administrator and ASG advisor. The multiple roles I played as an advisor, mentor, administrator,

and colleague was difficult for me to balance (Coghlan, 2019). In relation to role duality, for the
first time I was able to clearly identify the power differential between me and the student leaders.
As their advisor, I approve their stipends, write letters of recommendation, and was involved in
the decision-making process for scholarship selection. My ability, as the advisor, to withhold
resources could have created and ethical dilemma. I was concerned that Roberto and Claudia
could think that I was coercing them to participate, and if they did not, they would not receive a
stipend or that I would not support them for a scholarship. To address these potential ethical
issues, I expressed to both Roberto and Claudia that the study was focused on me as an action
researcher in relation to them as ASG student leaders. I explained that as a participant, their
involvement in the research was completely optional and they were able to withdraw at any
point. I discussed the power dynamic that existed and assured them that I will do them no harm
and protect their right to privacy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2017). I made sure that there was no
negative impact on them in the form of preventing them from getting their stipends, choosing not
to write a letter of recommendation, or preventing them from getting a scholarship. Additionally,
to protect and maintain security of data collected from jottings, observations/descriptive
reflections, field notes, and (critical) reflections were safely stored on a secure file.
Findings
In the following section, I will discuss my findings in relation to my research question:
How, if at all, do my actions as an advisor of the Associated Student Government (ASG)
foster student leaders’ socio-political consciousness and prepare them to be active/engaged
participants in the shared governance structure? In this section I will answer my research
question by focusing on the ties that led to safety and security for student leaders and how I was
able to assist them in growing from a place where they were not aware of their responsibilities as

leaders to engage in and value shared governance. The first finding explained below is focused
on the creation on a holding environment. As described in my conceptual framework, a “holding
environment consists of all of those ties that bind people together and enable them to maintain
their collective focus on what they are trying to do” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 155). I established
ties that bound us together, creating safety and structure as the foundations of our relationships
built on trust. The second finding will show how I was able to assist the student leaders to
deepen their understanding of shared governance by surfacing their perspectives, values, and
ideas around shared governance. I will conclude my findings section with my own growth.
Finding 1: Holding Environment
I promoted a holding environment in which I developed ties that bound us together,
developing safe conditions that enabled Roberto and Claudia to share their experiences and
perspectives. I used personal stories to develop these ties that bound us together. Through my
stories, I made myself vulnerable to Roberto and Claudia and invited them to do the same. I was
able to create an environment of safety and structure where my learners could rely and me and I
could rely on them. I will address each of these themes below. First, I will demonstrate how I
developed ties that bound us together, creating a safe environment for Roberto and Claudia, in
which they could share how they thought and what they felt. Then I will turn my attention to the
way that I leveraged this environment to focus on shared governance.
In this section, I will present my findings in relation to Roberto, followed by Claudia. As
I began my study, I already had a prior relationship with Roberto. As mentioned in the methods
section, my existing relationship with Roberto, was strong where he held me accountable, and
challenged me. In the beginning, Roberto was closed off about his personal life, but through the
use of my personal stories, I was able to get him to a place where he opened up and allowed

himself to be vulnerable. Over the course of the 12 weeks, I worked to deepen the holding
environment for Roberto by strengthening the ties that bound us together. I used personal stories
five times in our one-on-one meetings. In my conceptual framework, I defined a holding
environment as, “holding environment consists of all of those ties that bind people together and
enable them to maintain their collective focus on what they are trying to do” (Heifetz et al., 2009,
p. 155). Through sharing of my personal stories, I made myself vulnerable to create an
environment which was safe, and as an offering for Roberto to trust me and reciprocate the same
behavior. Through our one-on-one meetings, he shared information about his mental health and
later about how his father had an entire second family, that he was unaware about. Roberto
accepted my offering to build trust and strengthen the ties that bound us by reciprocating through
his own personal stories. For example, to accomplish this, during our first meeting I reminded
him of my personal story, as an offering of the continued trust and ties we had already been
building. His response to my invitations demonstrated the quality of the bond that existed at that
time.
Me: Ok, let’s get started. I think you remember, but I wanted to start off telling you
about me. As you know I have gone through my own family difficulties along the
way. My mom passed away young at the age of 34. Two years late my aunt
passed away. Then my dad got remarried. Him and my stepmom drank together a
lot. So, we had our ups and downs. In 2000, my dad passed away from a heart
attack. I have a brother named Martin, and we got through things together. I’m
now married with two kids, as you know.
R: Yes, I remember you shared some of that with me.
Me: How have you been? You took an extra week off after spring break.

R: Good to be back. Kind of like a sad thing, but it is what it is.
He mentioned having some financial concerns.
Me: Please let me know if I can help in any way. If you would like to come back to
work, I can see if I can find you something. I could talk to outreach.
R: Nah I’m good.
R: Claudia seems like she wants to get away too, because of home stuff. Sometimes
you need to get some space. That is why I would come to the office.
Me: Yeah, I get it. I also need my space. Especially with a with a wife, and two kids.
R: I know what you mean. Being in your regular environment can make you lazy.
That is why I took my break. It didn’t feel like enough time for myself. I was
contemplating resigning. Like the computer stuff. I never had time for myself.
Always something to do with ASG. Even with this extra week. I feel better, but it
felt like my entire time. I felt tired and annoyed. People would send me stuff and I
couldn’t sit at my desk without being bothered. I was exhausted. I uninstalled
social media for a week. I feel like I never have had my own time. I feel like I am
giving myself short. I was always involved even committee related. I need to get
away and get a break. They have shifted more to the ASG VP or constant
nagging. I don’t think I have given myself what I actually need. I end up helping.
Me: I can relate. I don’t often get a break. Why do you think you feel this way?
R: I have a hard time saying no. Christina (Staff) asked for help and I had to tell her
no. I feel bad. I don’t want.
Me: You have mentioned to me that sometimes you feel down and can even feel
depressed, are you speaking to anyone? Can I help in any way?

R: I am trying to get it through Kaiser. I want to do it once a week. I had a talk with
Alexa (ASG Senator) last year and she talked about seeing a therapist. She would
keep me updated. I want something consistent.
Me: Let me know if you need me to connect you with someone at the health center.
R: Yeah, I will.
Me: Since we know each other, if there anything else you want to share with me?
R: So, I was an only child until my dad told me I had a brother. Then I found out I
had three brother and three sisters. It came out of nowhere. My dad had a whole
second family. My dad’s wife found out. And it became an issue.
Me: That had to be difficult to handle. I’m sorry you had to go through that.
R: Yeah, it was strange. I’m close to my mom and I have my dog. I live with her.
Me: Anything else that I don’t know? (both of us laughed).
R: No that’s it for now.
In my interactions with Roberto, I began with “You know me,” establishing the ties that had
bonded us. I was reminding him of the connection that he had with me as a “normal person” who
he could trust, and he was safe to discuss anything. When I shared with Roberto that he knew
me, I was reminding him of the trust we had and our prior working history together, which are
both components of a successful holding environment (Heifetz et al., 2009). As I opened up
about my personal struggles and personal experiences of my mother passing, I was showing him
that I was vulnerable, and I was not afraid to share that with him. I intended to communicate that
was open, trusting of him, and present to be trusted. I expressed that my aunt passed away after
my mom, and my dad remarried, and they drank a lot to show his that I have experience
challenges, pain, and sadness. I also communicated that I understood pain, loss, and sadness and

I was available to support him in this safe environment we were creating together. When I spoke
of my father’s drinking, I shared something that was so personal, that showed my vulnerability
and an offering of safety and reliability. My intention was to establish that a sense that I was
sharing something so deep and potentially damaging because we were in this together. My
intention was to express I was there, I was available, and that he could rely on me. I spoke of my
brother, wife, and children, because I wanted him to know what I valued most and as an offering
for him to share what and who he valued most. Throughout our discussion, I intended to remind
him of the ties that bonded us together, and express that I was available, open, and ready to for us
to support each other.
Roberto accepted my offer and reciprocated by opened up to me and shared something I
had not known in the 2 years of our relationship. He spoke of his father having two families, and
having three brothers and three sisters. Prior to him sharing his experience, he had consistently
said he was an only child to his fellow student leaders and advisors. This demonstrated that he
was willing to share intimate details about his personal life. This indicated that we were to create
an environment of trust and developing ties that bound us together. A strong holding
environment consists of affection, trust, and comradery, which was evident Roberto opening up
to me (Heifetz et al., 2009).
The following week when I met with Roberto, there was evidence that indicated that I
was creating a holding environment and strengthening the ties that bound us together. I
anticipated that we would share in an exchange of personal stories that would allow us to
strengthen our relationship. The intention was to cultivate Roberto’s investment in approaching
his roles and responsibilities as the head of the organization.
Me: How’s it going?

R: Hurt my arm. Hit my desk. It is sore and swollen.
Me: I’m sorry to hear that.
R: Just seems like it is lasting forever.
Me: Talked about health issues had gone through.
Me: So, what’s been happening in your personal life? How’s your family? How’s your
mom doing with you transferring?
R: I spoke to my dad. I told him I got into Fullerton. I told him I got funding to go
and that I wanted to move out. He said we will take care of it. Since we are not
that close, it feels good.
Me: Gave him financial aid advice. Discussed the benefits and draw backs of loans.
How are you doing with transferring?
R: The idea of transferring. It is a very, I don’t want to say scary. I don’t know.
Me: Tell me more. How are things going?
R: Makes me kind of anxious, but I know it is going to work out.
By beginning the meeting by saying, “How’s it going?” in an informal manner, I demonstrated
the confidence I had in our relationship and the bonds that tied us together. I offered that I had
gone through some health issues of my own, as an offer of personal information that I was
entrusting with him, that I would not normally share with others. I was further indicating that we
had created a connection that was emotional, and psychological. Roberto’s response was with no
reticence that he hurt his arm. I followed up with “What’s been happening in your personal life?
How’s your family? How’s your mom doing with you transferring? This was a demonstration of
him continuing our reciprocation of sharing, caring for one another, and developing bonds that
connected us. I responded asking him how his mom was doing and he spoke of Mother’s Day

and how expensive flowers were. This further demonstrated that he was comfortable continuing
our previous conversations, and was sharing personal information, as well as financial concerns
he had. The relationship had developed into a back and forth of I share, and he shares back. He
responded that he reached out to his dad, that they weren’t close, that he asked for financial
support for college, and that his dad said he would support him. His response was personal, as he
spoke of his father, which he rarely did. He immediately responded that he spoke with his father.
This indicated that he accepted my offer to share, and reciprocity to share about his father, which
he had previously not done. This further demonstrated that we were strengthening the bonds that
tied us together through trust, care, and mutual sharing.
When I met with Roberto in week 4, there was evidence that indicated that we were
strengthening the ties that bound us even further. I continued to work on my personal
relationship with him and connecting it back to his personal life, and those important to him. My
intentions were to deepen trust and strengthen the ties that bound us. Week 4 demonstrated an
evolution of Roberto initiating the conversation about my family. This was evidence of the
strength in the bond that tied us together, acceptance of my previous offer to share, and a
reciprocation of him sharing back.
Me: Hello, how are you doing?
R: Good, how’s your family?
Me: Good, just spending as much time with the kids as they are growing up fast. How
is your mom?
R: She is good. Mother’s Day is tomorrow. I want to do something, but I don’t know
what to do.
Me: You should get your mom flowers

R: I don’t got that kind of money. That will cost over 50.
Me: Not if you go to trader joe’s or Ralphs. They always have roses on special. Like
10–15 bucks.
R: No way, I got to check that out.
Me: Don’t be lazy, go get your mom some flowers for Mother’s Day.
R: Yeah, I will.
Me: How are your classes going?
R: They are going well. Just trying to catch up on my homework.–He indicated that
he went to see the counselor at 10 a.m. Today was frustrating.
Me: What happened?
R: We were supposed to go to Korean BBQ. It’s so frustrating because people
flaked. (he explained the situation about how several people backed out at the last
minute).
Me: I am sorry you went through that. I can see how that would be frustrating. I
believe when you say you are going to do something you should. Your word is
your bond, and you can’t break it. Tell me about how your shared governance
meetings are going?
R: I am learning to speak up for myself. I am developing my confidence. I am
putting in my time.
Me: I have seen you develop in this role. You are gaining confidence. Do you feel like
you have found your voice and can advocate for students?
R: In College Council I have gained my confidence, but sometimes I use filler words
and go on a tangent and something I don’t stop.

Me: You are telling me! That happens to me all the time. I am currently working on
the servant leadership principle to listen. I am working on it. It is a work is
progress.
We both laughed.
Me: Something you could expand on in your shared governance meeting is using
persuasion, another principle of servant leadership. In order to persuade others,
you could explain your why. Tell your story of your why. Why are you in student
government. Why are the topics you discuss important. You could talk about
issues of equity, and injustice.
R: I try to connect it personally. It is not always the best thing. I don’t want to hog
the stage, but I feel nervous about consultation. I feel comfortable with other
governance committees.
Me: Why do you feel nervous in consultation?
R: It is the college President and Vice Presidents, which is kind of intimidating. I
other committees the terms used to confuse me. In the tech steering committee.
With more knowledge it is gets easier.
Me: Let me ask you a tough question, what can we do to make the shared governance
environment more comfortable for students?
R: In the Academic Senate meetings the chair introduced me. Having him actually
let me speak. It is not intimidating for me. There was discussions regarding AAPI
and fighting against hate. That makes a big difference. It is also good to know
who is responsible for what.

Me: In the past we have discussed providing the ASG leaders a list of all the contacts,
but then they bypass the ASG president and that is why we stopped giving them
the list. We ask them to go through president since you are the official
representative of the ASG. But I am realizing that I am playing into the
institutions controls of student leaders. Essentially, making sure things go through
me or the ASG president. I never really thought about it until now. Maybe that
perpetuates the inequity and allows those in power to stay in power.
R: I mean I get it, you don’t want any senator, just going to the direct contact and not
keeping the president and their advisors aware of what is going on. The hardest
thing is what is available to students. What is the homeless population. What
support services. Textbook–I don’t know. Now I know. I had to ask. Low income.
Maybe by providing us information and having it in our binder. How many
incidents happen. How many reports. How many computers, how old. If I had that
information, it would help me focus. Gives us the ability to go in a direction. Now
I know, because of my position is why I know.
Me: What about a presentations…at ASG meetings or a separate orientation? There is
definitely a gap in knowledge between the ASG President and Vice President and
the rest of the board.
R: There are times when we used to wait for you or the former president we were
useless. I would be nervous to ask someone. Currently the board members have to
depend on me or you or the other advisors.
I began the meeting by saying, “Hello, how are you?” in a casual manner, as if we were two
friends having a conversation. By doing so I demonstrated the confidence I had in our

relationship and the bonds that tied us together. Roberto unprompted responded with, “Good,
how’s your family.” This was indication that we had developed a holding pattern where without
provocation, he was reciprocating by asking questions about my family. This indicated strength
in the push and pull of our relationship. The foundation of our relationship was based on mutual
respect and caring for one another. This indicated that we were strengthening the bonds that tied
us together through trust, care, and mutual sharing. I then asked him about how his mom was
doing and he mentioned that it was Mother’s Day. I asked him if he was going to buy his mom
flowers with the intent to show that it is important to take care of those that are important to you.
Roberto indicated that “he didn’t have that kind of cash.” I gave him advice of where to go to
find inexpensive cost with the intention to show that you don’t have to spend lots of money to
take care of those around you. I was also intending to demonstrate, that I cared for him and those
that he valued.
In contrast to my relationship with Robert, I did not have a relationship with Claudia. As
mentioned in my methods section, our relationship was newly forming, and she was hesitant to
trust me when we first met. I used personal stories five times. By using personal stories over the
course of the 12 weeks, I was able to move her from being less emotionally and psychologically
available to discuss her role as a leader on ASG to a place where she was emotionally and
psychologically available and vulnerable. This set the stage for deepening her connection to
shared governance by surfacing her values, perspectives, and ideas.
I began these efforts in our very first meeting. I started the meeting by introducing myself
to Claudia, telling her stories about my personal life. Through the stories I told, I made myself
vulnerable to her with the intention of cultivating a sense of safety and extending the opportunity
for her to connect to me. By revealing personal information, I place my trust in her to keep my

stories between us, and not to expose extremely personal information. Through my personal
stories, I invited her to trust me. Her responses demonstrated that she was accepting my
invitation by sharing personal information about herself. This led to us establishing ties that
bound us together.
Me: So, I’m Alen. I was born in Glendale, CA. I have one brother named Martin. I
grew up and experienced loss at a very young age. My mom passed away from a
brain tumor when I was 8 years old. She was 34 and my aunt 2 years later at the
age of 32. My dad kind of lost it and got remarried and he and my stepmom
became alcoholics. I was always a nice kid, but I didn’t care about school. Went
through high school and then to college. Student government changed my life. I
went from being the least involved student to student body president. Got my AA,
BA, and then started working in education. Got married in 2008 to my wife Tenny
and we have a 7-year-old daughter named Ella and a 4-year-old boy named
Alexander. They are my life. I continued working and came to this college in
2014 and here I am. So now your turn.
C: I am a poli sci major and I think I just realized I want to work in education.
Me: Ok cool what else? Do you have any siblings?
C: No, I am an only child.
Me: Tell me about your family?
C: My dad is not in the picture. I live with my mom and stepdad.
Me: How’s that?
C: I really don’t get along with him.

She told me to stop looking at her. (Her tone suggested she was joking.) At the same
time, she was crying). I looked away for a while. She stopped crying and made eye
contact with me again. [OC: She seemed to be struggling to share what she was going
through.]
Me: So, tell me about your mom. She must be really proud of you.
C: She isn’t really impressed or expressive when it comes to what I do.
Me: What about you transferring?
C: No not really.
We transitioned our conversation back to our one-on-one conversation.
Me: How’s everything else going on?
C: The advisors need to make these connections with the ASG members earlier on.
Because I respected you but didn’t know you. And when you don’t know
someone, you don’t trust them. But now I trust you. Ughh did I just say I trusted
you?!
I began this exchange by saying, “I’m Alen,” using my first name and not my title as an
administrator at the college. In doing so, I was demonstrating that I did not expect her to interact
with me through our positions of administrator and student. Instead, I removed any hierarchy
language placed on me or my role. Using my first name was also a way for her to see me more as
a peer or another member of the college’s community. I was removing the authority structure to
create trust in me as an administrator, so that I was able to build the holding environment
(Heifetz et al., 2009). When I stated, “My mom passed away from a brain tumor,” I offered her a
window into my personal life and an experience that caused me grief. By sharing this
information, I gave her the opportunity to see me as a person, like her, who had an outside life

that made me human. Through my stories I shared that I had faced struggles in my life. Implied
in my statements that I had lost my parents, was that I had felt the pain of loss and was able to
relate to others who were in pain. When I said, “I have one brother named Martin... wife
Tenny...daughter Ella, son Alexander” I was introducing her to the people I valued most in my
life. By sharing what meant most to me, I was placing my trust in her. Through sharing my
perspectives and values, I was working to establish a holding environment (Heifetz et al., 2009).
The most difficult thing for me to share with Claudia was that I lived in a household plagued
with alcoholism. I stated, “My dad kind of lost it and got remarried and he and my stepmom
became alcoholics” I shared something embarrassing about myself, exposing what I believed to
be (or thought she might see as) a weakness and placing my trust in her. As a person in a position
of power, I shared intimate information about my family. I entrusted her with information that
was embarrassing and potentially damaging as an offer to her to receive and protect my truth to
elicit the same from her. Through the discussions of my wife and children, I was sharing that I
was a family man who cared deeply for those around me. I was extending to her that I was
reliable, dependable, trustworthy, and available to receive your truth when you are ready.
Through her responses and her sharing of personal information, we began creating the ties that
bound us.
Then I said, “Ok now your turn” inviting her to reciprocate sharing about herself. The
response I received from Claudia was guarded and she responded with brief, surface level
answers, “I’m a political science major and I just realized I want to work in education.” As she
responded, her tone was low, she was looking away from her camera, and matter of fact. As the
conversation progressed, she began to open up when I used probing questions. She spoke of her
father being absent in her life, and her relationship with her mother and stepfather. Claudia

seemed like she wanted to share, as she resistantly answered my questions. As she was overcome
with emotion and asked me to look away, and quickly became silent. Then she began crying, and
I transitioned to a general question asking, “So what else is going on?” She responded with,
“Because I respected you, but didn’t know you. And when you don’t know someone, you don’t
trust them. But now I trust you. Then joked “Ughh did I just say I trusted you?!” By sharing that
she trusted me, she indicated we were in the beginning stages of creating ties that bind us which
is one of the components of a holding environment (Heifetz et al., 2009).
Just one week later, there was an indication that the I was creating a holding environment
and developing ties that bound the Claudia and me together. In response to my invitation to share
how she was doing, she immediately shared personal information with me. After discussing her
priorities, she opened up about being accepted to UCLA, her mom and ruining the moment. I
shared about my struggles and support system in my own life. She then stated that she was
undocumented. Additionally, I offered her resources at UCLA as a continuation of support. At
the end of our interaction, she indicated that there was more that she wanted to share with me,
but that she was not ready.
Me: What about personally?
C: I got into UCLA. You found out. My mom has been weird about it.
Me: Sometimes parents just don’t know what to say or how to act. I went to college
because my dad told me to. I wasn’t a great student until later on in my life. I
never really got support other than the expectation of going to college, so I didn’t
have my mom around who helped me when I was younger. My dad valued
education, so I went to my local community college. Just try to be excited about
it.

C: Yeah, I know. I’m excited, but can’t I also be concerned with ruining the
moment?
Me: Why do you think you will ruin it?
C: I have concerns about being undocumented.
Me: Do you know Bianca Madro, she was in ASG and is now at UCLA. She was also
undocumented and has created an organization for undocumented students at
UCLA. Would you like me to introduce you to her.
C: Yeah, that would be cool.
C: I want to tell you.
Me: Tell me what?
C: I don’t know, I’m just not ready.
Me: Well, I am here to listen when you are.
When I asked Claudia, “What about personally,” I was extending the holding environment by
inviting her to share something from her outside of school life that would bind us together. Her
response, “I got into UCLA. You found out. My mom has been weird about it,” signaled that she
trusted me to be the keeper of information about her relationship with her mother. In her
statement, “you found out,” she was telling me that this was not news she was sharing. The
information that demonstrated trust was “My mom has been weird about it,” as that would be
something private from a person who previously had been very reticent about sharing anything
having to do with her personal life with me.
I opened up and shared my personal struggles with college. I shared that I was not a great
student and that it was due to my mom passing away had a negative impact on me. I mentioned
that parents, often times don’t know what to say or how to act. This de trust as I revealed

something personal, sensitive, and she could do the same. Through my words, my tone of voice,
and my impassioned facial expression, I displayed that I am still here, sharing, caring, and
reliable. She responded that she was worried because she was undocumented, which to my
knowledge she had never previously revealed to anyone in the organization. The ease and speed
at which she began sharing indicated that we were building strong bonds that were leading to an
environment where I trusted her, and she trusted me. The reciprocation of the Claudia sharing
personal information demonstrated the existence of trust, and an expectation that I won’t take
advantage of her and reveal her truth to others. The sharing of sensitive information connected
us. I chose not to probe any further, as I thought we were making genuine progress in developing
ties that were binding our relationship.
In week 4 when I met with the Claudia, I continued to extend the ties that bound the ASG
VP and me. The interaction below demonstrates the power of the holding environment that was
created. We briefly discussed some ASG work, her being accepted to UCLA and then
transitioned quickly to why her call from the previous week disconnected. She shared that she
was having issues with her mom, then expressed that liked meeting with me and liked opening
up. In expressing that I was there to support her and was signaling that she could trust me. I was
also indicating that I was there for her, and she could count on me. She immediately shared with
me detailed information about her being homeless, being undocumented, and the struggles she
faced. Her response suggested that she believed I was trustworthy, and I could be counted on.
She expressed that she trusted me and followed up with sharing something so personal, scary,
and difficult, which demonstrated that she believed she could trust me and that we had developed
strong ties that bound us through trust and relying on one another.
Me: What’s up?

C: Mentioned she was working on the Monarch project.
Me: That is great. The project seems to be coming along.
C: Yeah.
Me: How’s everything else going? Last week your internet went out and then it
seemed like you couldn’t talk.
C: I was fine. Having issues with my mom.
Me: I’m sorry to hear that.
C: I like meeting with you, I like being able to open up.
Me: I am glad to hear that. That is what I am here for. What do you want to talk about
today?
C: Transition to UCLA. I think I have committed. Not in love in love with any
college. I’m happy I got accepted. I have the feeling I don’t care. Am I going to
finish college. I am in denial about it all. 3.8.
Me: Why do you feel your internal voice go against the data. You have a 3.8 GPA.
Not many students do.
C: I wanted this but it kind just happened. Not a lot excites me. Nothing off the top
of my head.
Me: You should be proud of what you have accomplished. I am proud of you.
C: So, you know how me and Christina are BFFs she knows what is going on at
home, but we have been homeless since 2017. We haven’t had a place. We live
out of mom’s car.
Me: I had no idea. That must be very difficult.

C: On weekends I know I’m going to be ok. Can’t want anything. We are fine. Hotel
F-SU. During Covid went to friend’s house shower. Also, I am undocumented,
which makes everything even more difficult.
Me: I can only imagine how difficult that would be. It must be difficult during covid
and since you were not able to come onto campus. I am so sorry you are going
through this difficult time.
C: Yeah, it is. I have to leave many times and go pick up my mom. When I am on a
Zoom, people ask why are you in the car?
[Claudia was sad and in tears. Needed a moment.]
Me: Thank you for sharing this with me. I appreciate the trust and bond we have
created. You have been through many difficult times and have found a way to
succeed. You have overcome so many obstacles and had a 3.8, were accepted to
UCLA, were elected as ASG president, and did all that with all of your
challenges. Gave her support. I am so proud of you. I would hire you in a
heartbeat. You are a fighter and a winner. You go through so much before even
getting into class.
C: I just wanted to share that with you. I trust you and wanted you to know.
Me: I appreciate that trust and am here to support you. I will connect with Christina, to
see if there are other ways we can find to support you. You have a new
opportunity with UCLA. Stay positive and think about all of the great things
coming your way.
C: Yeah, I will. Thanks.
Me: I want to make sure to get you in touch with Beatriz.

C: Sounds good.
Me: We will talk again next week.
C: Bye.
By beginning the meeting by saying, “What’s up?” in a casual manner, I demonstrated the
confidence I had in the bond we had created and that she was connected to me psychologically
and emotionally. Her response that she was working on the Monarch Project, which she offered
immediately and with no reticence, indicated a reciprocity in our relationship. My second
question of “How’s everything else going? Last week your internet went out and then it seemed
like you couldn’t talk” and the seriousness of my tone, facial expressions, and directness,
indicated my empathy and the bonds we had created. Claudia responded with, “I was fine.
Having issues with my mom” continuing to share personal stories, further demonstrating the
strength of the bonds that tied us. She followed up with, “I like meeting with you, I like being
able to open up.” Her response validated the strength of our bond by her acknowledging the
value of our relationship. Her facial expression, and tone of voice and reciprocation of sharing
her personal feelings indicated that felt safe and comfortable to continue sharing about her
personal life. Then she said, “So, you know how me and Christina are BFFs she knows what is
going on at home, but we have been homeless since 2017. We haven’t had a place. We live out
of mom’s car.” Claudia continued to accept my offer to share and expand on sharing deep
personal stories, demonstrating her trust in our relationship. Her comments about being
homeless, living out of a car, and being undocumented, indicated that she trusted me to share
such private, intimate information. I responded with “I had no idea, that must be very difficult,”
demonstrating that I was unaware of this, was empathetic toward her. She continued to open up
saying, “On weekends I know I’m going to be ok. Can’t want anything. We are fine. Hotel F-SU.

During Covid went to friend’s house shower. Also, I am undocumented, which makes everything
even more difficult.” The continuation of her opening up and revealing sensitive, personal, and
potentially damaging information demonstrated that we had built trust. Furthermore, her
responses in length, detail, and without provocations demonstrated that she was comfortable,
safe, and built strong bonds. Claudia also said later in the meeting, “I just wanted to share that
with you. I trust you and wanted you to know” validating that we had established a holding
environment and developed ties that bound us together.
Finding 2: Developing a Deeper Connection to Shared Governance by Surfacing Values,
Perspectives, and Ideas
As the environment of safety and structure evolved through my use of personal stories,
and through creating ties “ties that [bound] us” it became a place where we could “surface and
discuss the particular values, perspectives and creative ideas” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 155) the
student leaders had as well as deepen their knowledge and commitment to shared governance.
Thus, over time, I reduced my reliance on personal stories and focused exclusively on shared
governance by providing learning opportunities in the form of professional development
workshops and one-on-one conversations. Over the course of 12 weeks, Roberto and Claudia
participated in three professional development workshops focused on shared governance and
leadership styles. Roberto attended 11 one-on-one meetings with me, and Claudia participated in
12. I simultaneously conducted a professional development workshop on shared governance and
best practices, had one on one meetings with Roberto and Claudia, and began setting the table so
that the student leaders would deepen their knowledge and commitment to shared governance.
Building on the relationship we had developed through the sharing of stories in weeks 2
and 3, I was able to transition into helping Roberto “surface and discuss [his] particular values,

perspectives and creative ideas” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 155) as it related to shared governance.
As a result, Roberto displayed growth in his development as a student leader. He shifted away
from being a student leader who was disengaged to someone who was engaged. This expression
of moving from being the outsider to a leader who is an insider, continued over the coming
weeks. He began advocating for others, and able to express his thoughts and concerns for the
student body.
As, the data previously showed, at the beginning of cycle 1 of my research, Roberto was
not engaged in shared governance referring to it as “boring.” In week 4 there was a clear
transition in his behavior. I began our one-on-one meeting by asking him about his family, then
transitioning to Mother’s Day, then classes, and then concentrated the remainder of the meeting
on Roberto’s perspectives, and ideas about his experience in shared governance. As a result of
the progress we made from our one-on-one meetings from week 2 to week 4, Roberto evolved as
a leader. He became more confident in himself as a leader and went from being a passive
participant in shared governance to becoming student leader. Additionally, he began to share
insights into what motivates him to be more engaged as a student leader and what makes him
anxious. Roberto shared his values, perspectives and creative ideas as it relates to his level of
engagement.
Me: Tell me about how your shared governance meeting are going?
R: I am learning to speak up for myself. I am developing my confidence. I am
putting in my time.
Me: I have seen you develop in this role. You are gaining confidence. Do you feel like
you have found your voice and can advocate for students?

R: In College Council I have gained my confidence, but sometimes I use filler words
and go on a tangent and something I don’t stop.
Me: You are telling me. That happens to me all the time. I am currently working on
the servant leadership principle, to listen. I am working on it. It is a work is
progress.
We both laughed.
Me: Something you could expand on in your shared governance meeting is using
persuasion, another principle of servant leadership. In order to persuade others,
you could explain your why. Tell your story of your why. Why are you in student
government. Why are the topics you discuss important. You could talk about
issues of equity, and injustice.
R: I try to connect it personally. It is not always the best thing. I don’t want to hog
the stage, but I feel nervous about consultation. I feel comfortable with other
governance committees.
Me: Why do you feel nervous in consultation?
R It is the president and vice presidents, which is kind of intimidating. I other
committees the terms used to confuse me. In the tech steering committee. With
more knowledge it is gets easier.
Me: Let me ask you a tough question, what can we do to make the shared governance
environment more comfortable for students?
R: In the Academic Senate meetings, the chair introduced me. Having him actually
let me speak. It is not intimidating for me. There was discussions regarding AAPI

and fighting against hate. That makes a big difference. It is also good to know
who is responsible for what.
Me: In the past we have discussed providing the ASG leaders a list of all the contacts,
but then they bypass the ASG president and that is why we stopped giving them
the list. We ask them to go through Roberto since you are the official
representative of the ASG. But I am realizing that I am playing into the
institutions controls of student leaders. Essentially, making sure things go through
me or the ASG president. I never really thought about it until now. Maybe that
perpetuates the inequity and allows those in power to stay in power.
R: I mean I get it, you don’t want any senator, just going to the direct contact and not
keeping the president and their advisors aware of what is going on. The hardest
thing is what is available to students. What is the homeless population. What
support services. Textbook– I don’t know. Now I know. I had to ask. Low
income. Maybe by providing us information and having it in our binder. How
many incidents happen. How many reports. How many computers, how old. If I
had that information, it would help me focus. Gives us the ability to go in a
direction. Now I know, because of my position is why I know.
Me: What about a presentations? At ASG meetings or a separate orientation. There is
definitely a gap in knowledge between the president and vp and the rest of the
team.
R: There are times when we used to wait for you or the former president we were
useless. I would be nervous to ask someone. Currently the board members have to
depend on me or you or the other advisors.

I began my one-on-one with Roberto speaking to him about personal matters, then transitioned
into a question about his experience in shared governance. I asked, “Tell me about how your
shared governance meetings are going? In my question, I was prompting him to “surface and
discuss” his experience in shared governance. The purpose was for Roberto to gain new
perspectives and focus on shared governance (Heifetz et al., 2009). Roberto responded with, “I
am learning to speak up for myself. I am developing my confidence, I am putting in my time.”
His comment indicated that he perceived himself to be making progress speaking up for himself
and being more confident. He also expressed that he was “putting in the time,” which implied
that to be a successful student leader in shared governance, one needed to put in the time.
Roberto shifted from disaffected as a student leader, going so far as to refer to shared governance
as “boring,” to realizing that his role and position mattered. He went from just going through the
motions to defining himself as a leader who advocated for others, rather than just a person
holding a title. As a result of our meetings, I was able to surface his values, perspectives, and
ideas.
By week 4, and with minimal probing, he shared what made him feel valued, included,
and supported as a leader. I responded with, “I have seen you develop in this role. You are
gaining confidence. Do you feel like you have found your voice and can advocate for students?”
My response expressed encouragement and support for Roberto. My follow up question elicited
Roberto’s perception of his ability to be an active participant on shared governance meetings.
Roberto responded with, “In College Council I have gained my confidence, but sometimes I use
filler words and go on a tangent and something I don’t stop.” His response indicated that not all
shared governances were created equal. He expressed that in College Council he felt confident,
implying that in other committees he felt nervous. He also mentioned that he was not able to

express himself fully and used “filler words.” I provided leadership perspective on how to speak
more effectively by sharing the following, “Something you could expand on in your shared
governance meeting is using persuasion, another principle of servant leadership. To persuade
others, you could explain your why. Tell your story of your why. Why are you in student
government. Why are the topics you discuss important. You could talk about issues of equity,
and injustice.” Roberto stated, “I try to connect it personally. It is not always the best thing. I
don’t want to hog the stage, but I feel nervous about consultation. I feel comfortable with other
governance committees,” which he was cautious about how personal of a connection he made on
the shared governance committees because he did not want to take up all of the time. Then
Roberto stated that he was most nervous in consultation, which is made up of the president and
three vice presidents. The tone in his voice indicated a clear power dynamic or differential
between him as a student leader and a team of executive leadership. I asked a probing question,
“Why do you feel nervous in consultation?” His response clearly validated that there was a
difference in perceived power while attending the meeting. He stated, “It is the College President
and Vice Presidents, which is kind of intimidating. On other committees the terms used to
confuse me. In the tech steering committee. With more knowledge it is gets easier.” Roberto
also expressed his perspective on the level of knowledge and preparation he had when initially
attending shared governance committee meetings. He finished his statement acknowledging that
the more knowledge you attain, the easier it will get as a student leader.
The conversation continued to progress, and I continued to work to surface his values,
perspectives, and ideas about shared governance. I asked him, “What can we do to make the
shared governance environment more comfortable for students?” Roberto responded with,

In the Academic Senate meetings, the chair introduced me. Having him actually let me
speak. It is not intimidating for me. There were discussions regarding AAPI and fighting
against hate. That makes a big difference. It is also good to know who is responsible for
what.
His response demonstrated that he valued being appreciated and acknowledged by the committee
chair. Also, his comment about “him actually letting me speak” indicated that student leaders
were often not included, and sidelined, and that there was a clear power difference between
college employees and students.
Following the discussion in our one-on-one meeting in week 4, Roberto became
increasingly active in the ASG meeting with his board members. Throughout the time we spent
together, I utilized the tool of surfacing his perspectives, values, and creative ideas about shared
governance. In the paragraphs above, Roberto referred to shared governance as “boring” and was
unengaged. Through my guidance and discussions, I drew out why he was nervous while
attending the meetings, and what would make him more comfortable. In week 4, when Roberto
gave his report at the ASG meeting he began to surface his own thoughts about the importance of
shared governance completely unprovoked. In doing so independently and without provocation,
it indicated that he internalized his perspectives, and responded with action, and urgency
revealing his engagement. Furthermore, after sharing his perspectives, values, and creative ideas
about shared governance in our one-on-one meeting in week 4, Roberto became vocal in the
ASG Board Meeting with his fellow student leaders. He began to hold the ASG Board members
more accountable for attending and reporting out on shared governance meetings. Roberto even
pleaded with the student leaders to fulfill their roles and to do their job to ensure they were
compensated with their stipends. His pleas for the students to participate demonstrates the

strategy I used to surface his own perspectives, values, and ideas, resulted in Roberto becoming
more engaged and advocating to student leaders about the importance of participating in shared
governance.
R: I want to discuss stipends–this is money you get for advocacy. When you go to
your shared governance meetings.
People who have been doing the work. Please make sure you do your part. If you
don’t know, reach out. It is your responsibility. Take the initiative. You still have
to get the job done. It is a lot of money. It is not fair. Please, please, please do
your job. I don’t want to not end up getting the stipend. Make sure you turn in
your stipend.
The training it was great. Probably the last time I compliment Alen. It was very
informative. This organization is not only about the student. At least make sure
you show up to. It means a lot to people. If you do have the chance, please make
sure you let us know if you are coming. It is about yourself growth.
If you need help, I am available. I am here to help. I don’t want you to say I am
not here.
Roberto, began with the comment, “I want to discuss stipends–this is money you get for
advocacy. When you go to your shared governance meetings.” His comments indicate a sense of
responsibility, and ownership of his role as an ASG leader. He was raising the importance of
shared governance the Board members’ consciousness and expressing the importance of
advocating for students, and his expectations as the ASG President. Roberto was naming his
values, perspectives, and ideas by indicating that he had internalized the importance of shared
governance and therefore engaging in something that he believed in. I continued to engage

Roberto in discussions that surfaced his values, perspectives, and ideas, and helped him focus on
shared governance (Heifetz et al., 2009). Additionally, he was incentivizing shared governance,
by saying “this is money that you for advocacy.” Through his actions, Roberto was
demonstrating that he had conceptualized his own perspectives without my assistance and this
reveals his investment in shared governance. Roberto was promoting the importance of shared
governance, which is in stark contrast to his previous passive presence when he stated that shared
governance was “boring.”
Then Roberto begins to hold his board members more accountable in the ASG Board
meeting when he stated,
People who have been doing the work. Please make sure you do your part. If you don’t
know, reach out. It is your responsibility. Take the initiative. You still have to get the job
done. It is a lot of money. It is not fair. Please, please, please do your job. I don’t want to
not end up getting the stipend. Make sure you turn in your stipend.
He displayed his perspectives on being a student leader and pleaded with his colleagues to “get
the job done.” Roberto was holding ASG leaders accountable and showing the importance of
being an active leader in shared governance. He stated, “do your job” which meant if you don’t
attend the shared governance meetings, don’t report out on the meetings, you won’t get paid. He
was asking for more accountability, and in turn holding himself more responsible to ensure his
board members were meeting their responsibilities. He stated, “some of you are doing the work”
which called out those who had been completing their responsibilities and acknowledged the
leaders who had not. Roberto reconfirmed his commitment to shared governance by offering
support by saying “I don’t want you to not end up getting your stipends.” He also followed up in
closing, “If you need help, I am available. I am here to help. I don’t want you to say I am not

here.” He was clearly stating that he was here to support them and would not be the cause of
them not fulfilling their responsibilities, and ultimately being compensated for advocating.
Additionally, he shared his perspective on the professional development trainings that I
was providing regarding leadership and shared governance when he said,
The training it was great. Probably the last time I compliment Alen. It was very
informative. This organization is not only about the student. At least make sure you show
up to. It means a lot to people. If you do have the chance, please make sure you let us
know if you are coming. It is about your self-growth.
Roberto publicly shared his perspectives and values, by stating that he thought they were “very
informative.” Also, he expressed the importance of “showing up” and that this was beneficial in
their development as a student leader. This clearly indicated that he valued participation in
shared governance and trainings that supported the development of student leaders to participate
in shared governance.
At the onset of our one-on-one meetings, Claudia was not invested in shared governance,
and by the end she was invested in shared governance. I worked to establish trust, which took
several weeks, by creating an environment of safety and structure that evolved through my use of
personal stories as previously described. The use of personal stories coincided with the
professional development opportunities. The relationship developed to a place where we could
“surface and discuss the particular values, perspectives, and creative ideas” (Heifetz et al., 2009,
p. 155) that the student leader had as well as deepen her knowledge and commitment to shared
governance. As time progressed, our relationship turned into a reciprocal relationship, where she
shared her personal issues with me, and I sought out her values, ideas, and perspectives on her

thoughts on my presentation on shared governance. Later the conversation focus shifted to her
perspectives around advocacy, and shared governance.
At the beginning of cycle 1 of my research, Claudia demonstrated that she was not
invested in shared governance describing it as “boring,” and she believed she already knew all
the information she needed to perform her responsibilities as the vice president. The combination
of personal stories, professional development trainings, discussing her personal issues, and our
reciprocal relationship where we were able to share honest feedback with one another, all
working in concert together, Claudia began sharing her values, perspectives and creative ideas on
shared governance. In our first meeting in cycle 1, after a professional development session, I
began to do things to surface values and perspectives to cultivate her investment in shared
governance.
Me: Well, I am happy to hear that. So, let’s discuss last week’s workshop. What did
you think?
C: It was boring. I already had learned most of that stuff before.
Me: Why was it boring?
C: Because it was not iterative, and you did most of the talking. Too much talking.
Me: I had a lot of content to share, but I need to get the ASG more involved. And that
I will be working on my listening skills.
After discussing her personal issues (“Well, I am happy to hear that.”), I transitioned the
conversation and said, “So let’s discuss last week’s workshop. What did you think?” which
served as an invitation for her to share her values, perspectives, and creative ideas. She
immediately provided guidance to me as an advisor by expressing, “It was boring. I already had
learned most of that stuff before.” Her response of “it was boring” was a demonstration of her

sharing her thoughts, perspective, creative ideas with me. Also, it was an indication that she was
comfortable, sharing her perspective and her values. This was also evidence of her willingness to
provide honest feedback and constructive criticism when she responded to my question. I
followed up with, “Why was it boring?” as an invitation for her to continue to share her
perspectives and values, all while structuring the conversation around shared governance
(Heifetz et al., 2009). Her comment indicated that she was able to be transparent and honest, but
it also showed a level of her being unengaged with my presentation, and less interested in the
topic of shared governance. When I asked why it was boring, she said, “Because it was not
iterative, and you did most of the talking. Too much talking.” Again, she provided me her
perspectives, and ideas of what I needed to do to develop a better presentation. My response back
was, “I had a lot of content to share, but I need to get the ASG more involved. And that I will be
working on my listening skills.” Implied in these comments was, I hear you, I trust you, and I
will take your values, ideas, and perspectives and develop from it.
By week 4 for there is evidence that Claudia shifted from a passive state to an active
state providing a report at the ASG Board meeting. Shared governance reports are a standing
item on the ASG board meetings; however, this week Claudia took the initiative to report out on
her involvement at the Tech Steering Committee. Prior to this week, she had not reported out on
her shared governance participation. Claudia began displaying engagement in shared governance
by providing a shared governance report at the ASG Board meeting and surfacing her values,
perspectives, and creative ideas about shared governance.
C: I have a report. Tech Steering Committee. What students think and see are needed
in classrooms. Survey so we get input from students. Give stipend. If you send the
questions, I can ask the Dean of Research to send out the survey.

By saying, I have a report, Claudia communicated her belief in the value of shared governance as
this was her first time actively taking a role in communicating to the ASG Board. When Claudia
then stated, “What students think and see are needed in the classroom” she was taking ownership
of her role as a student leader and her responsibility of representing her constitutes. Claudia also
said, “Surveys so we get input from students.“ By using the word “we,” she was taking an active
stance of representing her investment and perspectives on behalf of students. She shifted from a
passive and uninvested attendee at a meeting, to an active student leader who was a
representative of student perspectives.
The very next week, Claudia reported on another shared governance meeting she
attended. Similarly to the previous week, she provided these reports unprovoked, and selfinitiated. This was the second week in a row that Claudia took initiative to report on her
involvement on shared governance committees. She said, “Announcement, staff development
committee needs students for a committee to discuss returning to campus.” By providing this
report, Claudia was developing a pattern of reporting on her participation on shared governance,
indicating to the ASG Board that she valued shared governance. Additionally, her comments
indicated a sense of responsibility, accountability, and call to action that students were needed to
return to campus after the pandemic.
I did not make as much progress with Claudia to bring her to the point of embracing the
idea of socio-politically conscious leadership as articulated in my conceptual framework.
Specifically, I set out to introduce student leaders to different leadership approaches that would
help them advocate for students in more socio-politically conscious ways. While I was able to
successfully guide her from disengaged to engaged in shared governance—as demonstrated by
her willingness to provide reports at the ASG Board Meetings—I was unable to bring her further

along toward the long-term goal in my research question. Two obstacles contributed to our not
making more progress. The first obstacle was the way I introduced the concept of critically
conscious leadership. Near the conclusion of our meeting in week 7, Claudia expressed her
perspective on my third training and highlighted the increase engagement of the newer students.
I abruptly shifted the conversation to social justice, equity, and racism. The introduction of the
conversation was an attempt to introduce socio-political consciousness but fell short due to my
approach. The second was Claudia’s ability to mobilize to address systemic issues, because she
could only focus on her immediate needs.
In week 8, in my one-on-one meeting with Claudia, we started with a discussion about
the topic of social justice, where we had left off the previous week. Our discussion exposed the
weakness of my approach to cultivating her critical consciousness combined with the fact that
she had reached her threshold of what she could manage.
Me: Why did you shift away from social justice issues last time? [reference to Week 7
discussion]
C: I don’t think whatever answer I give you doesn’t seem like I thought.
Me: I trust you to tell me.
C: My situation is what changed my mind. Should I be thinking of others if I am
dealing with stuff. Social advocacy is a privilege. I can’t do it right now. How can
I care about other people when I don’t have a stable place to use the restroom.
Me: When you say privilege, you are talking about people having basic needs correct.
Not as in White privilege.
C: Yeah.

Me: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Basic needs. Explained the levels and the concept
was how do you advocate for others when you don’t have a place to live or food
to eat.
C: Yeah, exactly that.
When I stated, “Why did you shift away from social justice issues last time?” was a poorly set
structured way of shifting the conversation to social justice issues and not socio politically
conscious leadership. Her response, I don’t think whatever answer I give you doesn’t seem like I
thought,” demonstrated her reluctance to answer the question and that she was concerned that
she would disappoint me, no matter what her response. Implied in my response, “I trust you to
tell me” was that I wanted her experience and that I would not be disappointed. Claudia
responded with,
My situation is what changed my mind. Should I be thinking of others if I am dealing
with stuff. Social advocacy is a privilege. I can’t do it right now. How can I care about
other people when I don’t have a stable place to use the restroom.
Her comment of “my situation changed my mind” demonstrated she was at her capacity of where
she was able to go to. Her question, “Should I be thinking of others if I am dealing with stuff?”
showed that she was unable and unwilling to focus on others, due to her situation. Up until this
point I had pushed her, and she willingly challenged herself, but she had reached her limit this
time. I later stated, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Basic needs. Explained the levels and the
concept was how do you advocate for others when you don’t have a place to live or food to eat,”
clarifying that her position was that she was unable to progress to the level of advocating on
behalf of others because of the issues she was facing with homelessness, and food insecurity. Her
response of, “Yeah, exactly that.” further affirmed the realization that we had reached the limits

of what we were able to achieve. Additionally, the response could have been different if my
approach was less focused on fighting for others, but specific to her understanding of the bigger
concept of critically conscious leadership and how her situation is connected to a much larger
system problem in which she is also experiencing.
My Growth
In my conceptual framework, I set out to provide training to the ASG student leaders to
engage in shared governance and to become more socio politically conscious leaders.
Additionally, I argued that as a leader of the student leaders learning, I provided their trainings
from a student-centered perspective. The data indicates that I was more teacher centered rather
than student centered as I had intended. The information was often dense, and I viewed my
responsibility as the instructor who delivered the message to the student. Rodgers encourages
teachers to make students learning central, and that our own teaching is subordinate (Rodgers,
2002). My focus was on my responsibility of delivering the data and not on the student. I further
justified my actions by expressing to the student leader that there was a lot of information to get
through. The data will also show that I grew from being teacher centered to being student
centered in the way I delivered my training. My growth from being teacher centered to being
student centered was also mirrored in my one-on-one meetings with Roberto and Claudia. Over
the 12 weeks of meeting with Roberto and Claudia the same pattern of shifting from teacher
centered to student centered was consistent with my growth in providing training sessions for the
ASG Board members. Therefore, I will focus on the data below to show how I grew from being
teacher centered to student centered in the trainings I provided to the entire group of student
leaders to show my growth.

I conducted the first training on August 16, 2021, in Cycle 1, Week 1 via Zoom. The
training took place prior to my first one on one with Roberto and Claudia. I invited the entire of
12ASG Board members, however only 8 were available to attend. Additionally, I had two staff
members attend the training totaling 10 attendees. This training was not meant for only those
participating in my action research study. Claudia attended the training. Roberto was unable to
attend but watched the video recording. All the participants had their cameras off.
10:00am
Me: All right, give me one sec I don’t want to lose all of you. [OC: I was afraid they
might disconnect from the Zoom room]
Me: All right, here we go.
Me: I apologize for looking this way looks like I’m not paying attention to you, but it’s
because I’m looking at the screen that's I have two screens, so all right we’ll go
ahead and get started.
Me: So today we’re talking about best practices and shared governance for shared
governance and introduction to servant and adaptive leadership.
Me: What I wanted to just start off with I mentioned before we started the session. The
concept of a tool belt right what I'm trying to do for all of you is to create your
own tool belt.
Me: Um I like to do, construction, I like to do projects at home make things for my
kids create obstacle courses do all sorts of crazy stuff.
Me: And I like to if there’s a problem with something like the plumbing is messed up I
try to figure it out, I watch a YouTube video.

Me: I enjoyed doing stuff like that, and just up about maybe about 7, 8 years ago I
bought a tool belt which kind of sounds like a really old man thing to do, but I
realized the benefit of it, and so what you want, when you're going around and
you got your tool belt, you have to keep going back and getting different tools
right everything is there with you.
Me: And so, with a tool belt you put a screwdriver you put a hammer, you put nails
you put screws. You put a tape measure you put a level you do all these things
that are different tools that help you get your goal accomplished right, so if my
goal is to fix something let’s say my goal is to fix.
Me: I don’t know something let’s say the washer or dryer or something that belt that
came off well, I have my drill I have all these different tools and have them there
with me. And so, what I want you to have is all these different tools, and these are
some of the tools adaptive leadership servant leadership, these are tools that will
help you as a leader, as you navigate.
Me: Making change and advocating for the things that you desire as a student and as a
professional at when you move on. And so, I always say you know you can’t use
a hammer to solve a problem for every single problem right a hammer, is a direct
approach it's a strong approach right but imagine if you had a spot on the window,
would you clean the window with the hammer.
Me: Probably not right, because it would shatter and it would do too much damage, so
the key is knowing when to use what tool to get what it is that you desire. Okay,
so it’s a strategy, and so the strategy is a part of that, and so the more tools, you

have in your belt, the better you’re likely to be successful, and so you should
always seek always.
Me: You know, as I get older you, I have a friend of mine who I work with and he
says you’re the one person that I know that if you do something like 95% you
don’t say to yourself.
Me: Wow we did it at 95% you see what can we do to fix that 5% like, how do we get
closer to 100% he's like you’re never done learning.
Me: And you know what I’ll be done learning when I’m dead that’s just the way it is I
this the way I’m wired and I want you guys to try and continuously improve all
the things that you want to do and in order to do that, you got to have different
tools so. All right, we’ll go ahead and move on, let me make sure this is going
from there, we go is there is there a portion of the screen that you guys can’t see
on I know it is never mind sorry give me one second. Yeah, it's because I moved
you guys um so that I can still see you guys on to my other screen and it was
covering off the screen all right.
Me: So, we’ll start off with shared governance. Strong some ideas, what do you know
about shared governance there’s no wrong there may be wrong answers, but at the
end of day we’re not judging people, for it was shared governance what's the
purpose of it, why do we have it?
P: Like literally just to see how things clues like I thought it was just like. Multiple
systems within a system sharing.
10:07

At the onset of this training, I was very teacher centered focused on delivering the information,
not giving the students and opportunity to participate, and by talking at them. Although I was
covering the data, I was not present to the students (Rodgers, 2002). The above data shows over
7 ½ minutes of uninterrupted excerpts of my presentation to the ASG Board members without
engaging the student leaders with a single question. Not only was I not providing the students the
breath to participate and ask questions, I also threw out concepts such as servant and adaptive
leadership which were never introduced prior. I was speeding through the content, which was
dense and unfamiliar, not paying attention to where the students were. The evidence shows my
teacher centered approach where I went through the PowerPoint slides one at a time and did not
engage my students. I was entirely focused on delivering the content rather than engaging them
as learners.
Based on my conceptual framework, I began my research with the intention of being
student centered, however my first training was teacher centered. By my third training in Week
8, I grew as a teacher and became a student-centered teacher. My focus was to be inclusive of
students, ask questions, and create a discussion. The data will show that my approach was move
inclusive from the onset of the training, incorporated questions, and welcomed involvement from
the student leaders.
The third training was conducted on May 21, 2021, on Zoom at 10 a.m. There were 12
ASG Board members and 2 staff members present. Both Roberto and Claudia were in attendance
with their cameras on.
Me: All right, well, thank you all for coming today and we're like I said we’re talking
about adaptive leadership and utilizing adaptive leadership and shared
governance, just to kind of recap, what is shared governance?

Me: Does anybody remember? You guys should be experts at this so I'm hoping that
this should be an easy answer that people can come up with. What is shared
governance?
Me: Really?
C: You gave a better definition, but I can give example of it. Our committees we are
on. So shared governance or the committee's that you're a part of that you
advocate for students, you have most committees, you have a vote. And you
represent, this is the students’ perspective in that vote.
Above, the data shows that I engaged students in a collaborative manner from the onset
of the training session indicating that I had leaders to be student centered by involving the
student leaders in the discussion. In my third training I slowed down as a teacher to allow for
participation and dialog (Rodgers, 2002). This is evidence of my growth to be a student-centered
teacher by me involving students in the presentation by asking questions. Through discussion
and discourse students were able to express their thoughts and ideologies, allowing for the proper
transfer or knowledge (Rodgers, 2002). Later in the training I created breakout sessions
providing the students the opportunity to work together and be active participants in the
training. My continued growth in being a student-centered teacher is imperative as a evolve in
my career as an educator.
Afterword
When I began the EdD at Rossier, I was the Dean of Student Services at my institution.
In that role, I was also ASG Advisor. When I began my action research cycles for my
dissertation, I was fluctuating between the roles of Dean of Student Services and Acting Vice
President of Student Services, while continuing to maintain the responsibilities as ASG Advisor.

In May of 2023, I became the permanent Vice President of Student Services. I relinquished my
responsibilities as the ASG Advisor at about the same time I assumed the permanent position.
However, I still frequently met and collaborated with ASG student leaders to support them as
they advocated for students. In this final section, I will discuss my current standing in my
practice since leaving the field. Additionally, I will reference lessons learned from data analysis
and writing and share my retrospective takeaways.
Current Standing
After I left the field in 2021, I engaged in data analysis that revealed to me how I could
be a better advisor as described in my growth section. I consciously tried to transfer what I
learned, which was slowing things down in my one-on-one meetings with the ASG board
members. Additionally, as a result of my analysis of the one-on-one meetings with Roberto and
Claudia, I created best practices for ASG student leaders as well as shared governance committee
chairs in supporting student leaders to participate in shared governance. Also, because of my
analysis, I updated the annual ASG new student orientation training to include these best
practices. Additionally, all the subsequent trainings that I have provided to student leaders since
leaving the field in the form of retreats and workshops I have been focused on being more
student centered. I structured my discussions differently when speaking to students. I ensured
that I didn’t speed through the curriculum, just to get through the material (Rodgers, 2002).
Based on the data analysis and my writing, I began listening more when supporting students in
our special programs including Umoja, and the Dream Resource Center students, as well as in
the shared governance meetings I either chaired or participated in. I ensured that I was student
focused rather than teacher centered. I deliberately slowed down the meetings to make sure

students were not being talked to but included in the conversations and were sharing their
perspectives.
In reflecting on some retrospective takeaways from conducting my action research I was
able to identify that the large majority of the faculty, staff, and administration are satisfied with
the students’ level of participation and advocacy on shared governance. There is no active effort
or concerns that have been identified in how we support student leaders to become sociopolitically conscious. From my perspective, I believe there is no urgency or desire to slow down
the process, educate or orient the students serving on committees, or to make them feel included.
Although I will be leaving my institution to take a lateral position at nearby community college, I
will empower the Dean of Student Life to have continued training for faculty, staff, and
administrators on best practices to support students on shared governance
meetings. Additionally, I will work with the student government advisor to make sure there is
ongoing training for faculty, staff, and administrators on shared governance best practices.
Lessons Learned
This dissertation will continue to influence my growth, as I transition into my new Vice
President of Student Services at a different community college. For most of my career, I have
been one of the few college leaders who have encouraged student leaders to actively participate
in shared governance meetings. Consistently, I have viewed employees who move the agenda
along to keep the meeting going. As a result of observing colleagues more focused with progress
and less concerned with student leaders participating on committees, I developed the previously
mentioned best practices for shared governance involvement, and am currently working with the
Academic Senate President to provide training for faculty. In the role of Vice President, I have
the ability and the responsibility to steer the direction of conversations with faculty, staff, and

administrators to focus on my goals. I had planned on providing additional training to the
management team on how to enable and empower student leaders to actively participate on
shared governance committee, which I will entrust the Dean to continue. The best practices
include the chair should meet with student leaders prior to the first meeting, provide them with
context as to what the committee’s purpose is, what the standing items are, and make sure the
student feels valued and supported on the committee. Often, student leaders change on
committees. Therefore, I have made it a standing practice on any committees I chair that have
student participants to reintroduce each member every meeting I have asked the committee
members of the Student Services Council to continue this practice once I am gone. Additionally,
I also asked my deans and other student services employees on the committee to continue to fully
explain the concepts they are discussion and how it relates to the students. I am concerned that
we are farther away from students becoming socio-politically conscious leaders than I
anticipated when I began my research. Student leaders are often intimidated and are reluctant to
participate on shared governance committees. Additionally, I believe it is quite possible that the
student government advisor will not have the expertise to support students to be socio-politically
conscious leaders. I have addressed these concerns with the Dean of Student Life that there is a
need to find professionals who can provide training at the onset of the student leaders term for
them to gain the knowledge they need to enact social change. Finally, I have restructured the
responsibilities of the Dean of Student Services position to include the Race, Equity, and Social
Justice (RESJ) Center. Although restructuring these responsibilities to focus on these equity
programs is imperative, I have worked closely with the Dean to support him by sharing
knowledge and building skills. I will share my findings from my research and data analysis with
the Dean and express why this is important to me. I have encouraged the dean to continue this

work and support ASG student leaders in developing socio-political consciousness in future
trainings and include these components as a part of the department’s program review process and
in the goals section of the Dean’s evaluation. The work will also continue with the Dean in his
support of the affinity programs including UMOJA, Dream Resource Center, LGBTQIA+, Break
It To Make It (BITMI, Formerly Incarcerated Students). Through the creation of the RESJ
Center and the empowerment of other student leaders, the Dean and I have encouraged cross
collaboration, and recruitment of student leaders from the affinity groups into the ASG. Where
limited in our knowledge, the dean can leverage Student Equity and Achievement (SEA)
funding, to bring in subject matter experts to provide trains to our ASG leaders and to our
affinity groups.
As I continue to evolve as an educator in higher education, and due to the void of not
being in a doctoral program, I will need to continue to read literature to grow. Much of the
literature that I have read in my life was a result of being enrolled in graduate work, and I have
not read to improve my craft. I am commited to continuing to read higher education literature as
a way of supplementing my practical experiences I am encountering in my say to day role as a
vice president. I will seek out other professionals within my network to ask for feedback
regarding literature they have read that inspires them. The combination of working in the field of
higher education combined with a commitment to reading literature will allow me to
continuously grow as a teacher and learner.

References
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. The
College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
Divakalala C., & Bal V. (2024). Decolonizing socio-political consciousness’: Second-generation
LGBTQIA+ South Asian experiences of finding the self and community in Aotearoa New
Zealand. Routledge Publications.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.).
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (2016). Reframing leadership. In Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice and leadership (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
California Community College Chancellor's Office. (2024) Key Facts
https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Key-Facts
California Community College Chancellor's Office. (2021–2022). Student Success Metrics
https://www.calpassplus.org/LaunchBoard/Student-Success-Metrics
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). Sage
Publications.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 
developing ground theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. 
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.

Frick, F. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. In Robert K. Greenleaf.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. Sage Publications.
Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Keith, M. (2015). The case for servant-leadership (2nd ed.). Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership.
Kezar, A. K., & Holcombe, E. M. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education: Important
lessons from research and practice. American Council on Education.
Larrivee, B. (2014). Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives.
Routledge Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McClellan, J. (2009). Research-based models of servant-leadership: A review of literature. The
International Journal of Servant Leadership, 5(1), 163–184. 
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Introduction. Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage
Publications.
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring
leaders. The Spears Center.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines my leadership as the Associated Student Government Advisor in activating student leaders to engage in student government, with my long-term goal of empowering students to be socio-politically conscious leaders. In this qualitative action research study, I utilized Heifetz et al.’s (2009) concept of a “holding environment” to create trust with student leaders using personal stories to create the “ties that bind [us] together” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 155). My research question, How, if at all, do my actions as an advisor of the Associated Student Government (ASG) foster student leaders’ socio-political consciousness and prepare them to be active/engaged participants in the shared governance structure? With observations, jottings, personal reflections, and (critical) self-reflections, I found that I was able to move the student leaders from a place of disengaged in shared governance to engaged in shared governance. I think I was able to assist the student leaders to model the behavior of reporting out on shared governance meetings in ASG meeting, encouraging their fellow members to attend shared governance meetings, and provide me with their perspectives on what supports them to be successful in shared governance and what does not. While I raised their consciousness to varying degrees regarding the role they might play in addressing the systemic challenges facing community college students, I was not able to cultivate socio-political consciousness. Although I discussed issues about systemic racism, hegemony, historically entrenched inequities, I was limited in my ability to teach students on these issues. As I work toward this long-term goal, I will need to consider bringing in additional support in this area.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Uncovering dominant ideology: an action research project aimed to uncover dominant ideology to enact culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom

PDF

Coaching to transform: an action research study on utilizing critical reflection to enact change towards incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to deepen students' socio-political consciousness: an action research project

PDF

Changing the story: an action research study on utilizing culturally relevant pedagogical practice to enact a movement toward liberatory curriculum and instruction

PDF

Anti-racist adaptive leadership: an action research study on supporting principals in predominantly white schools to develop color consciousness and support future anti-racist practices

PDF

Critically reflective dialogue: an action research study on increasing the critical consciousness of ethnic studies teachers

PDF

Challenging dominant ideologies through sociopolitical discourse: an action research study on creating change as a history teacher

PDF

Towards ideological clarity: an action research project on the role of a teacher in unearthing unconscious bias to embrace culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Proactive advising and serving as an institutional agent: how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students navigating college

PDF

Instructional coaching: disrupting traditional math practices through inquiry and action research

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

Cultivating a community of practice: an action research study on cultivating a community of practice that engages in trauma-informed dialogue and critical reflection

PDF

Women of color administrators in mid-level management at predominantly White institutions and their leadership aspirations

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Transformative learning: action research disrupting the status quo in literature in classrooms

PDF

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

PDF

Community college leadership for student success

Asset Metadata

Creator Andriassian, Alen Robert (author)

Core Title Activating student engagement in shared governance

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 07/11/2024

Defense Date 06/18/2024

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

Tag holding environment,OAI-PMH Harvest,participatory governance,shared governance,student engagement,student government,ties that bind

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Samkian, Artineh (committee member), Tarrant, Kaneesha (committee member)

Creator Email aandrias@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113997L9W

Unique identifier UC113997L9W

Identifier etd-Andriassia-13197.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Andriassia-13197

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Andriassian, Alen Robert

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240712-usctheses-batch-1179 (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