University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

(USC Thesis Other)

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Transforming the Leadership Table:
A Critical Narrative Study of the Underrepresentation of Chicana/os in Higher Education
Leadership Roles
by
Sergio Saenz

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
In partial fulfillment to the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

Copyright by Sergio Saenz 2022
All rights reserved

The Committee for Sergio Saenz certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Briana Hinga
Courtney Malloy
Kathy Stowe, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
The issue that this study addresses is the lack of Chicana/os in higher education leadership
positions. In response to this issue the purpose of the study is to understand the experiences and
draw perspectives from successful non-faculty Chicana/o higher education leaders to identify the
individual, cultural, organizational, and environmental influences that may inhibit or facilitate
the transition of Chicana/os to leadership roles. This qualitative critical narrative study conducted
interviews with 11 Chicana/os in administrative leadership roles. Findings determined that
individual, workplace, and systemic influences positively and negatively influence Chicana/o
professional advancement. These influences include community cultural wealth, personal
growth, workplace environments, hiring, and institutional discrimination. Taken together, the
findings and recommendations of this study provide valuable contributions to the body of
knowledge addressing the lack of inclusion of Chicana/os in postsecondary leadership roles,
assist aspiring Chicana/os seeking leadership, and help educate entities seeking to create college
university leadership spaces that are more inclusive of Chicana/os.
Keywords: higher education, leadership, Chicana/o, underrepresentation, community
cultural wealth, professional development, hiring

v

Dedication
To my wife Elsa, this milestone is as much yours as it is mine. None of this is possible without
your encouragement, support, selflessness, and love. To my daughters Shyh and Alicia, your
fearlessness and spirit inspire me to be better. Your futures are limitless, and I am so proud to be
your Dad!
To my parents Mercedes and Alfonso, my efforts are in honor of your sacrifices and the life you
gave us.
To the Chicana/os on whose shoulders I stand, I hope to honor your contributions y seguir en la
lucha!

vi

Acknowledgments
This study has its origins in the continuing struggle and self-determination of Chicana/os
to have an equitable place in our educational institutions and society at large. This study gives
voice to leaders who have persevered and opened doors in the past and ideally hope to those
committed to carrying the torch of leadership in the future.
Thank you to my dissertation committee who ran alongside me as I ascended, descended,
veered and found my footing in this doctoral gauntlet!! Dr. Stowe, thank you for your patience,
guidance, and refusing to entertain my feelings of imposterism! Dr. Malloy, you provided clarity
in moments of uncertainty, and translated the “dissertation instruction manual” in a way that left
me hopeful and with direction. Dr. Hinga the moment I took your class I knew you needed to be
on my team. Your teachings, equity lens, and support for my topic helped make this study a
reality.
I do not make it to the finish line without my faithful crew of Linh Nguyen, Andre
Burrell and Lizzy Moore. I cannot thank you all enough as we commiserated, cooperated, and
celebrated the ups and downs of our journey together. I will always be thankful to you all!!

Fight On!!

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Organization Context and Mission ..................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 7
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 9
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 10
Chicana/o .............................................................................................................. 10
LatinX ................................................................................................................... 11
Hispanic ................................................................................................................ 11
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................... 11
Community Cultural Wealth ................................................................................. 11
Diversity ................................................................................................................ 11
Inclusion ................................................................................................................ 11
Equity .................................................................................................................... 12
Higher Education Leader ...................................................................................... 12
Microaggressions .................................................................................................. 12
Glass Ceiling ......................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 12

viii

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 14
Systemic Influences on the Advancement of Chicana/os to Leadership .......................... 14
Hiring Practices ..................................................................................................... 15
Leadership Development Programs ...................................................................... 24
Workplace Influences on the Advancement of Chicana/os in Higher Education
Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 26
Disparate Treatment of Chicana/os in Higher Education Leadership .................. 27
Mentorship ............................................................................................................ 32
Individual Influences on the Advancement of Chicana/os in Leadership ........................ 35
Self-Efficacy in Leadership Development and Advancement .............................. 35
Educational and Professional Preparation of Higher Education Leaders ............. 38
Community Cultural Wealth: Chicana/o Culture in Leadership Development and
Practice .............................................................................................................................. 42
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 46
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 50
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 50
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 50
Research question ............................................................................................................. 51
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 51
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 52
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 52
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 53
Interviews .............................................................................................................. 53
Document Analysis ............................................................................................... 53
Participants ............................................................................................................ 54

ix

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 55
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 56
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 56
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 57
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 57
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 59
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 59
Findings............................................................................................................................. 63
Research Question 1: What Are the Perceived Influences in Chicana/os
Higher Education Leaders’ Distal Organizational Environment That
Support or Hinder Their Professional Development? ........................................... 63
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceived Influences in Chicana/os
Higher Education Leaders’ Immediate Organizational Environment That
Support or Hinder Their Professional Advancement? .......................................... 75
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 101
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 103
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 104
Individual Influences: Chicana/o Community Cultural Wealth and
Personal Growth as Tools for Advancement ...................................................... 104
Workplace Influences: Advancement Culture and Colleagues .......................... 107
Systemic Influences: Gatekeeping Hiring Practices ........................................... 109
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 110
Recommendation 1: Cracking the Hidden Curriculum: Community
Cultural Wealth and Personal Growth to Unlock Opportunities ........................ 111
Recommendation 2: The Workplace as Catalyst for Advancement ................... 112
Recommendation 3: Hiring: Systemwide Messaging, Actions, and
Accountability ..................................................................................................... 114
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 116

x

Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 118
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 119
References ................................................................................................................................... 122
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 136

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Research Questions and Data Collection Method .......................................................... 51
Table 2: Participant Demographics .............................................................................................. 60

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 48
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
As the matriculation of educationally marginalized students continues to grow in our
colleges and universities, new leadership is needed that reflects the diversity and experiences of
the changing demographics. Achieving and growing ethnic inclusivity in university leadership
roles has been a challenge (Campbell, 2018). Nationally, ethnic minorities comprised only 19%
of university cabinet and executive roles (Snyder et al., 2019). Similarly, Gasman et al. (2015)
found that 20% of deans were minorities across all Ivy League institutions, and Whites filled the
roles of president, vice president, and provost. The topic of increasing university leadership
diversity requires attention as Latino postsecondary enrollments are projected to grow 23%
between 2012–2023 (Hussar & Bailey, 2016). Inaction on this issue could lead to a more
significant racial and ethnic imbalance of representation between students and campus leadership
and cause an employee talent loss of leaders of color that can make universities more welcoming
and understanding of students of color (Gündemir et al., 2017; Kwon, 2018; Muñoz, 2009).
A more in-depth look at the Chicana/o leadership experience is necessary given projected
enrollment growth. In 2017, Hispanic students made up 36% of national college enrollments
ages 18–24 and 41% of California college enrollments (Snyder et al., NCES 2019). In contrast, a
disparity in leadership representation exists in California and nationally. For example, 5% of
full-time faculty members and 10.4% of educational administrators were Hispanic (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2016; Snyder et al., 2019). Hispanics are the largest population in California at
39.4% and constitute between 18%–22% of students in the Golden State University (GSU, a
pseudonym) system. However, only approximately 5–7% of faculty were Chicana/os, and only
8%–10% of senior administrators were Chicana/os
1
(Santos & Acevedo, 2013). Chicana/os in

1
Citations to the study site’s website or resources have been removed to protect the study site’s anonymity.
2

leadership can bring experiential knowledge and new approaches to improve advising,
mentorship, and retention for increasingly diverse student populations (Santos & Acevedo-Gil,
2013). The study explored the perspectives of successful Chicana/o higher education leaders
from the GSU system to uncover barriers and recommended strategies to increase Chicana/os
representation in GSU leadership roles.
The researcher identified ethnically as Chicano and uses the term to identify the focus
population instead of Latinx. The term Chicana/o was more appropriate as it encompasses the
multiple dynamics of the researcher and an identity with native ties to North America, and a
pride in the history, culture, and contributions of Chicanos in the social context of the United
States (Gómez-Quiñones & Vásquez, 2014). The term LatinX while widely used in academia
when referring to people who are of or relate to Latin American origin or descent, LatinX is only
used as an identifier by 3% of Hispanics (Noe-Bustamante et al., 2020). The term Latinx sought
to create inclusivity by removing gender references from ethnic identifiers to be more welcoming
to non-binary individuals. Nevertheless, in the process, there may be a loss of the specific racial,
national, ethnic, and history of the many specific groups within the Latino diaspora (de Onís,
2021). Bustamante et al. (2020) found in a national survey of Hispanic adults that many
participants viewed the term LatinX as an “anglicism” and a form of linguistic imperialism on
the Spanish language. For this reason, the a/o at the end of Chicana/o is used rather than an X.
Lastly, the ethnic identifiers Chicana/o, Hispanic, and Latino were used interchangeably to be in
accordance with how authors used the ethnic identifiers in their studies.
Context and Background of the Problem
A review of literature on Chicana/os in higher educational leadership revealed a limited
body of work over the last half-century, creating a gap in the literature (de los Santos Jr & Vega,
3

2008; Haro, 1995; Haro & Lara, 2003; Leon & Martinez, 2013; Rodriguez et al., 2016). Title VII
of the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate in employment, hiring, firing,
compensation, or treatment based on the five protected classes of race, sex, color, religion, or
sex. Additionally, the 1972 Equal Employment Occupation Act expanded protections to
educational institutions. Both pieces of legislation served as early efforts to create greater access
and diversity in employment settings and combat the underrepresentation of minorities (Hersch
& Shinall, 2015). Soon after the passage of the Federal Rights and Equal Employment
Occupation Acts, researchers began to address the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in
university leadership.
Despite the limited research on Chicana/os in university leadership positions, the issue
started to receive attention in the 1970s. Research by Esquibel (1977; 1992) as well as Valverde
(1988) and Fields (1988), focused on drawing attention to the growing college enrollments of
Chicana/o students, particularly in the southwest, and the dearth of administrator roles that were
Chicana/o. Conversely, Haro (1988) researched campus leadership selection to understand why
Chicana/os in leadership did not keep pace with diversifying enrollments. Haro also documented
that Chicana/os were held to a different standard in the hiring process (Haro, 1995). Research in
the 1970s first examined the topic of Chicana/o representation in university leadership.
Subsequent scholarship in the 21st century took research in new directions.
In the early 21st century, research on Chicana/Chicano university leadership
representation, while still scant, became more diverse, in-depth, and robust in scope. Santos and
Vega in 2008 conducted a national-scale study on Hispanic presidents and chancellors in higher
education. Similarly, in 2017 the American College President study found in a national survey of
1,546 college presidents that Hispanics comprise only 3.9% of college presidents (Gagliardi et
4

al., 2016). Projections showed that postsecondary enrollment of students of color will increase to
44% by 2024, thus, increasing the need for more Chicana/os to advance into university
leadership (Hussar & Bailey, 2016). Chicana/os in university leadership was examined at a
systemic level by Santos and Acevedo-Gil’s (2013) analysis of Latina/o faculty and
administrators in the UC and CSU systems and Contreras’s (2017) study of the California
Community College System and the CSU system. In a meta-analysis of the causes of low
numbers of Chicana/os in positions of power in higher education, Garcia (2007) identified a
multipronged set of recommendations based on establishing and exerting a sustained continual
“use of power and pressure” (p. 159) of the Chicana/o staff, faculty, students, and surrounding
Chicana/o campus community on campus administrations to build ongoing development and
inclusion of Chicana/os in leadership.
Moreover, beginning in 2009, studies documenting the gendered experiences of Chicanas
in leadership emerged (Montas-Hunter, 2012; Munoz, 2009; Suarez-McCrink, 2011;Wallace et
al., 2014). In the last 20 years, there was a growth in the number and types of studies addressing
the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in university leadership. It was also worth examining
research on other communities of color that are underrepresented in university leadership and
that may have had shared experiences.
Research reflecting the experiences of people of color in educational leadership was
marginal but has provided different perspectives (Ospina & Foldy, 2009). Specifically, Flowers
and Moore (2008) and Wolfe and Dillworth (2015) addressed the composition and history of
African American representation of faculty and staff in executive roles while also exposing
barriers to and recommendations for increasing inclusion of underrepresented groups. Qualitative
studies explored the lived experiences of African American men (Turner & Grauerholz, 2020) as
5

well as the gendered perspective of African American women (Davis & Maldonado, 2015) as
higher education administrators in the areas of career development, resilience, and racism
(Campbell, 2018; Gardner and Barrett, 2014). Research on various diverse groups and women
and their experiences in leadership spaces has helped to better understand the
underrepresentation of Chicana/os in these spaces. Quantitative research, in addition to research
in other fields, aided in creating a better understanding of the scope of the problem of Chicana/o
leadership participation.
Various research approaches and disciplines have focused attention on university
leadership diversity from different angles. Quantitative reports by federal offices, educational
agencies, and associations provided national statistics and biographical characteristics of leaders
such as the American College President Study (Gagliardi et al., 2017) and the Pay and
Representation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities Higher Education Report (Bichsel & McChesney,
2017). Furthermore, many studies examined the concepts of barriers and backlash to inclusion
efforts in diversifying higher education settings in the attempt to diversify leadership spaces
(Brannon et al., 2018; Cook & Glass, 2013; Gasman et al., 2015; Gundemir, 2017; Wolfe &
Freeman, 2013). A segment of research focused on the benefits of leadership and organizational
diversity (Chun & Evans, 2011; Coleman, 2012; Fincher et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 2008),
including approaches and strategies to bring about organizational diversity in faculty or
university leadership (Chang et al., 2014; Fradella, 2018; Gasman et al., 2011; Perrakis et al.,
2009).
Organization Context and Mission
Golden State University (GSU) has a long-established history as a premier publicly
funded university system. GSU serves over 200,000 students annually at multiple campus sites in
6

the United States. GSU provides professional school programs in medicine, law, dentistry,
nursing, and pharmacy. The GSU Board and Academic Senate govern the GSU system. At the
state level, the GSU Board oversees university policy, finances, and tuition. Similarly, the
academic senate, with powers endowed by the GSU Board, oversees academic policy and
approval of courses, admissions, certificates, and degrees.
The GSU mission is to provide public service as a center of higher learning that creates
knowledge and advancements that provide long-term benefits to society. Its more fundamental
obligations and mission are “teaching, research, and public service.” A core value of GSU is to
“embrace diversity in all forms, practice mutual respect, and strive for a community that fosters
an open, inclusive, and productive environment.” The GSU system has struggled to uphold this
value of diversity, as the make-up of none of the constituent groups (the student body, faculty,
staff, and leadership) reflect the make-up of the state.
Chicana/o underrepresentation in the GSU system was evident at the student, staff,
faculty, and leadership levels. In 2019, Chicana/os represented 39.4% of the state’s total
population and in 2016 comprised 38.4% of 18–24 year old’s enrolled in California colleges, yet
represented 22% of the GSU student population (Espinosa et al., 2017; Quick Facts California,
2019). Chicana/os staff representation in the GSU system was half of their state population total
at 20.8%, in single digits at the senior management levels at 8.55%, and only 11.6% of managers
(Staff Workforce Profiles, n.d.). A disparity in faculty representation also existed as Chicana/os
constituted 5.5% of ladder rank faculty. Compared to their college-age student population of
41% and a total state population of 36.4%, Whites are overrepresented in senior management
positions at 55.1%, 60.1% of managers, and 57% of senior professionals (Staff Workforce
Profiles, n.d.).
7

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this qualitative critical-narrative study was to understand the experiences
and draw perspectives from successful Chicana/o higher education leaders in the GSU system to
identify the individual cultural, organizational, and environmental influences that may inhibit or
facilitate the transition of Chicana/os to leadership roles. The following are the research
questions that guided the study:
1. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’ distal
organizational environment that support or hinder their professional advancement?
2. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’ immediate
organizational environment that support or hinder their professional advancement?
Importance of the Study
Despite changing population demographics, soaring Chicana/o student enrollments, and a
half-century of diversity efforts, the gaps in minority leadership representation and academic
achievement persist (Bichsel et al., 2017; Page, 2013). Chicanos are now the largest non-White
ethnic group at 18.5% nationally and 39.4% of California residents (U.S. Census, Quickfacts,
2019). Nationally 87% of campus leadership positions were held by Whites and only 3% by
Chicanos (Bichsel et al., 2017). Furthermore, Chicana/os constituted 36% of national
undergraduate enrollments NCES (2018) and 22% of GSU system students. College completion
is critical to address as a college degree is associated with providing a living wage, job stability,
and increased lifetime earnings (Espinosa et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2016). Researchers argued a
connection exists between improved student outcomes and whether campus leadership
demographics is reflective of their students (Fincher et al., 2009).
8

Contreras (2017) posited that colleges and universities with diverse leaderships reflective
of their student populations had positive effects on student persistence, expanded intellectual
discourse, and increased course offerings. Chicana/o university leaders who had life experiences
in common with their campus population understand their students’ everyday struggles and were
more sensitive and responsive to their needs (Page, 2013). Furthermore, Chicana/o campus
leaders and faculty were instrumental role models, facilitated Chicana/o students’ careers and
creating academic connections, attracted diversity to campus, and their presence provided a
validating sense of self-concept to Chicana/o students (Gasman et al., 2015; Page, 2013;
Rodriguez et al., 2016; Suarez-McCrink, 2011). Increased Chicana/o presence in leadership can
have a positive effect on many student outcomes. An increased Chicana/o presence in leadership
can help postsecondary institutions fulfill their core mission, values, and goals.
The GSU System has publicly embraced the notion of diversity in many forms. GSU
states diversity as one of their core values, proclaiming, “We embrace diversity in all its forms,
practice mutual respect, and strive for a community that fosters an open, inclusive and productive
environment.” Similarly, in showcasing the benefits of employment at GSU, the theme of
diversity is presented and how it is valued and incorporated in the workplace. Lastly, Regent
Policy 4400, according to GSU’s diversity statement espouses that, as a public university
designed to serve the interest of the state, it must strive to replicate its diversity in the student and
employee population. Failure to take action could widen the racial disparity in representation
between students and leadership and cause a loss of talented leaders of color who could make a
university more responsive and welcoming to underrepresented populations (Gündemir et al.,
2017; Kwon, 2018; Muñoz, 2009). Increasing the numbers of Chicana/os in leadership roles at
9

GSU in proportion to reflect the GSU student population would show that GSU is living up to its
organizational mission, goals, values, and policies.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The purpose of this project was to examine Chicana/o representation in higher education
leadership in the GSU system to gain a deeper understanding of the organizational and individual
barriers and facilitators to greater participation and discover recommended strategies to address
this issue. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory (EST) was selected as the
framework for this research project. The EST model and the problem of practice aligned well as
the researcher was interested in the contexts of leadership and underrepresentation, with the
personal and cultural characteristics of being Chicana/os in the GSU environment, specifically,
the extent to which influences on Chicana/os, and in the GSU system promoted or inhibited
advancement to leadership roles.
The EST framework’s central premise is that an individual’s development is not solely
dependent on interactions with the immediate environment. Instead, an individual is a
biopsychosocial being whose development occurs in an intersection of ever-changing
environments over time that is influenced simultaneously by factors of processes, personal
characteristics, context, culture, and time (PPCCT) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1999; Rosa & Tudge,
2013). The multiple environmental systems nested within one another are known as the micro,
meso, exo, macro, and chronos systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1989). The microsystem consists
of the developing individual and their immediate environment or setting, such as their school,
home, or workplace. The mesosystem encapsulates the interplay of activities and experiences at
a particular age between more than one environment as individuals grow and experience new
settings. The exosystem is an environment where the developing individual may not be present
10

but where events or institutions can affect the individual at a local level. The macrosystem is the
outermost environment that contains the governing social structures and institutions of society
that influence all aspects of culture, schooling, government, economy, and laws (Bronfenbrenner,
1976, 1978; Rosa & Trudge, 2013). In 1988, Bronfenbrenner added the chronosystem to the BES
model that included timing as a critical characteristic where events or transitions that occurred
over a lifetime influence or change the developing individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1988).
A qualitative critical narrative study was appropriate for this research because it focuses
on exploring and understanding the experiences of an individual or group that were outside of
the dominant narratives to address a social or human problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Semi-structured interviews, which use a more flexible open-ended questioning style were used to
examine the experiences of Chicana/os in higher education leadership (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Creswell and Miller (2000) defined qualitative validity as assuring that research results
are accurate, according to the participants, the researcher, and the reader. The two methods used
to create validity were the disclosure of the researcher’s positionality concerning the study and
incorporated the practice of negative and or discrepant information that may run contrary to the
themes of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Definitions
Chicana/o
Chicana/o is an ethnic identity encompassing the multiple dynamics of having native ties
to North America, a pride in the history, culture, and contributions of Chicana/os in the social
context of the United States (Gómez-Quiñones & Vásquez, 2014).

11

LatinX
A gender-neutral term to refer to a Latino/Latina person. The term originates from the
desire to be gender neutral and more inclusive of non-binary individuals. The letter “X” is used
to replace the letters “o” and “a” in the Spanish language (Oates et al., 2017).
Hispanic
Americans of Spanish origin, or who identify with have and have backgrounds from
Spanish speaking countries (Roybal, 1974).
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is belief in one’s ability to successfully execute actions to complete a task
(Bandura, 1977).
Community Cultural Wealth
Community cultural wealth is an assortment of knowledge, skills, abilities, and
connections used by communities of color to survive and resist macro and microforms of
oppression. The six forms of community cultural capital are aspirational, navigational, social,
linguistic, familial, and resistant capital (Yosso, 2005).
Diversity
Diversity is the presence of difference within a given setting, referring to a variety of
identities such as (a) race and gender, (b) ethnicity, (c) religion, (d) nationality (e) sexual
orientation (Bogler, 2019).
Inclusion
Inclusion involves different identities feeling and being valued, leveraged, and
welcomed, given opportunities to grow or mentored within a given setting (Bogler, 2019).

12

Equity
Equity recognizes that the playing field is not level and has unequal starting points
and thus works to ensure that everyone has equal access to the same opportunities (Bogler,
2019).
Higher Education Leader
A higher education leader is a full-time university employee whose primary
responsibilities are related to executive, administrative, or managerial duties (Santos &
Acevedo-Gil, 2013).
Microaggressions
Microaggressions are the daily verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or
insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that can send hostile, derogatory, or negative
messages to individuals based solely upon their marginalized group membership (Sue, 2010).
Glass Ceiling
A glass ceiling is an artificial barrier to the advancement of women and minorities
(Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995).
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters were used to organize this study. Chapter One provided the foundational
information regarding the problem of practice, including main concepts and definitions of terms
used throughout the study. This chapter also introduced the reader to the topic of study: the
underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership, the organizational context, the
importance of the study, and research questions examined in the study. Chapter Two provides a
review of the current literature surrounding the study’s scope, including cultural community
wealth, mentorship, glass ceiling, recruitment, hiring practices, and self-efficacy. Chapter Three
13

lays out the methodology, participant selection, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four,
the results of the data are analyzed. Lastly, Chapter Five presents a discussion of the results and
recommendations for the future.

14

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this study was to explore and understand the individual, workplace, and
systemic influences on the advancement of Chicana/os to university executive-level roles. The
review began with an overview of concepts that may influence advancement to leadership roles
at the systemic level in the GSU system, including hiring practices, recruitment, and leadership
development. The second section focused on factors influencing advancement within the
workplace, incorporating mentorship, and disparate treatment. The concepts of community
cultural wealth, professional preparation, and self-efficacy were discussed in relation to their
influence on individual advancement. The ethnic terms Chicana/o, Hispanic, and Latino were
used interchangeably to reflect how other scholars discussed the population. In addition, research
on the experiences of African-American administrators in higher education was included to
highlight common struggles of underrepresented groups in college and university leadership. The
chapter closed with an overview of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and the conceptual model used to address the problem of practice.
Systemic Influences on the Advancement of Chicana/os to Leadership
The next section presented a review of literature associated with systemic level influences
that may promote or inhibit opportunities for advancement of Chicana/os seeking higher
education leadership roles. For the purposes of this study, the systemic level environment
encompassed the whole multi-campus GSU campus system. The following section discussed the
concepts of hiring practices and leadership development programs with a specific focus on
barriers and biases in hiring, traditional versus proactive recruitment, and hiring practices that
promote diversity

15

Hiring Practices
Three hiring practice factors impacted leadership selection and advancement. First, the
barriers and biases found in the hiring practices across higher education were discussed. Second,
specific hiring practices that promote Chicana/o leadership advancement were identified and
explored. Third, traditional recruitment approaches were examined and compared to proactive
recruitment.
Barriers and Biases in Higher Education Hiring Practices
White males have historically filled higher education leadership positions (Gagliardi et
al., 2017). The literature was clear that higher education hiring processes can include biases and
different kinds of barriers that impeded aspiring leaders of color from ascending to leadership
positions (Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995; Haro, 1995; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009; Rowan-
Kenyon et al., 2011; UCOP CORO, 2018; Wolfe & Freeman, 2013). Biases occurred in the
types of scholarship and research that are valued and can be based on an applicant’s educational
background (CORO, 2018; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009b; Kayes, 2006; Rowan-Kenyon et al.,
2011). Resistance is another kind of barrier that hindered people of color from attaining
leadership positions. Increases in diverse applicants have led to some resistance in hiring
processes by mostly White hiring committees (Kayes, 2006; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011).
Resistance to a growing number of applicants and employees of color in leadership positions has
led to actively monopolizing access to leadership position via glass ceiling and social closure
practices (Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009; Maume, 1999). Bias
and resistance were common barriers in hiring practices, one of the most ubiquitous barriers that
thwart a college’s or university’s efforts to hire more diverse administrators of color is simply
the lack of coordination in the recruitment process. (CORO, 2018; Kayes, 2006; Rowan-Kenyon
16

et al., 2011). The following is a review of literature related to barriers and biases that influence
the hiring of Chicana/os to higher education leadership.
Haro (1995), in his seminal work Held to a different standard, found that Chicana/os are
more stringently evaluated than their White counterparts in the hiring processes for senior
leadership roles. When controlling for factors such as level of education, years of experience,
scholarship, and positions held, applicants of color received biased evaluations or were not hired
(CORO, 2018; Haro, 1995; Kayes, 2006; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011). A University of
California (UC) systemwide study employing interviews with 60 cabinet members found that
barriers and biases in the hiring process occurred when a candidate was deemed not a good “fit”
for various reasons. The right fit may be tied to where one went to school and the type of
research they conducted. Many hiring committees have narrow views, such as viewing
candidates not educated at Ivy League or elite institutions as less qualified, or viewing a
candidate’s research as less desirable if it is related to issues of race or focuses on communities
of color (CORO, 2018; Haro, 1995; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009a; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011;
Turner & Grauerholz, 2017). Research supports the notion that Chicana/os and candidates of
color may be deemed unsuitable for a position even before beginning the interview process. In
the following section, the biases and subjective characterizations that can occur during the
interview and promotion process for Chicanas/os will be discussed.
How hiring committees characterize and judge diverse candidates in the interview
process can also be a barrier to the increasing diversity in university leaderships. In a study of 20
colleges’ recent hiring processes for a president or vice president, Haro (1995) analyzed surveys
and interviews from 96 faculty, hiring managers, and members of leadership and found more
stringent evaluation of Chicana/o applicants in five areas: (a) educational background, (b)
17

professional experience, (c) scholarly accomplishments, (d) matters of style, and (e) performance
on interview. Haro noted that hiring committees used a double standard in interpreting the
responses of Chicana/o responses; the committee deemed one Chicano candidate as
presumptuous, while they described a White candidate with almost identical responses as driven
by vision. Haro cited the example of a candidate who was asked whether he would appoint
people of color to his cabinet; he replied that all qualified individuals would be considered.
Despite this clear response, the committee believed that the Chicano candidate would only
appoint people of color to his cabinet. Maume (1999), similar to Haro (1995), found that
candidates of color are evaluated and prevented from advancement due to ambiguous and
subjective characterizations. Haro and Lara in (2003) shared a similar instance where a hiring
committee member labeled a Chicana candidate as a coddled affirmative action product that
would not succeed in the leadership role they were seeking. In summary, bias in how diverse
candidates is evaluated in the hiring process can be a significant barrier to advancing to
leadership positions. The reasons and factors that may contribute to biases in hiring processes
also need to be addressed.
Displaying signs of bias towards candidates of color may result from cultural biases,
feelings of defensiveness, or a lack of understanding of legal hiring practices that attract diverse
candidates. In a mixed-method study at three flagship universities in Georgia, Texas, and
Maryland, Rowan (2011) used interviews and surveys with a mix of 33 faculty and
administrators to understand how a campus climate affects the ability to hire diverse candidates
into leadership positions. Participants shared that the most significant amount of resistance came
from faculty. When members of the study held discussions with departments about diversifying
hiring committees or the importance of a racially balanced candidate pool, the departments met
18

the researchers with defensiveness and resistance. Resistance and defensive behavior were also
present in Kayes’s (2006) metanalysis related to cultural biases in recruitment and hiring
processes. Kayes posited that White hiring committee members and faculty may be defensive
because they perceive diverse candidates as a threat to their roles, status, or the established
working order of a department or campus. In addition, non-White candidates may be perceived
as products of affirmative action, less qualified, and not even considered if they do not resemble
the personal backgrounds, education, or scholarship interests of the hiring committee (Kayes,
2006). The practice of minimizing is often how hiring committees’ defensive postures express
themselves. Minimizing occurs when, in order to undermine a diverse candidate, committees
privilege the educational background, scholarship, awards, or interview performance of White
candidates while minimizing diverse candidates in those same areas (Kayes, 2006). Hiring
committees that fail to produce diverse candidate pools or hire diverse individuals can also be
attributed to a lack of training. A mixed-method UC systemwide study on how to cultivate
diverse leaders found that many hiring managers and campus leaders lacked a complete
understanding of the allowances and limits related to Proposition 209 (UCOP CORO, 2018).
Notably, Proposition 209 does not infringe on the ability to create diverse candidate pools. In
addition, many hiring committees received time-pressed rudimentary hiring guidelines from the
human resource department instead of comprehensive implicit bias training and information on
practices that promote recruiting and hiring diverse candidates (Kayes, 2006). The biases and
exclusionary practices of hiring committees form one kind of barrier faced by candidates of
color, while glass ceilings and glass cliffs form another kind of barrier that is cultural and
organizational in nature.
19

Glass ceilings and glass cliffs are exclusionary practices and unseen barriers that can
inhibit the advancement of Chicana/os to managerial or leadership roles. In 1995 the Federal
Glass Ceiling Commission defined a glass ceiling as “the existence of invisible artificial barriers
blocking women and minorities from advancing up the corporate ladder to management and
executive-level positions” (p. iii). The study identified three areas contributing to the existence of
a glass ceiling: societal barriers, internal barriers, and governmental barriers. Societal barriers
include poverty and low levels of education of minorities, governmental barriers include
inadequate monitoring and enforcement of employment discrimination which were deemed long-
term issues legislators needed to improve. Corporations were found to be complicit in creating
barriers to minority advancement through lack of recruitment, mentoring, management training
for minorities, hiring into non-managerial dead-end roles, and non-inclusion on management or
essential committees. Jackson and O’Callaghan (2009b), when researching race and ethnic trends
in executive role hiring, discovered a reduction in the numbers of administrators and faculty of
color as they progressed up the senior administration ranks. Findings showed that when
controlling for the variables of human capital, social capital, ability, and motivation that there
may be exclusionary practices occurring, consistent with the concept of social closure, when
minorities seek academic or leadership positions. Social closure is the concept that specific roles
or societal positions are reserved for members of dominant groups who control access to these
roles in the interest of retaining power (Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2011). Administrators and
faculty of color met with social closure and the highest levels of professional scrutiny early in
their careers that may have had lingering effects that derailed or stagnated careers (Jackson &
O’Callaghan, 2011).
20

In contrast to administrators and faculty of color who faced obstacles early in their
careers, administrators of color with similar educational and professional experience as Whites
that persisted were found to have late-career success and advance professionally. Cook and Glass
(2013) defined the Glass Cliff as the practice of people of color being hired for positions that are
struggling or doomed to fail. In a longitudinal study of NCAA head basketball coach hiring from
1979–2009, it was found that minority coaches were more likely to be brought on to losing
programs, had tenures of 4.5 years as opposed to 6 years for Whites, and were 89% more likely
to be hired at an HBCU school versus being hired at a 22% rate at non-HBCU colleges. There is
evidence that university teams may have promoted or hired minorities into circumstances that set
them up for failure; failure in such circumstances can negatively affect future advancement
opportunities. The research above shows that hiring practices can restrict access, monopolize
opportunities, and place minorities in positions likely to fail that may influence their
advancement to leadership positions. The research in the next section will discuss findings on
hiring practices that have been shown to be effective in employing leaders of color in higher
education.
Hiring Practices That Promote the Advancement of Chicana/os to Leadership
Despite awareness of and efforts towards diversifying higher education leadership, most
university leaderships remain majority White (Bichsel, 2017; Briscoe & Freeman, 2019;
Gagliardi et al., 2017). Colleges and universities with hiring practices that combine clear
messaging and actions, training, accountability, and that value service and scholarship equally
can increase the numbers of Chicana/os in leadership roles. Messaging from leadership on the
importance of diversity not connected to action is deemed insufficient and seen as doing the bare
minimum (Kayes, 2006). The position of leadership on diversity needs to be clear, consistent,
21

and willing to advocate for diversity at all campus levels (CORO, 2018; Wolfe & Freeman,
2013).
The configuration and training of hiring committees can play a role in whether diverse
candidates will have a fair opportunity to succeed. Hiring committees that are gender, racially,
and ethnically balanced can provide a broader perspective and recognition of the skills and
accomplishments a candidate may bring to the hiring process (Gasman et al., 2015). Hiring
committees and hiring managers often receive basic hiring guidelines rather than in-depth
training. This lack of training creates a hiring process that devalues the research or the service of
minority candidates (Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011); hiring committees can use a law like
proposition 209 as a rationale for having a hiring process that does not yield diverse candidates
(UCOP CORO, 2018). Research has shown providing hiring committees with training in the
areas of implicit bias, Proposition 209 implications, and the benefits of diversity have had
success in creating more diverse applicant pools and hiring more diverse applicants (CORO,
2018; Kayes, 2006; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011; Wolfe & Freeman, 2013).
It is essential to motivate and hold HR departments, hiring managers, and hiring
committees accountable for instituting practices that promote rather than inhibit diverse
candidate pools and hires. Gasman et al. (2015), in their quantitative study of leadership diversity
at eight Ivy League schools, proposed that the use of outside evaluators may be necessary to
review existing hiring practices and can be effective in establishing policies and accountability
measures that yield more diversity. The carrot and stick approach that ties progress on hiring
applicants of color to the evaluation and promotion processes for faculty and administration is
effective in advancing diversity efforts (CORO, 2018; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011). An example
of a successful iteration of this approach is the yearly UC San Diego diversity hiring scorecard
22

that tracks and publicizes department and campus hiring and the progress made towards diversity
hiring goals (UCOP CORO, 2018). Universities that aim to increase the numbers of Chicana/os
advancing to leadership roles need to employ a holistic and multi-pronged approach to achieve
this goal (Wolfe & Freeman, 2013). Like hiring, a multi-faceted process is necessary to recruit a
diverse pool of candidates for interviews.
Traditional Recruitment Versus Proactive Recruitment
Increasing the numbers of Chicanas/os in higher education leadership roles is dependent
on colleges and universities moving away from traditional recruitment approaches that have not
yielded diverse hires and implementing proactive recruitment strategies. Bilimoria and Buch
(2010), in a quantitative study of STEM hires at Case Western and the University of North
Carolina, discovered that recruitment processes that were passive, short-staffed, and time-pressed
repeatedly produced low levels of diversity in interview pools and led to the hiring of non-
diverse applicants. Traditional recruitments are passive in nature; that is, hiring managers
typically post a position in LinkedIn or the Chronicle of Higher Education and wait for diverse
applicants to apply (Bilimoria & Buch, 2010; Vardaman et al., 2013). Recruitment processes
conducted in higher education may also be hindered by narrow views of diversity and
educational background. Gasman (2011), using case study methodology to examine factors that
influence faculty diversity in hiring at a private research university, discovered that when the
term diversity was discussed with leadership and search committee members, it was understood
to mean the recruitment and hiring of Black candidates. A narrow view also held by many search
committee members and campus leaders is that qualified candidates can only be found and
recruited from select elite high ranking research universities that in many cases do not employ or
enroll high numbers of diverse students, staff, faculty, or administrators (Gasman et al., 2015).
23

Wolfe and Freeman (2013) described the traditional recruitments they studied as lacking an
expressed goal of recruiting a diverse pool. They found that in most traditional higher education
recruitments, recruitment of diverse candidates occurs only when needing to make a hire, and
they noted that colleges often cease recruitment of diverse candidates after meeting a diversity
goal (Wolfe & Freeman, 2013).
Colleges and universities that implement proactive recruiting practices that are planned,
aggressive, ongoing, have a team approach, and are combined with training to mitigate biases
can have greater success in recruiting and hiring people of color (Bilimoria & Buch, 2010).
Department and university strategic plans can identify proactive recruitment processes to
increase diversity in hiring and can include both ongoing monitoring and consistent and explicit
leadership support (UCOP CORO, 2018; Gasman et al., 2011). Examples of recruitment process
monitoring were found at UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Riverside. All faculty and senior
management position hiring committees included a diversity liaison and required provost
approval of candidate pools; pools that were not ethnically and gender-balanced did not advance
to the interview stages (UCOP CORO, 2018). The use of social media for recruitment can be
highly productive by using online advertising, and email listservs in journals or associations that
are geared towards professional of color can help reach high numbers of individuals tailored by
field, education level, or location (Gasman et al., 2011; Vardaman et al., 2013). While there is
existing research on recruiting for faculty diversity, some scholars agree that there is a gap in the
literature on recruiting for non-academic staff and leadership diversity (Bilimoria & Buch, 2010;
Vardaman et al., 2012). The authors also agreed that the most effective recruitment processes are
ongoing, including the participation of various faculty, staff, and leadership who have regular
contact and established relationships with ethnic and racial professional organizations and
24

colleges with diverse staff, faculty, and leadership. The above research has highlighted the
various biases and barriers in hiring, and traditional recruitment strategies that have negatively
influenced the advancement of Chicana/os to higher education leadership roles. However, ample
research supports the use of proactive recruitment processes and hiring practices that can
promote the recruitment, advancement, and hiring of Chicana/os into university leadership.
Leadership Development Programs
Leadership development programs can be a vehicle to address the dearth of Chicana/os in
university leadership roles and provide benefits to many. The leadership development of
Chicana/o higher education leaders could lead to improved educational outcomes for Chicana/o
students and a more educated and skilled workforce (León & Nevarez, 2007). León (2005)
indicates that these outcomes can have far-reaching effects because of the demographic
characteristics of Chicana/os. Chicana/os are the second largest population in the United States at
18% and comprise 38.3% of college enrollments (Espinosa et al., 2019). Furthermore, the
Chicana/o population is young, with 30.8 % under 18, signaling a swell in future college
enrollments (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).
Leadership development programs are critical to advancement and navigating the higher
education leadership landscape as aspiring and experienced Chicana/os are often confronted with
disparate treatment and isolation in these settings (Chun & Evans, 2015; Gardner et al., 2014;
Ponjuan, 2011; Rowan-Kenyon, 2011; Rowe-Allen & Smith, 2019; Stork, 2019; Turner &
Grauerholz, 2017). Leadership development programs such as the ACE Fellows Program,
Harvard Institute for Higher Education (HIHE), or the HACU Leadership Development Fellows
Program benefit individual participants and their home institutions. Home institutions can benefit
from program alumni who are not more prepared for a specific role, but overall campus
25

leadership, have a broader understanding of national educational trends, are able to engender
change and become stronger campus leaders (Smith & Ross, 2005).
Leadership development programs are designed to equip participants with knowledge,
skills, and experiences to grow as higher education leaders, yet they vary in their target
populations and commitment to diversity. The HACU, HKLDP, and Millennial Leadership
Institute (MLI) have a stated goal to focus on developing higher education leaders of color to
progress to executive cabinet roles and have had the most success serving these populations
(León, 2005). Lauth (2005) reported that Blacks comprise 68% of past participants throughout
MLI’s history, Whites 22%, and Hispanics 5%. The HKLDP, since its inception, has served only
leaders of color, including Hispanics, Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders.
The ACE Fellows program and the HIHE shared less demographic information on their
participants over time. HIHE has historically averaged 20% –30% total minority representation
while ACE has averaged 5% Hispanic representation (Smith & Ross, 2005; Zolner, 2005). The
HIHE furthers its commitment to increasing the numbers of higher education leaders of color
through its innovative partnerships with HBCUs and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs).
Each year the HIHE provides funding for multiple HBCU and TCU senior leaders to participate
in any of the summer leadership institutes. These numbers underscore that mainstream leadership
programs have not been inclusive of Chicana/os, and that more Chicana/o participation is
necessary to diversify college and university cabinets.
The curricula and settings of leadership programs have many similarities, as they all have
similar aims, but they also have distinct differences that set them apart from each other. All
programs included content in areas such as communication, fiscal management, governance,
crisis management, and operationalizing a vision. However, HKLDP is the only program where
26

case studies and content revolved around higher education structures and practices and how they
impact underrepresented communities. To develop leaders that will be responsive to these areas,
discussions included the quandaries of educational access, affordability, retention, and creating
campuses that are more receptive to and able to meet the needs of increasingly diverse student
enrollment (D. J. León & Nevarez, 2007). The UC Berkeley Staff Fellowship Program is distinct
from all other programs in that it is a campus-based initiative focusing on the mid-level staff of
color (Chan, 2017). In contrast, the ACE Fellows, HFLDP, MLI, and HIHE Programs all recruit
nationally and target significantly higher-level education administrators. Literature related to
leadership development programs has shown that the participation of Chicana/os has been low
compared to other groups; this needs to increase to better serve the growing numbers of
Chicana/os in higher education. Overall, research on leadership development programs indicates
that they are an integral part of preparing future higher education leaders and can greatly benefit
Chicana/os seeking these posts.
Workplace Influences on the Advancement of Chicana/os in Higher Education Leadership
The following section discusses the distinct concepts of disparate treatment within the
immediate workplace and mentorship programs. These two concepts can promote or inhibit the
professional advancement of Chicana/os in higher education. Research is presented related to
disparate treatment in pay and promotions, expectations and evaluation, and respect in workplace
interactions. Similarly, there will be discussion on mentorship types and their related benefits
and uses in higher education.

27

Disparate Treatment of Chicana/os in Higher Education Leadership
Disparate Treatment in Expectations and Evaluation
Administrators of color in student affairs leadership and management roles in most cases
are at-will employees who are twice as vulnerable to disparate treatment due to not having union
or faculty tenure protections because of their low numbers, and resistance to their presence in
college and university leaderships (Chun & Evans, 2015). Higher education leaders of color may
encounter unequal treatment, unfair performance expectations and face biased evaluations (Chun
& Evans, 2011). Researchers argue that regardless of their job functions or responsibilities,
administrators of color are often put in the role of racial issue resolvers when problems arise on
campus (Turner & Grauerholz, 2017). Moreover, administrators of color are often asked to do
work related to racial issues that is above and beyond their existing responsibilities, almost
always with no additional compensation for the extra work (Orelus, 2020; Rowan-Kenyon et al.,
2011; Rowe-Allen & Smith, 2019; Turner & Grauerholz, 2017). The expectations that
administrators of color disproportionality carry out campus diversity work are seen as an
additional cultural tax that non-diverse colleagues do not experience (Rowan-Kenyon et al.,
2011; Turner & Grauerholz, 2017). An additional effect of assigning diversity-related activities
to employees of color is that they are pigeonholed and seen as capable of only doing diversity
work and not considered for advancement (Rowe-Allen & Smith, 2019). Diversity-related
assignments are often not rewarded or recognized in the performance evaluation process, which
can be disproportionally punitive towards minority employees.
Chun and Evans, in 2015, through surveys and interviews of 65 university administrators,
examined how discrimination influences the retention, promotion, and success of non-academic
staff of color. Disparate standards of evaluation were discovered that magnified the mistakes of
28

administrators of color as compared to their White peers. Moreover, mistakes or negative
performances by an administrator of color are seen as typical of all administrators of color
instead of just the individual (Chun & Evans, 2015). In sum, research has shown that
administrators of color confront different standards in evaluation and may face unrealistic
expectations of performing in their role while being involuntarily drafted for diversity-related
problems and activities without recognition.
Disparate Treatment in Professional Interactions, Respect for Role and Qualifications
Many individuals of color in higher education leadership roles have encountered negative
interpersonal experiences involving the delegitimization of their positions and qualifications.
Chun and Evans (2015) described in their mixed-method study of university administrators the
micro-inequities and bullying experienced by administrators of color. A micro-inequity is a
continuous pattern of diminishing, questioning, and ignoring the contributions or perspectives of
people of color that may cause withdrawal or silencing (Young, 2001; as cited by Chun & Evans,
2015). Such as when a Latina administrator expressed concern and dissatisfaction in a leadership
meeting about the recruitment of underrepresented communities, only to have her concerns
contested and disregarded. Similarly, a Black female administrator encountered bullying when
she was told she was appreciated because she was an “oreo,” alluding to the fact that she was not
a typical Black person (Chun & Evans, 2015).
Invisibility and the inability to be seen as qualified by colleagues was a theme
communicated by administrators of color at PWIs in multiple studies (Orelus, 2020; Turner &
Grauerholz, 2017). In a qualitative study using testimonials from administrators and faculty of
color, Orelus (2020) asked, what has been the experience of working in university leadership as
people of color? Research participant and famed CRT legal scholar Richard Delgado shared that
29

despite his scholarship and accomplishments, his faculty colleagues still treated him with
disdain, were indifferent to his work, and that some students questioned where he went to school
or if he had ever participated in the law review. Administrators and faculty of color in leadership
positions at PWIs regularly experienced having their decisions and abilities questioned by their
White subordinates (Gardner et al., 2014; Rowe-Allen & Smith, 2019). Gardner et al. (2014)
shared the experience of a Black administrator hired to oversee the Greek system at a large PWI
who had his hiring challenged and qualifications questioned by fraternity leadership and alumni
before his first day of work. The participant felt that those in opposition to his hiring deemed him
less qualified based on race. There are limited instances in the literature when leaders of color at
a PWI under certain conditions may feel validated and empowered to practice agency. In a
qualitative study of over 300 surveyed staff and faculty at a small private midwestern PWI, staff
and faculty of color scored as high as non-diverse groups in their feelings of freedom to practice
agency and express themselves (Stork, 2019). The author posited that perhaps the small, tight-
knit feel of the school allowed all groups the comfort to practice agency and use their voice. The
microinequities, bullying, and delegitimization of qualifications and accomplishments
experienced by Chicanas/os and leaders of color in higher education are factors that can
negatively impact the career trajectories of these populations.
Disparate Treatment in Pay and Promotions
Employees of color who seek or hold higher education leadership roles have encountered
disparate treatment in pay and opportunities to promote (Chun & Evans, 2011; Gardner et al.,
2014; Turner & Grauerholz, 2017). A study of pay equity of 3000 tech company hires over 10
years found that minority candidates negotiated salaries an average of 13.3% lower than White
colleagues (Seidel et al., 2000 as cited by Chun & Evans, 2015). Salary discrepancies between
30

employees of color and White employees were also noted by Gardner’s (2014) study of Black
administrators’ career success enablers and barriers. A Black female participant described being
hired simultaneously with a White co-worker with comparable experience and education, yet her
salary was lower. The pay differential was corrected; however, no reason was given for the
discrepancy in pay. In an unexpected finding from the same study, while discrimination was
found to exist in the initial salary setting, 13 of 14 participants rated their overall compensation
and work conditions, which included work area, workload, supervisor support, and budget, as
highly favorable. A participant shared that his experience was so positive that he followed his
previous supervisor to a new position and continued to enjoy his leadership role.
Research indicates that disparate treatment in opportunities to promote can occur in
different forms. One study reported that study participants who were administrators of color
rarely had discussions with their supervisors regarding career aspirations, and when opportunities
to promote became available, they were not encouraged to apply (Turner & Grauerholz, 2017).
Opportunities for employees of color to promote were limited by candidates not being provided
information on how to promote, by supervisors burdening employees of color with excessive
workloads (Gardner et al., 2014), or by supervisors setting restrictions on activities such as
training or mentorship to prevent them from preparing (Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011). In sum, the
literature has shown that disparate treatment between employees of color and White employees
exists in the form of pay inequities and promotion opportunities; these inequities can influence
the retention and advancement of Chicana/os and administrators of color in higher education
leadership.

31

Isolation
Chicana/os and other minority employees in higher education leadership experience
isolation and marginalization that may influence opportunities for advancement. The isolation
some administrators or faculty of color experience may be by design and a result of tokenism
(Orelus, 2020). Tokenism is defined as “being hired as a token to do White administration’s
bidding and serve as a shield against communities of color with no opportunity for advancement”
(Chun & Evans, 2015, p. 87). In a qualitative study of racial inequities faced by minority
administrators and faculty, Orelus (2020) described that a participant was told that they were the
first person of color hired in 40 years, and it became apparent shortly after that there were to be
no further discussions or hiring around diversity. Furthermore, token hires can be short-lived as
they occur only when there is an interest convergence where a department or campus can
temporarily deflect pressures to diversify and receive acclaim, but token hires are usually the
first to be let go during tight budgets or if they speak out. Tokenism can create dead-end roles
and short tenures for employees of color that inhibit advancement opportunities.
Isolation and marginalization can manifest in various forms and create adverse working
conditions that may negatively impact the career trajectory of Chicana/os aspiring to leadership
roles. The most cited cause of minority employee isolation is the dearth of diversity as one
ascends the higher education leadership structure (Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011; Turner &
Grauerholz, 2017). Gardner et al. (2014) indicated that isolation can also result from covert
exclusion because of one’s role or non-participation in activities. Covert exclusion occurs when
work colleagues may congregate during non-work hours either to socialize or to discuss work
matters and exclude colleagues of color. Diverse employees hired into roles with limited co-
workers or responsibilities that isolate them from collaborating with others and from being part
32

of important committees and initiatives are marginalized and struggle to gain the meaningful
experience needed to advance. Addressing isolation can be a dual-edged sword for
administrators of color who, in efforts to combat junior faculty or younger staff of color
struggling with isolation, are characterized as catering to only their race and encounter passive-
aggressive behavior from White colleagues (Turner & Grauerholz, 2017). Isolation can also
affect employee health. Crocker and Garcia (2010) reported that isolation, in combination with
high workloads and the devaluation of employee contributions, resulted in the accrual of stress,
loss of work, and in some cases, a departure from roles resulting in career stagnation for
administrators of color. Research has shown that isolation of employees of color in higher
education can occur in many forms that marginalize and create adverse work environments.
These adverse environments can create negative health outcomes, inhibit the ability to establish
collaborative and meaningful work relationships, and stagnate career advancement.
Mentorship
Colleges and universities seeking to increase diversity in executive roles need to create
environments where Chicana/os seeking to advance are supported and encouraged to maximize
the benefits of mentoring. Chang et al. (2014) used autoethnography to explore the role of
mentoring in the careers of administrators of color and found that mentoring was not always
proactively sought by participants because there was not an understanding of how mentorship
was tied to advancement and obtaining new skills. Chang suggested that supervisors should
make this connection clear to administrators of color and encourage them to pursue and establish
mentoring relationships. Chang’s study is distinctive because it focused on administrators of
color and used the distinct methodology of autoethnography over 12 months. Most studies on
this topic are focused on faculty or students and use semi-structured interviews. Administrators
33

and faculty of color are restricted when seeking leadership roles and benefitting from mentorship
due to a lack of mentors of color (Chang et al., 2014; Darwin & Palmer, 2009a). Administrators
of color may not also benefit from mentoring due to strict instructions by superiors to focus their
time and efforts on only approved activities recognized in the tenure or promotion processes
(Darwin & Palmer, 2009a).
Various mentoring formats and approaches have enabled individuals to advance their
careers in higher education. Torrens et al. (2017) defined mentorship as “a dyadic relationship
between a senior (mentor) and guides a junior (mentee) through formal and informal professional
development experiences to help expand professional, psychosocial, political, academic, and
resource gathering skills” (p. 509). In addition, research has also shown that mentorship can
occur between peers (Wright-Mair, 2020) and in group settings (Darwin & Palmer, 2009b).
Group mentoring typically involves one mentor and a group of six to eight mentees. An
advantage of group mentoring is that it can minimize the possibility of a poor fit between mentor
and mentee or the inability to identify a mentor for employees of color in non-diverse settings.
Darwin and Palmer (2009) used survey methodology and focus groups to evaluate the effects of
a 6-month group mentoring initiative. They found mentoring circles mixing individuals from
different departments and disciplines allowed for meeting colleagues they may not normally
encounter and engendered a broader understanding of one’s work environment. Informal
mentorship, also known as light-handed mentorship, consists of reciprocal relationships through
peers that can provide a network of contacts, supply expertise in multiple areas, project partners,
professional guidance, support, and camaraderie (Chang et al., 2014; Wright-Mair, 2020).
Mentorship can benefit individuals in higher education regardless of race or gender, and
it can benefit those early in their careers as well as seasoned university presidents (Wright-Mair,
34

2020). A qualitative study of how mentorship can establish a sense of belonging at a mountain
west PWI found that racially minoritized faculty and administrators benefited from various
mentoring experiences, including holistic mentoring, supportive peer mentoring groups,
mentoring students, and community based mentoring exchanges (Bynum, 2015). Holistic
mentoring, defined as mentorship that establishes a bond that supports the whole individual,
including their racial, ethnic, gender, ability, and sexual orientation identities, was most
beneficial in supporting minorities in unwelcome settings. Various studies supported the finding
that mentorship can reduce feelings of isolation, affirm presence, and create a sense of belonging
for faculty and administrators of color in non-diverse higher education settings (Chang et al.,
2014; Darwin & Palmer, 2009a; Gardner et al., 2014). Salinas et al. (2020), in the only study
with male Latino faculty as the population of focus, examined how mentorship affected career
trajectories. Salinas et al. found that dissertation advisors and peer mentors advanced their
careers by validating their place and research interests in their programs, sharing clues to
navigate academia, and creating professional contacts to discuss, collaborate, and further
projects. Briscoe and Freeman (2019) interviewed 11 university presidents and found that
mentoring was a practice they continued to engage in even after achieving the presidency. These
university presidents described mentorship teaching them valuable skills such as conflict
resolution and analytical thinking. Both Chang et al. (2014) and Briscoe and Freeman (2019)
reported that mentoring advanced careers by observing mentors in action and attending meetings,
discussing future opportunities, demystifying pathways, and completing assigned projects
designed to groom them for advancement. Mentorship, in all its different formats, is a valuable
and strategic tool to develop effective leaders in higher education.
35

Individual Influences on the Advancement of Chicana/os in Leadership
There are three substantial influences from the literature on Chicana/o advancement in
leadership roles in higher education. The first influence is the role of self-efficacy on leadership
and advancement, and its relationship to social cognitive theory. The second influence is the
professional preparation of higher education leaders in general; this includes the education,
knowledge, experience, and core competencies needed for advancement in leadership. The third
influence is the community and cultural wealth of Latina/o professionals. This wealth can be
described in many ways, but it has a significant impact on leadership development and practice.
Self-Efficacy in Leadership Development and Advancement
Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy plays a central role in social cognitive theory
(2001) and leadership development (Machida, 2011). Social cognitive theory posits that
individuals have agency and are contributors to their personal circumstances and not simply a
product of their environment (Bandura, 2005). Individuals who practice agency direct their
personal development and can adapt and grow (Bandura, 2001). Human agency is
operationalized through four things: intentionality, which is planning an act to be carried out
later; forethought, by creating a plan to carry out intentions; self-reflectiveness, which requires
self-regulation until goal attainment; and self-reflection, which facilitates learning from actions
and improvement for the future (Bandura, 2001). Self-efficacy is defined as the certainty one has
in one’s ability to complete a task (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is paramount to the practice of
agency because, without the belief that one is capable of achieving a task, motivation will be
lacking (Bandura, 2001).
Studies on leadership have shown the vital role that self-efficacy can play in leader
development, effectiveness, and self-correction during low-performance cycles. It is essential to
36

focus not only on the successful performance of tasks but also on preparing to perform tasks.
Machida (2011) focused on how personal self-efficacy influences leader self-efficacy, defined as
a leader’s confidence in their talents, training, and knowledge to lead others successfully.
Machida’s study is unique as the objective was to look at leader preparatory efficacy as a key
influence in leader efficacy. Preparatory efficacy is defined as one’s ability to complete a task
during a training session and apply it (Machida, 2011). Machida posited that over time leaders
may experience upward or downward efficacy performance spirals, which are categorized by
increasing or decreasing patterns of success in specific tasks. Upward or downward spirals in
performance, Machida asserted, may damage resiliency and impede leadership development if
the individual cannot self-correct and has low preparatory efficacy. Leadership development,
preparatory efficacy, and resilience are intertwined; without high preparatory efficacy, leaders
may avoid developmental opportunities due to their inability to learn and apply new knowledge.
Avoidance of developmental opportunities could lead to knowledge gaps that cause demoralizing
performance spirals which hinder leader efficacy and development. Developmental experiences
in the form of feedback, challenges, and support can minimize performance spirals and keep
leaders on a self-correcting mode that incorporates continuous preparation and bolsters leader
development resilience and efficacy (Machida, 2011). At times, self-efficacy without
developmental experiences to ground leaders and provide feedback can lead to a disconnect
between self-efficacy and leader effectiveness.
Connections between leader self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness were examined by
Ali (2018) in a quantitative study of over 400 Ethiopian banking leaders and subordinates. The
study results found that leaders who communicated having high self-efficacy also rated
themselves as effective leaders; however, subordinate responses did not rate leaders as having
37

leadership effectiveness (Ali et al., 2018). This means that high self-efficacy of a leader was not
always correlated to leadership effectiveness; if there was a gap in the perception of leader
effectiveness among subordinates and leadership, then a leaders’ ability to carry out duties may
be compromised. The findings underscore the importance of corrective experiences for a leader’s
self-efficacy growth. This kind of corrective growth was espoused by Bandura (1977) and
described by Machida (2011) as having high preparatory efficacy and an openness to learning
and development. Together, these studies indicated that self-efficacy can play an integral part in
promoting leadership development and effectiveness. Chicana/os in higher education leadership
roles have also utilized self-efficacy in their career trajectory.
Self-efficacy can be a pivotal ingredient for Chicana/os to overcome barriers and attain
leadership roles. Suarez-McCrink (2011) sought to establish a framework through a review of
literature that presented barriers faced by Latinas seeking administrator roles and how gaining
self-efficacy related to these barriers can lead to growth in Latina administrators. Latinas face
multiple barriers in pursuing higher education administrator roles based on ethnicity, gender, and
culture, such as racism, sexism, financial difficulties, and educational inequities (Suárez-
McCrink, 2011). Additionally, in many cases, Latina home culture values of collectivism and
collaboration may clash with the leadership culture of individualism and competition. Suarez-
McCrink recognized that Latina leaders need to gain self-efficacy to combat the barriers
mentioned above, and the path to do so is through what Rivera called acculturation (Rivera et al.,
2007). Acculturation entails learning the attitudes and beliefs of a new culture while maintaining
home culture. The study recommended that universities instill a learning environment where
different leadership groups could learn from each other, and Latinas could gain self-efficacy and
resiliency to overcome barriers and advance professionally. Additional recommendations were
38

that successful Latina administrators utilize the acculturation experience and accumulated self-
efficacy to reshape leadership spaces to be more inclusive ,create opportunities for upcoming
Latinas to advance, and for the institutionalization of professional development programs that
allow aspiring Latinas to build agency and self-confidence (Suárez-McCrink, 2011). Montas-
Hunter (2012), in a qualitative study, interviewed eight Latinas with PhDs in leadership roles to
explore how identity, self-efficacy, and culture met to enable them to obtain leadership roles in
higher education. Results from the study showed that all participants expressed that self-efficacy
played a role in their advancement to leadership positions. The participants indicated that self-
efficacy mastery experience was gained by successfully obtaining higher level roles. 50% of
participants stated they had role models that provided social modeling, friends and family
supplied verbal persuasion, and having an attitude that saw setbacks as learning opportunities
contributed to building resilience and greater self-efficacy as a leader. Suarez-McCrink and
Montas-Hunter both recommended that professional development programs be instituted at
universities to prepare future Latina administrators. Overall, these studies concluded that
developing self-efficacy can counteract barriers to leadership roles and assist Latinas on their
path to leadership positions.
Educational and Professional Preparation of Higher Education Leaders
If the numbers of Chicana/os in leadership positions are to increase, it is necessary to
understand the education, knowledge, experience, and core competencies needed for
advancement. The qualitative study of 13 college presidents by Freeman and Kochman (2013)
identified the foundational knowledge and core competencies necessary for university leadership
roles. Freeman and Kochman defined foundational knowledge as: (a) proficiency and
understanding in higher education gained through education or experience, and (b) facts and
39

information necessary for executive leadership. Examples of foundational knowledge areas are
financial management, history of higher education, communications, maintaining a public image,
and knowledge of navigating higher education leadership culture. Core competencies identified
for executive leadership were management skills in assessment enrollment management,
fundraising and strategic planning, and the ability to communicate with diverse audiences.
Freeman and Kochman’s study was unique in that it was one of the few that specifically outlined
the foundational knowledge and core competencies needed for higher education leadership roles
as described from sitting presidents. A drawback of the study was that it lacked diversity of
perspectives as only three of the 13 presidents were Black, and the remaining participants were
White males, with no other racial groups included. Understanding the foundational knowledge
and competencies necessary to prepare for leadership allows aspiring leaders to prepare for
future opportunities. Equally important is knowing the professional characteristics of higher
education leaders’ trajectories to formulate a path to these roles.
National data show that a college president’s role requires a high level of education,
previous experience, and a vast array of professional skills. The American College of Education
(ACE) American College President Study (2017) surveyed 1,546 college presidents and
compiled one of the most comprehensive reports on the characteristics of college presidents. The
study gathered data on a host of areas, including education, career path, ethnic and gender
representation, length of service, and many other characteristics related to university leaders’
profiles. The ACE study reported 80% of presidents had a PhD or EdD, 25% had previously
served as president, 60.8% cited fiscal management, and 52.8% identified fundraising as
essential skills most needed for leadership (Gagliardi et al., 2017). The study’s demographic data
revealed that 83% of presidents were White and 70% were male. The percentage of Chicana/os
40

in president roles dropped to 3.9% in 2016 from 4.5% in 2006 (Gagliardi et al., 2017). A finding
of the ACE Study was that 16% of presidents came through the student affairs path instead of
academic affairs, a 5% increase from 2011 to 2016 (Gagliardi et al., 2017). The professional
preparation characteristics of past Chicana/o college presidents can provide insight into the skills
and training needed to advance professionally.
Demystifying the path to higher education leadership may be accomplished by examining
the professional characteristics and influences of successful Chicana/o campus leaders. Leon and
Martinez (2013) conducted a study patterned after the ACE American College President Study.
The study was the first to focus exclusively on Latino college presidents. Leon and Martinez’s
study surveyed 37 Hispanic college presidents and compiled characteristics related to education,
prior roles, type of institution, and professional preparation. The study of Latino College
presidents was unique in that it also surveyed the participants on barriers faced (León &
Martinez, 2013). Findings on Latino presidents’ characteristics showed that 88% had a PhD or
EdD, 5% higher than White college presidents at 83% (León & Martinez, 2013). Also, 18.9% of
Latino presidents advanced via student affairs roles, 3% higher than the national percentage cited
by Gagliardi et al. (2016) and the 3.9% of White college presidents. The higher percentage of
Latino college presidents achieving president roles with previous student affairs experience
signifies that it could be a growing pathway for Chicana/os in the future. 64% of participants
reported that fiscal management was essential to campus leadership, and 43% cited the ability to
maintain positive community relations as similarly essential (León & Martinez, 2013). 36 of the
37 participants cited that mentorship played a vital role in their development and advancement
and that mentorship helped participants avoid rookie mistakes and better navigate leadership
terrain. The findings of León and Martinez on Latino presidents showed that educational levels
41

and the competencies identified as essential to serving in leadership are similar to the findings of
the ACE College President’s Study (Gagliardi et al., 2017) and the research on knowledge and
competencies of the college president is for the 21st

century by Freeman and Kochman (2013).
Knowing the professional characteristics and learning about the influences and experiences of
Chicana/o presidents can help scholars and practitioners better understand the experiences of
Chicana/os in higher education leadership.
The strategies, influences, and lessons learned by Chicana/os on their path to leadership
roles can guide aspiring leaders and serve as a resource for university administrators seeking to
increase diversity in their leadership ranks. Munoz (2009) conducted a mixed-methods study,
interviewing 13 Latina college presidents and surveying 22 others to ascertain influences that
most impacted their careers, professional training and development, and strategies employed to
overcome barriers. Findings related to professional preparation showed that 90% of participants
had a doctoral degree and had participated in a professional development program to prepare for
leadership roles. Also, participants acknowledged that leadership roles require continuous
development, and 95% were members of professional organizations to expose them to new skills
and ideas. Furthermore, 77% of the Latina presidents reported having mentors, as did 90% of
participants in Leon and Martinez’s (2013) research. Participants in the Munoz (2009) study
shared that while mentorship was an investment in time, it was a pivotal contributor to their
growth. Latina presidents in the study stressed additional preparation in areas outside of
education, such as business operations, communication skills, and fundraising, which were
essential to the role and advancement. The professional training and development practices of the
Latina participants allowed them to become higher education leaders. The ability of Chicana/os
to navigate the challenges of leadership spaces was also vital to success.
42

While the Latina presidents in the study have achieved professional success, it has not
come without challenges. The Latina participants expressed that the significant challenges faced
in their trajectory were the questioning of their presence and whether they were affirmative
action hires; professional isolation due to the small numbers of Latinas in leadership; and
confronting the perception that as Latinas in leadership are stereotyped as passive, they did not
fit the normative image of the White male leader (Muñoz, 2009). Participants expressed that
persistence, resiliency, self-efficacy, and risk-taking helped them overcome these barriers. An
example of all these qualities was one participant’s descriptions of how she applied to four
different presidencies before obtaining her first job as a president and would “allow herself to cry
a half-hour in private after every rejection, and then search for the next opportunity” (Muñoz,
2009, p. 169). Latina presidents’ experiences in the study shine a light on the conditions in
higher education leadership spaces and the personal qualities, professional preparation, and skills
necessary to overcome them.
Community Cultural Wealth: Chicana/o Culture in Leadership Development and Practice
Yosso (2005) contradicts the deficiency assumption that people of color come to
education without the necessary social and cultural capital to succeed. Research has shown that
cultural values and teachings acquired from one’s home culture should be validated and are
assets in education (Arévalo, 2013; Canul, 2003; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Flores, 2013;
Muñoz, 2009; Yosso, 2005). Cultural capital is defined as knowledge, skills, and abilities
obtained or passed on by groups in power in society (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Yosso (2005)
asserts that White upper-middle-class cultural capital is seen as the ideal standard in education.
Communities of color without said capital are viewed as deficient, needing cultural capital via
schooling. Using the critical race theory (CRT) lens (Ladson-Billings, 2013; Solórzano, 1998;
43

Villalpando, 2004; Villalpando & Bernal, 2002), Yosso derives the concept of community
cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005).
The concept of community cultural wealth is an “array of knowledge, skills, abilities, and
contacts possessed and utilized by communities of color to survive and resist macro and
microforms of oppression” (Yosso, 2005, p. 77). Community cultural wealth has six forms of
capital:
1. Aspirational capital is the ability to hold on to future hopes and dreams even when
encountering obstacles.
2. Linguistic capital is the knowledge and relational abilities obtained by
communicating in more than one language or communication style.
3. Familial capital is made from the sources of knowledge gained via home culture and
interactions with a family that includes both immediate as well as extended kinship.
4. Social capital is the connections of individuals and community resources that provide
a variety of supports towards accomplishing a goal.
5. Navigational capital is the ability to steer through dominant culture settings, often
racially hostile ones, and still accomplish goals.
6. Resistant capital refers to knowledge and expertise garnered while in defiance of
injustice and applied to challenge inequalities (Yosso, 2005).
Community cultural wealth broadens the lens of cultural capital and validates the various forms
of community wealth capital that communities of color bring to education. The following section
will explore how Chicana/o higher education leaders have utilized various forms of community
cultural wealth capital in their careers.
44

In their book Latino college presidents: In their own words (2013), Leon and Martinez
presented the bio-professional narratives of 11 college presidents who spoke about their
upbringing, leadership development, and career trajectory. In his narrative contribution,
President Flores (2013) shared that he remembered how a form of resistance capital was modeled
by his father when in a dispute with Sears Roebuck for not honoring their warranty for defective
tires; the elder Flores displayed the defective tires to incoming customers until Sears provided a
new set of tires. The concept of resistance capital, the use of knowledge and skills learned in the
face of combatting injustice, in this case, negotiation and persistence skills, inspired Flores to
seek leadership roles with the motivation to create equitable education experiences for all
(Flores, 2013). In documenting the difficulties of growing up in a farmworker family of nine that
was constantly moving from state to state doing seasonal fieldwork, President Arévalo (2013)
described how his parents instilled aspirational capital, the practice of maintaining hopes and
dreams when encountering challenges. Despite the family’s nomadic and labor-intensive life,
Arévalo detailed how his parents continuously enrolled their children in school no matter in what
town or state they were working. Arévalo’s parents instilled aspirational capital in their children
through reinforcing that education could take them out of working in the fields and that despite
their difficult life, their efforts would pay off (Arévalo, 2013). The value to persevere in times of
difficulty, an expression of aspirational capital, was instilled early in President Arévalo’s life and
has fueled his professional pursuits and helped him overcome career struggles.
In many cases, cultural values and lessons learned from their home culture aided the
development and advancement of Chicana/os in leadership positions. In a personal narrative,
Canul (2003) detailed how traditional Latina/o core cultural values are embedded in her daily
role as an administrator. Canul expressed familial and social capital in her description of
45

collectivism that being a part of a community and sharing resources is a value and way of being
within the Latina/o community. Collectivism, in many cases, contrasts with the dominant work
culture of independence. Canul operationalized collectivism by establishing a collaborative work
style with her teams. Sharing credit with colleagues has benefited her work, work relationships,
and students. The cultural value of respeto is seen as a general level of respect and deference to
individuals in authority and has served as a navigational capital source (Canul, 2003). The
cultural value of respeto manifests in times of tense disagreement with colleagues or superiors in
the ability to navigate difficult discussions by validating others’ views while providing an
alternative position, as opposed to entering into a disrespectful clash. Examples of the use of
community cultural wealth capital in leadership are also evident in the experiences of other
higher education administrators of color.
In a qualitative phenomenological study of five Black female university administrators,
the combination of race, gender, and lived experience were explored to understand the
participant’s leadership development (Davis & Maldonado, 2015). The Black female leaders
shared that their ability to advance, lead with integrity, be self-assured, and be determined
resulted from the cultural values instilled in their home lives. Familial and social capital was
abundant and constantly transferred amongst immediate and extended family. One participant
explained that there were six family members with doctoral degrees in education at a family
reunion and that there was a history of educators in the family. Participants shared how family
members made them aware of professional pathways in life, cultivated aspirations, and imparted
knowledge of pursuing and succeeding in leadership. The presidents in the study were not only
consumers of social capital but also shared social capital with other aspiring leaders of color. A
resulting theme of the study was the practice of paying it forward (Davis & Maldonado, 2015, p.
46

58). Paying it forward entails guiding and empowering younger education leaders to increase the
ranks of Black administrators. The act of paying it forward symbolized gratitude and repayment
of the values and support imparted to them early in their lives. The research has shown that
Chicanas/os and higher education leaders of color put into practice various forms of cultural
capital that are assets in their development and advancement as higher education leaders.
Conceptual Framework
This study implemented Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory (EST) as the
theoretical framework to examine the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in high education
leadership in the GSU system. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s central premise with EST was that an
individual’s development is not solely dependent on their interaction with their immediate
environment. Individual development occurs in an intersection of ever-changing environments
over time that is influenced simultaneously by factors of processes, personal characteristics,
context, culture, and time (PPCCT) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1999; Rosa & Trudge, 2013).
Bronfenbrenner’s EST model consisted of four inter-nested systems that bidirectionally influence
each other. The EST system levels include the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem. In 1988, Bronfenbrenner added the chronosystem to the BES model that included
timing as a critical characteristic where events or transitions that occur over a lifetime influence
or change the developing individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1988).
The conceptual framework for this project was based on an adapted EST model that
allows for a dynamic examination of influences occurring between the individual, micro, and exo
system levels. The framework intended to describe how various theoretical concepts relate to the
contexts of leadership, underrepresentation, and the characteristics of being an aspiring
Chicana/o leader in the GSU system (see Figure 1). The three concentric rectangles represent the
47

proximal and distal organizational environments of Chicana/os in the GSU system at the
individual, micro, and exo system levels. Positioned to the sides of the model are ascending and
descending arrows representing how the theoretical concepts either promote or inhibit the
advancement of Chicana/os to higher education leadership. Within each concentric rectangle are
the theoretical concepts that are perceived to influence advancement.
At the individual level of the conceptual framework, a trio of concepts emerged from the
literature related to individual characteristics that influence advancement. The concepts were
professional preparation of higher education leaders and the theories of self-efficacy (Bandura,
1977), and community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). Next, the microsystem represented the
workplace, the immediate organizational environment, and its role in career ascension or
stagnation. Workplace concepts were mentorship and disparate treatment in pay, promotions,
expectations, evaluations, and professional interactions. Finally, the exosystem encompassed the
ten campus GSU system. At this level were the concepts of leadership development programs,
traditional or proactive recruitment practices, and hiring practices that are barriers or promoters
of Chicana/os advancement to leadership roles.

48

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Summary
This literature review synthesized research associated with the underrepresentation of
Chicana/o administrators in higher education leadership. The highlighted research presented the
perceived influences that may promote or inhibit non-academic Chicana/os from ascending to
executive roles. The literature and concepts were organized according to an adapted
Bronfenbrenner (1979) EST model to capture the various influences on advancement occurring
bidirectionally in the individual, microsystem, and exosystem environments.
In the most immediate environment, the individual, perceived influences include
professional preparation. Professional preparation entails the education, training, and skills
characteristic of non-diverse and Chicana/o higher education leaders. This is related to the theory
49

of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and its role in the development and success of Chicana/o
administrators. Chicano community cultural wealth (e.g., resistance, navigational, aspirational,
and familial capital) can be an asset in succeeding in non-diverse unwelcoming environments
such as higher education leadership settings (Yosso, 2005).
The proximal environment of the workplace research on disparate treatment and its role in
Chicana/o advancement was presented. Disparate treatment can manifest itself in performance
evaluations, pay and promotion opportunities, professional interactions, and create isolation.
Research has shown that mentorship in its many forms (e.g., informal, formal, dyadic, group) has
been a vital part of most higher education leaders’ career trajectories and has bestowed many
benefits that can bolster the advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles.
The distal environment contains research influencing the advancement of Chicana/os at
the systemic level in the GSU system. Research illustrates how colleges and universities’
traditional hiring, and recruitment approaches are passive, piecemeal, and narrow in scope create
barriers to increasing diversity in leadership. Conversely, proactive approaches to hiring and
recruitment that are holistic, include monitoring and are ongoing, and are tied to retention can
increase the numbers of Chicana/os in leadership. Lastly, there was a discussion of various
leadership development programs, their impacts on the careers of higher education leaders, and
how they can serve as vehicles to promote Chicana/os to leadership roles.

50

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study was a qualitative critical narrative analysis that explored the
underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership. The study incorporated the
perspectives of successful Chicana/o higher education leaders from the GSU system and
identified individual, cultural, organizational, and systemic influences that may inhibit or
facilitate the advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles. This chapter began with a review of
the research methodology, the purpose of the study, and the research questions guiding the
project. Next was a discussion of the researcher’s positionality, data collection processes, and the
research participants. The chapter concluded by presenting on ethics, credibility and
trustworthiness, and data analysis procedures.
Research Questions
1. What are the perceived influences in the Chicana/os higher education leaders’ distal
organizational environment that support or hinder their professional advancement?
2. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’ immediate
organizational environment that support or hinder their professional advancement?
Overview of Design
This study employed a qualitative critical-narrative approach focused on exploring and
understanding the experiences of an individual or group that are outside of the dominant
narratives to address a social or human problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). The critical
qualitative narrative research method aligns with the aim of the study, which was to bring
attention to and understand how the GSU environment created power dynamics that may
influence the advancement of some groups to leadership positions while inhibiting others
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
51

Data collection for the study was accomplished using semi-structured interviews and
document analysis. Semi-structured interviews involve open-ended questioning guided by issues
explored in the research. The semi-structured interview approach allowed the researcher the
flexibility to respond to emergent situations and novel ideas on the topic (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Document analysis is the collection and examination of personal data, public records,
official documents, constructed data, physical artifacts or archived data to derive information and
understanding on a research topic (Johnson & Christensen, 2019). The use of document analysis
in qualitative research provides background data, context, and the ability to triangulate data with
other data collection methods (Bowen, 2009). Table 1 identifies the research questions and the
research tool used to collect data for that question.

Table 1
Research Questions and Data Collection Method
Research question Interviews
1. What are the perceived influences in the Chicana/os higher education
leaders’ distal organizational environment that support or hinder their
professional advancement?

2. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’
immediate organizational environment that support or hinder their
professional advancement
X

X

52

Research Setting
The setting for the study was GSU, a western multi-campus research university system
that confers 4-year, graduate, and doctoral degrees. GSU annually serves approximately 200,000
students systemwide and employs approximately 65000 individuals. The GSU system is an
essential setting for research as it plays a vital role in the regions’ research, innovation, and
education of the future workforce as a public education system. The dichotomy of GSU’s low
numbers of Chicana/os in leadership juxtaposed with the high numbers of Chicana/os in the state
population and enrolled in college also makes GSU an intriguing setting to explore.
The researcher was a GSU system employee of 22 years, familiar with the setting and the
problem of practice at GSU, which facilitated in identifying research participants, and made it an
ideal research site. In addition, the setting for data collection using semi-structured interviews
was the Zoom online platform. Chicana/o employees from multiple GSU campus sites served as
participants of the study. The Zoom online platform allowed research participants to connect
virtually with the researcher from their GSU home campus.
The Researcher
The researcher’s positionality as a Chicano first generation to college male with a 20-year
career as an employee of the GSU system provided the impetus to create new knowledge on the
underrepresentation of Chicana/os in leadership positions. The researchers’ professional
experience and current research confirmed that a knowledge gap exists in the representation of
Chicana/os non-academic staff in higher education leadership. One catalyst for the genesis of this
study was the researcher’s own isolation when in leadership roles; another was the researcher’s
own observations that, over the past 20 years, there were few other Chicana/os in leadership in
the GSU system. A measure to balance and leverage the researcher’s positionality was
53

continuous reflexivity or reflection to focus on the emic perspective of the research participants.
The previously mentioned characteristics of the researcher were an asset to the study as the
problem of underrepresentation of Chicana/os in leadership were examined using a multilevel
systemic lens and not a deficiency approach as many previous studies on Chicana/os have.
Reflexivity is defined as an awareness of how a researcher can impact a study and how a study
may impact the researcher (Probst & Berenson, 2014). Lastly, reflexive memos were used to cite
data or responses that resonated with the researcher or shaped how data was reported (Creswell
& Creswell, 2014).
Data Sources
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 purposefully sampled research
participants. Interviews provided a vehicle to obtain information pertinent to the research topic
and captured past experiences and perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The goal was to
obtain first-hand perspectives on the experiences of Chicana/os within university leadership
spaces, understand the influences of their professional trajectory, and identify the barriers and
recommendations to increasing the representation of Chicana/os in leadership roles.
Document Analysis
Document collection and analysis took place prior to, and simultaneously with,
interviews. Document analysis was used as a form of data collection because it can provide a
frame of reference and additional data on the problem of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os
in higher educational leadership and the environmental influences at GSU that may promote or
inhibit advancement to leadership roles. The utilization of document analysis in combination
with semi-structured interviews provided different methodologies to collect and triangulate data
54

for greater qualitative validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). The researcher collected a variety of
GSU system level documents for qualitative analysis that may include strategic plans and
policies on hiring, workforce diversity task force reports, university survey data and meeting
reports. These documents may shed light on if the topic of leadership diversity has been
discussed and how the problem of practice is viewed and has evolved over time at GSU. In
addition, document analysis may complement the data collection process by surfacing additional
research questions to use in participant interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants
Study participants were 11 Chicana/o individuals who currently worked, or had worked, a
minimum of 5 years within the GSU system (pseudonym) in director, assistant dean, dean, vice-
chancellor, chancellor, provost, president, or chancellor roles Individuals that identified as
Latino, Hispanic, or Latinx but met the years of experience and level of position requirements of
the study may still serve as research participants. However, it will be necessary for research
participants to have been either born or socialized in the United States. Chicana/o staff and non-
ladder rank faculty were the focus population as most research on diversity in higher education
leadership focuses on academic faculty and Black professionals. Recruitment of the 11 research
participants occurred via email, phone call, or in-person request to Chicana/o staff from affinity
groups and attendee lists from past GSU systemwide Latinx Summits. The GSU systemwide
Latinx Summit is a yearly GSU-sponsored conference with Chicana/o representatives from each
GSU campus focused on addressing issues associated with Latinx staff, faculty, and students in
the GSU system. Research participants were selected using non-probability purposeful sampling.
Purposeful sampling was the most appropriate approach as it is designed to identify and use
55

participants that lend understanding and information on the topics directly related to the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Instrumentation
This research project utilized document analysis and semi- structured interviews to
collect data. The interview protocol design focused on creating alignment between the
conceptual framework, research questions, and key concepts of the study (Samkian, 2020).
Appendix A contains the interview protocol. Interview questions underwent peer review and
advisor approval to ensure clarity of purpose, alignment with research questions, and
understandability (Creswell & Creswell, 2014).
The aim of the study was to understand the experiences and draw perspectives of
successful Chicana/o higher education leaders in the GSU (pseudonym) system to identify
influences that hinder or promote the advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles. Therefore,
Patton’s (2002) six categories of questions were be utilized to formulate interview questions,
they include (a) behaviors and experiences, (b) opinions/values, (c) feelings/emotions, (d)
knowledge, (e) sensory, (f) background. Questions one through seven focused on the individual
experiences and perspectives of research participants related to themes of self-efficacy,
mentorship, and community cultural wealth. Next, questions eight through 10 explored
workplace and campus experiences around the concepts of hiring practices, mentorship, and
leadership development. Lastly, interview questions 11–15 explored how systemic level effects
impact the advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles. Research documents used for analysis
will be obtained from GSU HR departments and various campus websites.
56

Data Collection Procedures
The data collection portion of the study commenced upon receiving approval from the
USC Institutional Review Board (IRB), in Fall of 2021. Recruitment of 11 research participants
occurred via direct individual email to colleagues, and email requests to Chicana/o staff affinity
groups and attendee lists from past GSU systemwide Latinx Summits. Participants were asked to
participate in 45–60-minute interviews through the Zoom online platform. The Zoom platform
alleviated any travel constraints, can be easily recorded, transcribed, and re-watched for facial
and body language cues (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Prior to interviews, participants received
information on the study purpose, their guaranteed anonymity, the confidentiality of their
responses, the right to withdraw from the study at any point, and consent to record via Zoom and
audio recorder will be requested. The collection of data for analysis occurred upon IRB approval
and simultaneously with interviews.
Data Analysis
Data analysis of participants’ semi-structured interview responses followed qualitative
methods. Data collection, analysis, and drawing of themes related to the research questions took
place simultaneously (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Transcription occurred after each interview
using the Rev speech to text online program (rev.com). Next there was an initial review with
note-taking for open coding related to the research questions and concepts inserted into margins
and then typed. The second-level analysis reviewed all transcriptions and notes to conduct
analytical coding related to emerging themes. Analytical coding entails grouping codes related to
a concept or theme (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Grouping of codes leads to the identification of
overarching themes that will be assigned a code. Preliminary priori codes used to identify themes
are individual, organizational, and systemic influences that promote or inhibit advancement.
57

Atlas.ti data analysis software was used for the storing, sorting, coding, and analysis of data.
Document analysis requires the simultaneous process of both content and thematic evaluation
(Bowen, 2009). Document analysis was iterative, with an initial scan of each document followed
by an in-depth reading, and then interpretation.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Multiple methods were used to promote credibility and trustworthiness in the study. First
was the disclosure of the researcher’s positionality as a Chicano 20-year employee of the GSU
system. The study used respondent validation to build credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Preliminary findings and interpretations of responses were shared with research
participants to ensure accuracy. Data collection was conducted until saturation, when variation in
responses and findings ceases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, sharing of interview
questions and data collection processes for input took take place with program peers and
dissertation advisors for critical review and feedback. Alternate explanations and discrepant
information were included with all findings to insure credibility, trustworthiness, and ethical
research.
Ethics
Study participants were given information at the time of recruitment and at the time of
participation about the study’s problem of practice, purpose, and the IRB protocols that will be
followed. Informed consent was obtained beforehand from all research participants, and
participants were told that they may withdraw from the research study at any point. All
participant identities remained confidential; recordings and transcripts of interviews remained in
possession of the researcher and were destroyed after the project (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Study participants were volunteers receiving no compensation. In most cases, the participants
58

held higher-level positions than the researcher to avoid coercion. The research design, research
procedures, instrumentation, procedures, and required documentation were approved and
sanctioned by the researchers’ faculty advisor and the University of Southern California IRB
committee. Research participants had the option to review their own interview transcripts,
interpretations of data, and the final dissertation review at any point.

59

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this qualitative critical narrative study was to explore the experiences and
draw perspectives of Chicana/os in higher education leadership in the GSU system to gain a
deeper understanding of the individual, organizational, and systemic influences that inhibited or
supported the transition of Chicana/os to leadership roles. Chicana/o is an ethnic identity
referring to individuals having native ties to North America and pride in the history, culture, and
contributions of Chicana/os in the social context of the United States (Gómez-Quiñones &
Vásquez, 2014). The following two research questions were developed to guide this study:
1. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’ distal
organizational environment that support or hinder professional advancement?
2. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’ immediate
organizational environment that support or hinder their professional advancement?
This chapter presents study findings organized by research question. This study used a
conceptual framework based on an adapted Bronfenbrenner EST model examining Chicana/o
advancement influences at the individual, organizational and systemic levels (Bronfenbrenner,
1988). A discussion of themes from the data analysis process is presented under each
corresponding research question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participating Stakeholders
Eleven participants, six males and five females, discussed their experiences. Table 2
provides an overview of the participants. Participants were identified and recruited using non-
probability, purposeful, and snowball sampling. Purposeful sampling was the most suitable
method as it is designed to identify participants that possess a direct understanding and
60

information related to the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher selected pseudonyms
for the 11 participants referred to in the discussion for the findings.

Table 2
Participant Demographics
Participant Gender Role Highest level of
education
Years of
service
L1 Male Dean PhD 22
L2 Male Director Master’s 8
L3 Female Assistant vice-chancellor PhD 7
L4 Male Assistant vice-chancellor Master’s 21
L5 Male Vice-chancellor EdD 24
L6 Male Executive director Master’s 21
L7 Female Assistant vice-chancellor PhD 21
L8 Female Vice-chancellor Bachelor’s 9
L9 Male President PhD 31
L10 Female Director ABD 28
L11 Female Assistant vice-chancellor Master’s 20

61

Of note, two of the 11 participants were continuing their education and enrolled in EdD
programs. Participant service years in the GSU system ranged from seven to 31 years, with an
average of 19.27 years. A brief description of each participant is included in the next section to
provide context and background information:
• L1 is a first-generation to college student and 20-year veteran employee of multiple
GSU campus sites. L1 is passionate about creating access to the GSU system and in
his words “I’m more comfortable being the leader than in any other situation.”
• L2 has the second least number of service years with 8 and the youngest of all
participants, yet he has served at two GSU campus sites and his responses were as
savvy and confident as participants with twice the experience. L1 saw his
responsibility as “a role model to those pursuing higher education and to see
themselves reflected in what I have done.”
• L3 is an author and Latina with a PhD who is new to the GSU system with the least
amount of service years with seven. She described herself as “being attracted to
leadership opportunities that are tied to positive social and educational change and
willing to step in and take on the work.”
• L4 brought a unique longitudinal view to the study as an alumnus whose service years
are also with the same campus. L4 is a self-proclaimed “confident introvert” and one
of the highest-ranking Chicanos on his campus.
• L5 has served at multiple GSU sites and is among the youngest vice chancellors in
the system. L5 is also directly involved with the GSU systemwide leadership to
increase the numbers of Chicana/os in leadership roles. L5 described his calling to
leadership as “having elements of spirituality that are to the sense of a mission.”
62

• L6, similar to L4, is an alumnus and spent his 20-year professional career at the same
campus. L6 is interested more in positive impact than titles and stated that “I embrace
my leadership role, but I won’t sacrifice my beliefs or what I think is right for a
leadership role.”
• L7 is a fierce Chicana with a PhD and over 20 years of experience at the same
campus. She has one of the longest tenures as an assistant vice chancellor and has had
to challenge systems and superiors to climb to her role.
• L8 is Latina trailblazer who is the first Latina vice chancellor and the highest-ranking
Latina at her campus. L8 believes that her most valuable assets as a leader can’t be
taught: “my emotional intelligence and being comfortable in my own skin.”
• L9 is the most experienced and successful of the study participants with 31 years of
experience at three GSU campuses. Despite his high-ranking role and groundbreaking
achievements, L9 is genuine, warm-hearted, and humble and lets his
accomplishments do all the talking.
• L10 has 28 years of service all at one campus and in the same role of director. The
influence of L10 extends well beyond her role as a result of her ability, as she put it,
“I create roles and opportunities for myself that spawn collaborations and create allies
that have my back.”
• L11 is the third participant who has worked their whole career at their alma mater,
brought 20 years of experience to the study, and credited her spirituality and talents as
a spoken word performance artist with helping her manage the emotions and politics
of working in leadership.

63

Findings
The interview protocol used in the qualitative interviews consisted of 17 questions (see
appendix A). Open coding was used for first cycle coding and consisted of attributional,
magnitude, and priori codes based on themes from the literature review (Saldaña, 2016).
Analytic coding was used for second cycle coding and consisted of grouping codes into
categories and developing themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The resulting themes from the data
analysis are presented in the next section.
Research Question 1: What Are the Perceived Influences in Chicana/os Higher Education
Leaders’ Distal Organizational Environment That Support or Hinder Their Professional
Development?
In this study, the GSU system represents the exosystemic level. Participants were asked
to share their thoughts on practices that create barriers for advancement, the GSU image and
characteristics of a leader, and how they view GSU leadership efforts to increase Chicana/os in
leadership. Findings identified as influences for Research Question 1 included institutional
discrimination and narrow views of leadership as well as human resources and hiring.
Theme 1: Institutional Discrimination: Maintaining the Status Quo and Narrow Views of
Leadership (Exosystem and Systemic Level Influences)
Maintaining the Status Quo. Seven of the 11 leaders interviewed for the study indicated
that institutional racism and/or discrimination were primary reasons or the low number of
Chicana/os in leadership roles in the GSU system. The primary evidence of institutional
discrimination identified was the inaction by the GSU system to increase the numbers of
Chicana/os in leadership roles. L3 described the message that is sent by the low numbers of
Chicana/os in leadership: “There is not one Latinx employee at the cabinet or senior management
64

group level. Not one single human being. I think that data answers the question. There are no
specific efforts to target this group.” L7 expressed that there may be a complete lack of
awareness on behalf of the GSU system. He said, “I don’t see that we have the will right now to
recognize this as a major significant problem that needs a multifaceted solution.” A minority of
the participants viewed the lack of representation slightly differently.
Other participants felt that the issue is on the radar of GSU leadership but that efforts are
lacking. L4 stated, “I think it’s unbalanced; I would say that there is a desire, but a lack of a plan
for how to do that. It’s the difference between being not-racist and being anti-racist.” L5
communicates that the underrepresentation of Chicana/os has come to the attention of GSU
leadership as a result of Chicana/o staff and faculty efforts, but these efforts have been met with
minimal institutional response. L5 said, “I can’t say I’ve seen active roles where people are
seeking out to grow Latino leadership. I’ve seen a lot of Latino groups, staff, faculty and
community groups pressure chancellors in the GSU system.” The lack of action by GSU
Leadership to diversify was interpreted as a form of institutional discrimination as the GSU
prefers to maintain the status quo of its mostly white executive leadership.
Study participants described institutional racism as existing in more subtle forms and
actions. L7 noted that discrimination on the institutional level is less overt and cited the example
of criteria and requirements that leave many groups such as Chicana/os ineligible for
opportunities. She said, “I do think there’s still discrimination in the system, but I think it’s more
subtle. It’s not overt. It’s more of creating these strict criteria that hardly any of us would ever be
able to meet.” A different iteration of structural racism that L11 identified was the unequal
standards that Chicana/os are held to that may impede advancement. He said, “You have to be so
perfect if you’re a person of color in leadership, so different than other people. And I think
65

there’s just much more scrutiny, but also the bar is just so high, almost impossible, unfairly
impossible.” Study participants shared some of the different forms of discrimination they have
encountered.
Discrimination experienced personally was identified as a barrier to the advancement of
Chicana/os. L7 described that despite her successful fundraising efforts accumulating millions in
grant funding and overseeing a center with a dozen programs and close to 100 employees, her
supervisor would not reclassify her to a dean or assistant vice-chancellor level. L7’s frustration
lasted 5 years with no advancement. During that time, she sought mediation, gathered
justification for her reclassification and endured despite difficulties. L7 cited discrimination as
the root of her supervisor unwilling to reward her efforts and stated, “It’s really one of the only
times in my professional career that I’ve really very clearly felt discriminated against. It was
actual discrimination.” L7 felt that her only recourse left was to file a discrimination complaint;
consequently, it was ruled she was discriminated against and was compensated. L7 was
reclassified and eventually moved her center to a more supportive setting in her campus.
However, the emotions and scars of her battle remained. She said,
It’s so strange because I’m in such a different place now that it’s hard sometimes to
remember. However, it was a really harmful experience physically, emotionally, mental
health. It was really, really, really hard. And I definitely wanted to leave; personal issues,
family issues, stopped me from leaving. But I was incredibly, incredibly angry and
resentful and very unhappy.
L10 also had her advancement blocked due to actions she felt were discriminatory. L10
received a demotion when a superior felt that she was too much of an ally to students who had
been opposing upcoming student fee hikes. L10 deemed her demotion discriminatory because
66

several administrators were working to secure funding for students who would not have the
resources to afford the fee hikes; however, only the administrators of color were demoted. The
sentiment of L10 is that there were a different set of standards and accountability applied to
administrators of color versus White administrators. L10 described how after over 25 years on
her campus, she never thought she would be singled out and face the humiliation and
discrimination she faced during the incident. L10 described how her punishment unfolded: “[The
vice chancellor] called us each of us independently and demoted us and yelled at us. I had never
in my life for 20 years have ever been disrespected like he disrespected me.” Additional
lingering effects of her experience were non-inclusion in campus committees and what amounted
to what L10 described as being “blacklisted.”
Preconceived Notions of Chicana/o Leaders. There was agreement by participants that
based on history, their personal experience, and their overwhelming presence in leadership roles,
White, tall, cisgender males are the image of a GSU leader. Responses from study participants
revealed that limiting or preconceived notions leadership in the GSU system hinder Chicana/os
advancement to leadership roles. Seven of the 11 study participants reported a specific kind of
leader profile sought after by GSU system leaders that Chicana/os do not fit into. In addition to
Chicano/os not being a GSU image match, participants shared that the GSU system racially
pigeonholed Chicana/o employees in the GSU into certain types of roles. Participants describing
GSU leadership cited physical characteristics as well as professional profile and traits of
traditional GSU leaders. L11 described the profile of their campus leadership and what it signals
about GSU’s leadership image: “I think you just have to look at every chancellor’s cabinet to get
a sense. And, right now, it’s predominantly male, white, and older.” The perceived image of
White males as the traditional leaders in the GSU may provide an instant or unearned credibility
67

to White candidates. L5 detailed how for White males, image can even overcome a lack of
qualifications. She said,
White, confident, tall. I think prestige and appearance becomes a really big thing in GSU
system leaders. Whether or not they were trained to do the job that is entailed, but [GSU
leaders] have some kind of academic prestige. The opposite of me. I wasn’t male. I
wasn’t White. I wasn’t tall. I wasn’t older. I mean, every single thing about me, I was
small, I was young, I was female, I was brown.
Furthermore, participants identified the traits of a GSU leader as being a faculty member,
researcher, or former dean, with academic accolades. L9 described the weight these traits have in
the GSU system: “It’s generally a professor who’s then a dean who’s then a provost who’s been
a scientist in a lab. Those kinds of things in the GSU are highly valued.” The contrast in physical
appearance between study participants and the engrained traditional leadership image of White
males is perceived as an impediment for advancement as Chicana/os as to leadership roles.
One of the aspects discussed while participants described the GSU’s image of a leader
was how the leaders in the study did not fit into the image of a white, tall male. Having physical
characteristics so different from the norm created pressure to conform more to the standard
image of GSU leaders. Participants described the steps they took when attending meetings with
other leaders to be taken more seriously by modifying their appearance. L7, a younger, small in
stature, female Chicana, was noticeably different than her colleagues in leadership meetings. She
described how she thought about her appearance for meetings: “How hard I worked to be taken
seriously … but really thinking very carefully about my self-presentation. What I wore, my hair,
anything I could do to kind of downplay myself and look more serious and academic.”
68

Another participant, L4, was made aware that he, facially, physically and in a manner of
dress, did not fit the GSU leadership image and that he needed to make changes if he was to be
successful. The Chicana/os in the study indicated that they are fully aware they do not resemble
the image of a GSU leader. However, being told, whether explicitly or implicitly, that they need
to change their appearance can negatively affect how they feel in leadership spaces and how they
perceive advancement. L4 described that after being promoted to assistant vice-chancellor, he
encountered a colleague who commented on his appearance. He said, “A woman told me that the
way I dressed, I needed to think about that to be taken seriously. That I should not shave my
head, that I should think about not wearing a goatee.” L4 described being stunned by the
comments and questioned if all people see in him is a dark-complected man who shaves his head
and has facial hair? The approach of L4 was to not succumb to the traditional notions of what a
GSU leader needs to look like and maintain his facial appearance while being professional in
dress. L4 shared his logic for his decision to be himself:
What we’re trying to do is change the complexion and the nature of who is at those
tables, so other than I’m going bald, the reason I kept my head bald is because it was my
own response to that in a way saying, “Well, this is who I am, and this is what I am.”
An emerging concept related to the GSU leadership image was how Chicana/os felt
White colleagues in the GSU system perceive them. Six of the eleven participants felt that
Chicana/os may not advance due to not fitting the image of the traditional GSU leader;
furthermore, the prevailing views of Chicana/o employees in the GSU system may also hinder
advancement of significant numbers Chicana/os to roles of dean or higher. Participants in the
study cited how they felt racially pigeonholed by their ethnicity as being good at particular work
duties or capable of holding only certain roles. Participants discussed some of the limiting
69

stereotypes they battle on their path to leadership. L3 stated, “I guess, a loyal worker bee. [High-
level GSU leaders] have put you in this category that you’re good at these things, but they don’t
see you as any more than that.” These limiting stereotypes can have multiple repercussions for
aspiring Chicana/o leaders including limiting advancement. L7 illustrated this point in her
comments:
They recognize, we work our way up, we work really hard. Okay, great, look great. But
to me, it’s there’s this ceiling over us. That there is not the perception that we should be
growing beyond that. And that I feel and I sense so powerfully, “She’s the director of the
center. That’s a good job for her. She’s good at that job.” But it’s not like, “They’re good
at that job, so what could they do next?”
The sentiment exists that advancement to roles of dean or higher is elusive for Chicana/os
seeking promotion because their strength or abilities are suited for direct service or diversity
work. L11 said, “I think helps me in some spaces but hurt me in others, is that I think people
think, oh, I’m only just an advocate for students.” The perceived racially pigeonholing of
Chicana/os into certain duties or roles is seen by participants as inhibiting credibility as a leader.
L2 stated, “I think stereotyping is another aspect of how people react to Latinos, the ways in
which we may be perceived in one particular role or one particular type of position. So, they may
not see us as true leaders.” The above findings illustrate how prevailing preconceived notions in
the GSU regarding Chicana/os inability ability to lead can impede advancement.
Theme 2: Human Resources and Hiring (Exosystem: SU Systemic Level Influences)
Human Resources Processes Hindering Chicana/o Advancement.
Reclassifications. A theme that emerged from the findings was the role GSU human
resources office (HR) practices play in hindering the advancement of Chicana/os to leadership
70

roles. 60% of participants cited HR practices of job reclassifications and exclusionary criteria in
job postings as impeding their advancement. A job reclassification entails a submission by an
employee’s supervisor to the vice-chancellor’s office for an increase in compensation or upgrade
to job title. Reclassifications are submitted when an employee has taken on or has been assigned
additional work, supervision, or responsibility on top of their existing job responsibilities.
Participants in the study felt that Chicana/os often take on additional duties and responsibilities
to grow professionally, seek advancement, and support the workplace. However, Chicana/os
experiences with the HR reclassification process have been negative and have created skepticism
about advancing in the GSU system. L7 shared her view of the HR reclassification process: “It’s
ridiculous. HR is a major barrier, because [leadership and HR] … clearly have a desire to keep
everyone classified and paid as low as they possibly can.” Participants discussing HR and the
reclassification process lamented that their labor and efforts towards helping their office and
campus go unrecognized when their reclassifications are denied. L3 described her experience
with a failed reclassification attempt. She said, “Recently, or a few months ago, I had asked for a
reclassification. I didn’t get it. And this was based on a lot of work that I have been doing for the
enterprise. Obviously, it was disappointing.” L6 expressed that over his twenty-year career, the
HR system has been a barrier that has generated animosity and driven people out with its
restrictive job classifications and compensation. L6 stated,
I think part of the barriers is just HR, classification, recruitment systems. I don’t know
how much free work I’ve done for the university over the years just in taking on
temporary responsibilities or interim roles for large lengths of time. I’ve felt screwed
most of the time in those processes.
71

The HR reclassification process is an exosystem-level influence that hinders the professional
advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles.
Exclusionary Job Criteria. Leadership positions that include application eligibility
criteria unrelated to the role’s duties are a barrier to Chicana/o advancement. Participants in the
study stated that leadership roles requiring terminal degrees, membership on academic
committees, or privileged research and faculty-based metrics are exclusionary. Furthermore,
including these exclusionary criteria is a legacy-based practice in that historically, most of the
individuals who meet these criteria were and are White men. L7 described how exclusionary
criteria serves as a reinforcement and reminder for those making hiring decisions of what a
“successful candidate” looks like and that many times applicants meeting these criteria feel
familiar to selection committees. L7 said, “It’s also, it starts with the paper [resume], meaning
you had the exact same journey as me. And that’s what we’re looking for and that’s the criteria
and that’s the definition of success.” Exclusionary criteria restrict the diversity of applicants. It
can also cause a failure to recognize the accomplishment and abilities of a capable candidate but
may be seen as having a non-traditional path.
L9 has held vice-chancellor roles and now serves as a system president. He considers
himself an anomaly because he rose to leadership through a primarily student affairs non-
research path. He expounded upon how talent can be unrealized due to exclusionary criteria and
said, “If you’re operating in that paradigm, you get to somebody like me and it’s like, well, how
do we look at this guy? He has a completely different leadership profile than what we’re
accustomed to.” A vivid example of how exclusionary criteria unrelated to the functioning of a
position can be a barrier to the advancement of Chicana/os on the GSU system was shared by L5
he was preparing to apply to a vice-chancellor role at his previous campus. L5 described how
72

despite having met all of the preferred requirements of the job, having a track record of success
on his campus, and that the bulk of the job description for the new student success division vice-
chancellor included his current work, he was denied the opportunity to apply. L5 said, “Even
though the newly created division was 75, 80% my portfolio, because I wasn’t a member of the
Academic Senate and I wasn’t done with my doctorate, I did not advance. Those were the only
two required elements.” L5 further described the consequences of continuing to include
exclusionary criteria:
I think job descriptions can leave out people and be reasons to cross them off the list that
is racialized and disproportionately affects people of color when you put these markers
and legacy requirements that have nothing to do with being successful in the job.
These are examples of how the exosystem influences of exclusionary job criteria operating at the
systemic level of GSU hinder the professional advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles.
Hiring Processes Hindering Chicana/o Advancement. Participants on the whole felt
that multiple aspects of the hiring process disenfranchise Chicana/os seeking to advance to
leadership roles. The aspects of the hiring process that alone or in concert may negatively affect
advancement are the recruitment of candidates, the configuration of selection committees, a
minimalist approach to increasing diversity, and bias in hiring decisions. Multiple participants
emphasized that selection committees need to be diverse, inclusive, and equitable to ensure that
interviewees receive equal treatment and that the committee member’s views are weighted
equally. The ability to participate in selection committees means that your voice and perspectives
are in the room as L2 stated, “I’ve been invited to be part of selection committees for leadership
positions. I’ve been able to write recommendations about what particular candidates should be
selected.” However, configuring a committee with uneven power configurations can be just as
73

damaging as a hiring committee lacking diversity. When selection committees only have token
outnumbered representation of people of color and are of much lower professional ranking, in
many cases, the voices of employees of color are minimized. L7 discussed the selection
committee power dynamics that hurt Chicana/o candidates and said, “Search committees for
senior leadership positions really needs to be rethought because I’ve been on a lot of those and
it’s appalling what happens in those.” Furthermore, “[HR] recognize[s] that they need to have
one or maybe two people of color on the committees, but having been one of those [people of
color], they’re usually one of the lowest rank people on the committees.” L11 described her
participation on a senior leader hiring committee and how power dynamics were affected when
she sought to call out the unequal treatment of a candidate. She said,
He was a dean; we were not the highest. We were lower. We were highly outnumbered.
And when I saw implicit bias against a Latino candidate, you are in such a challenging
position. You know how you are going to be perceived if you point that out, that your
interest is personal. So, every time you fight for a Latino candidate, it’s perceived as
somehow group solidarity or something like that.
A minimalist approach to recruitment and hiring hinders the advancement of Chicana/os
to leadership positions. In most cases, the participants questioned efforts by HR and hiring
committees to have candidate pools that were diverse or included Chicana/os. A step towards
making candidate pools more diverse requires a multi-pronged approach that is intentional to
reach diverse populations. As L2 stated, “You have to have a diverse approach when recruiting.
Where are we posting these positions? Can we post or partner with Latin X Chamber of
Commerce, or the Association for Latin X Higher Education, where else?” Moreover, the
professional advancement of Chicana/os is hindered by what participants called “one-off hiring.”
74

Participants commented that they did not see a systemic and continuous approach to increasing
diversity in leadership, specifically the representation Chicana/os. Instead, the practice has been
to hire a person of color and conclude all efforts to diversify further. L2 described his views on
one-off hiring, and this practice is not on the radar of leadership: “There is a disconnect with
some of the other members. I would say, oh, we hired one Latina. Great, we’re done. Well, we
hired this black person. We’re done. We’re hired this Asian person. We’re done.” L7 echoed
these sentiments but also pointed out an additional dilemma with one-off hiring: “And so every
time we hire one, it’s a big win, but we haven’t talked about the fact that we lost two.” These are
examples of how the exosystem influences the recruitment of candidates, configuration of
selection committees, and one-off hiring operating at the systemic level of GSU. These factors
hinder the professional advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles.
Bias in Hiring Decisions. Participant responses suggest that various biases exist and
impede increases of Chicana/os to leadership roles. It seems plausible that the same biases that
hinder the advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles also lead to hiring candidates that
replicate existing leadership. Some participants felt that there are biases that may influence a
hiring decision happening from the moment a selection committee first sees a candidate’s name.
L2 shared his feelings on bias in hiring based on one’s name:
Institutional racism shows up in many different ways. When people look at your resume
and they react to your name, where is this person from? But there are other Latinos
without their name who are like Jose Sanchez. It’s clearly Latino. So, are people
operating from a bias perspective when they look at your resume?
L2 expressed that this type of bias so early on in a hiring process is challenging to
overcome. A majority of the interviewees agreed that the biggest bias hurdle is privileging
75

individuals and experiences similar to those of the committee. When hiring, committee members
are unconscious or unable to resist their implicit bias and revert to conservative and traditional
hiring approaches and decisions that maintain the status quo of leadership diversity. L7 shared
why hiring committees fall into the same pattern of hiring decisions. He said, “The implicit bias
that wants to reproduce itself. To be comfortable with people who sound like you, think like you,
look like you and to keep reproducing yourself. I think that’s a huge one.” Other types of biases
can sway a hiring decision and, more importantly, hinder Chicana/o advancement. As was
mentioned earlier in the study, many hiring committees strongly weigh academic rank,
discipline, accolades, faculty, and research backgrounds. Study participants remarked that
selection committee members also make biased hiring decisions based on some of these criteria.
L9 stated, “There’s some disciplinary biases, there are some personal biases.” In addition to
these two forms of bias, there are also biases based on membership as L9 elaborated:
I also think it has to do with the powerful internal networks of the GSU, that we’re not
always part of. I know for a fact that several chancellors have been selected because they
were in the same research area as the president.
These are examples of how the exosystem influences of bias in hiring operating at the systemic
level of GSU hinder the professional advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles.
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceived Influences in Chicana/os Higher Education
Leaders’ Immediate Organizational Environment That Support or Hinder Their
Professional Advancement?
The abovementioned systemic and workplace influences of institutional racism, racial
pigeonholing, and exclusion send unwelcome messaging to Chicana/os seeking entrance to the
leadership ranks. As a consequence of enduring these systemic and workplace influences,
76

participants struggled with and overcame episodes of cultural misalignment with leadership
space norms, impostorism, and difficulty acculturating to executive-level behaviors and ways of
being. While higher education leadership spaces are unwelcoming and make access for
Chicana/os difficult, it is necessary to learn the existing practices and mannerisms of university
leadership environments to gain access, create positive change, and increase Chicana/o
representation. Findings for Research Question 2 are related to influences that occur at the
individual and microsystem (workplace) levels. The themes identified as perceived influences for
Research Question 2 were (1) leadership mentality and disposition, (2) Chicano/a community
cultural wealth, (3) influences on identity and beliefs about self (4) personal growth, and (5)
workplace conditions and advancement.
Theme 1: Leadership Mentality and Disposition (Individual Level)
Leaders in the study identified mindsets and personal qualities that have been assets to
their advancement. Ten of the 11 participants shared characteristics related to disposition and
leadership mentality and their impact.
Recognition and Adaptation to Leadership Norms. Half of the leaders in the study
reported recognizing and adapting to the newfound norms of leadership spaces during their
careers. Recognition and adaptation to the norms of administrative leadership settings was
significant because it allowed for greater personal growth, professional success, or altered their
views as leaders. L7 shared a significant mentality shift early in her career. L7 experienced a
realization as a woman and a Chicana new to leadership spaces that prompted her to adapt her
behavior to establish herself and a have a voice in her new leadership role; this was not an easy
task as there were few women or other people of color in these leadership meetings. L7 relates
her experience and what she realized,
77

I would go to [leadership] meetings … if there was another woman or another person of
color, did not matter the gender. ... There’s a table, and then there’s chairs around the
table, [women and people of color] literally not sitting at the table or speaking. I
recognized very early on that if I did that, I would go nowhere, that I was going to have
to overcome whatever fear, anxiety, I was going to have to elbow my way in there and
take-up of airtime with my thoughts.
A change in mentality led L4 to revisit his perception of himself. L4 explained he had
struggled with confidence, even as he had progressed to leadership roles. However, an assigned
mentor at a leadership training quickly realized that L4 did not lack confidence and her
observation that instilled confidence and made him comfortable with his brand of leadership
“She [mentor] said that I was a confident introvert … that changed the perspective, how I saw
myself … I am confident, and I just have a different way of expressing that confidence.”
Recognizing and adapting to leadership space norms and practices can also play a role in the
effectiveness of a leader. L11 altered their thought process to better help students and gained
navigational capital, a concept which will be discussed in the Chicana/o community cultural
wealth findings. The mental adaptation by L11 involved focusing on the ultimate goal and
detaching emotionally. L11 shared how she practices this mentality adjustment:
I’ve tried to just keep my ego out of it; … it’s helped me make better change instead of
being hurt, my ambition is not necessarily changing the machine all overnight, it’s just to
get more money in the hands of students.
The ability to recognize and adapt to existing practiced and norms of leadership spaces allowed
participants in the study to become more effective leaders, realize their qualities, and adjust to
78

leadership environments. The following section identifies findings related to the disposition of
Chicana/o leaders.
Disposition (Individual Level). Leaders in the study expressed a variety of perspectives
about their ability to deal with colleagues. The study participants shared that their emotional
intelligence in observing dynamics and having openness towards others were disposition traits
that had helped them in their careers. Salovey (1990) noted that emotional intelligence is
separate from general intelligence, and defined it in both its components as awareness of one’s
emotions and others and the use of this information to make decisions and work with others.
Leader F8 described that when meeting with influential board members and powerful community
partners, her ability to understand her audience and tailor approach to engender cooperation is
key to her work in governmental relations. She said, “You got to meet folks where they’re at.
[Powerful community members and board members] think they know everything … you have to
engage in a different way, my first year, my emotional intelligence that really was the star.”
Similar to L8’s ability to understand her audience and engender cooperation, L8 revealed that her
experiences as the only Latino family in her hometown endowed her with the valuable trait of
adaptability. “Adaptability—I would say not everybody has that power. You can throw me in a
room, and it’s sink or swim [not a problem].” The ability to observe behavior and recognize
group dynamics were qualities that the participants used in leadership spaces. L7 stated, “I’m a
keen observer of human behavior.” Participant L11 noted that she derived her leadership style
and useful ability to pick up on group dynamics from being a middle child “because of my
position [middle child], I became really sensitive to dynamics … I can read a room, so I think
that helps me avoid landmines.” Openness to others and collaboration were disposition traits that
have helped L8, L10, and L11 in their leadership roles. L11 stated that she believes that
79

practicing openness has allowed her to “See the good in everybody.” L8 chooses to be the type
of leader who leads with openness when working with others as opposed to being cautious or
prematurely judging others: “Again, [other leaders] leading with caution trying to figure you out.
I really try to always lead with, ‘You’re here, great, let’s get to know each other, let’s work
together.’ That’s very powerful, I think.” These findings suggest that individual shifts in
mentality and various disposition traits have influenced the advancement and success of
Chicana/os in higher education leadership.
Theme 2: Chicana/o Community Cultural Wealth (Individual Level)
Leaders in the study discussed ways in which their home culture experiences and
learnings influenced them professionally. Yosso (2005) asserted that communities of color
possess community cultural wealth defined as an “array of knowledge, skills, abilities, and
contacts possessed and utilized by communities of color to survive and resist macro and
microforms of oppression” (p. 77). Participants were asked to describe the ways that their
ethnicity and culture may have influenced their leadership style and ability to navigate leadership
spaces. Eight of the 11 participants reported that values, teachings, and experiences learned at
home influenced the way they served as leaders and navigated leadership spaces. There are six
forms of Yossos’ community cultural wealth: (a) aspirational capital, (b) linguistic capital, (c)
familial capital, (d) social capital, (e) navigational capital (f) resistance capital. This study will
discuss findings related to social, familial, and navigational capital.
Social capital is the connections of individuals and community resources that provide a
variety of supports towards accomplishing a goal (Yosso, 2005). L5 and L7 expressed that their
leadership style of interacting, building relationships with others, and working collectively was
learned from their home culture. L7 described how his leadership style seeks to harness the
80

knowledge and ideas of the group in reaching a goal: “Working as a collective and being part of
a collective serving others ... drawing the collective wisdom and strengths of a team, to me is a
very, very Latino, very culturally influenced area that’s very congruent with my work.” L5
described her unique leadership style and effectiveness as a consequence of her social and
community-building leadership style. L5 is very intentional about building meaningful,
personalized relationships with her staff with the intent of creating a cohesive and invested
group. She shared, “I am a different kind of leader … I purposely decided to be. I very purposely
build personal relationships with every one of my staff. When I took over the center, I
immediately perceived the center as my family.” L4 used his father’s example to illustrate the
effect of social capital on his leadership. His father provided support and food from his ever-
expanding garden to his extended family and neighbors, looking out for the good of others. He
described himself “watching my dad and his big-ass vegetable gardens. He would be giving it to
all the families; he’d be giving it to the people in the neighborhood … as a way to make sure that
relationships were good.” L4 described his father’s example of serving his family and
community with his garden as central to his leadership style; L4 described his goal of scaling
service to others whenever possible: “If I’m [my father] doing [a vegetable garden] for this little
piece, why not just do it at scale, so that lesson stuck with me.” These are findings on ways that
community cultural wealth in the form of social capital has influenced the leadership style of
Chicana/o leaders. The following section discusses the influences of familial capital on
Chicana/o leadership style and advancement.
Familial capital is constructed from knowledge gained via the home culture and
interactions with the family that include both immediate and extended kinship (Yosso, 2005).
Participants stated that the knowledge and examples of their parents played a key role in their
81

leadership development and implementation as well as their ability to advance professionally. L6
shared that he learned to carry on and continue with work and goals even in difficult times. L6
described his father as a prime example of this ethos: “I think of my dad, a blue-collar mentality.
You just get up with your lunch pail and go to work the next day.” L4 and L8 also discuss
maternal influences on their daily work and careers. L8 tied her professional advancement to
vice-chancellor directly to the example set by her mother. L8’s mother did not have the
educational opportunities that L8 experienced and was still able to ascend from an entry-level
role to leadership; this example served as motivation and inspiration for L8 to do the same. L8
stated, “My mother was a teller at a bank, and she worked her way up to vice-president. … No
college education. She eventually got her AA, but those things have such a profound impact.” F4
based her leadership style on influencing others towards a goal and not being concerned with
needing to take credit. This leadership style has been effective in achieving results as a leader,
which has fueled his advancement to his current role of assistant vice-chancellor. F4 recalled
seeing his mother practice her leadership style both while running their household and at work as
a union leader in a very male-dominated space. L4 noted,
I began to understand my mom and her leadership, it was a matriarchal household … the
way she influenced her union, where she eventually took leadership, but it was very white
male-dominated. She did it in a way that was just around influencing, and “I don’t care
who gets the credit; let me put ideas in people’s heads.”
These findings are examples of how familial capital has influenced the leadership style
and advancement of the Chicana/o leaders in the study. The following section addresses how
navigational capital learned from their home culture has influenced the leaders in the study.
Navigational capital is the ability to steer through dominant culture settings, often racially
82

hostile ones, and still accomplish goals (Yosso, 2005). Findings suggest that past experiences
and teachings from participants’ home culture influenced their ability to navigate and advance
professionally in leadership spaces. A common approach employed by participants when moving
an initiative forward was to establish allies or use a White proxy to put forth their ideas. The
participants expressed that they know in certain situations their ideas or initiatives would be
better received by White colleagues in leadership spaces if proposed by another White colleague.
L4, who serves as assistant vice chancellor, spoke about the ability to create influence even when
in the minority: “As one of two Latinx families in the wider neighborhood, I … learned how to
read people and sort of influence without putting myself as a target potentially.” Two of the
participants described how building strategic relationships and having allies enhances their
ability to navigate leadership spaces because they have partners that can bring their ideas
forward, as in the case of L2 who said, “I have really invested in creating relationships and allies
across the system. … You have to assess people, be clever in how to make a point when you are
in those spaces, like utilizing allies.”
L11 shared her navigation strategy of involving strategic allies to present her ideas to
achieve the ultimate goal of helping students: “Honestly, what I’ve done to work around [having
ideas blocked] is I’ve gotten allies to then put my ideas forward, with academic Senate, have a
faculty member put it forward, its successful because they’re faculty.” There are instances where
participants not only used navigational capital to work with White colleagues to achieve a goal,
but also to convince individuals to collaborate. L6 described frustrating experiences of being
viewed as the angry minority and having his points about underserved students be disregarded.
L6 found that having pre- and post-meeting conversations with colleagues was helpful to gain
support. After one particular meeting, L6 confronted a colleague and said, “The lack of
83

ownership on your part in your role as vice provost is concerning, especially because if you want
to increase total [performance], you have to focus on those that are lower.” L6 continued sharing
his frustrations about the vice provosts’ apathy by saying, “I’m tired of always speaking up and
raising my hand on these issues; I need you to do that.” L6 communicated to his vice-provost
colleague that these issues need to be championed by multiple voices. After their conversation,
the vice provost began to take more risks in raising issues that affect underrepresented students.
L8, who works in governmental relations, is always thinking strategically, and she uses
navigational capital to help achieve objectives. L8 shared her thought process: “You always have
to think about, politically. … If I want to get to point B, what are the steps? How can I empower
others to be supportive so we can be partners?” L6 had a similar experience to L4, growing up as
the only Mexican family in his East Oakland predominately Black neighborhood and school.
Then, he needed to adapt to being a first-generation college student at a very diverse UC
Berkeley campus. L4 shared about how these experiences enabled him to maneuver and navigate
different environments and relate to people with different backgrounds. L4 described that the
navigation ability gained from his life experiences allows him to be comfortable in many spaces,
including leadership spaces. He said, “I can navigate multiple spaces effectively, is that alumni
association chapters that are race-specific, or is that the chancellor’s cabinet. My experiences
help me navigate.” In summary, these findings show that Chicana/o community cultural wealth
in the forms of navigational, social, and familial capital influence leadership style and
advancement.
Theme 3: Influences on Identity and Beliefs About Self (Individual Level)
In the study, participants shared that limiting mindsets held them back professionally and
they needed to overcome them to advance. The participants believe that these limiting mindsets
84

are quite common for many Chicana/o aspiring leaders. Six of the 11 participants indicated that
they wrestled with cultural conflicts and impostor attitudes at various points.
Cultural Mismatches. One of the limiting mindsets that participants discussed was the
cultural conflict of self-promotion and humility. The path to leadership may create a clash of
values between Chicana/o home culture and the culture of leadership spaces. This clash results
from many Chicana/os raised with the values of collectivism, respeto (respect), humility, and
building relationships; whereas to advance to leadership roles, one must at times engage in self-
promotion and be more individualistic (Bordas, 2015; Canul, 2003). Therefore, a struggle ensues
to be one’s authentic self and live by one’s cultural values while taking on the norms and
practices for work advancement. An inability to self-promote is a mindset seen as limiting the
advancement of Chicana/os. L3 expressed that balancing humility and work culture continues
even as one progresses. He said, “Even as we get to this higher level [we are] always very
humble, which is not a bad thing, except at work.” L4 further elaborated on the mismatch that
exists between the home value of humility and the necessity of self-promotion. She said, “If I
think about it from the different systems’ standpoints, I think about the personal system, in some
ways our culture doesn’t match this boasting culture that is necessary to sometimes move to the
next position.”
Additional thoughts by L4 captured the dilemma and the frustration of how to reconcile
behaving in a way that may not be natural to Chicana/os seeking promotion. She shared, “You
don’t talk about yourself, you don’t pat yourself on the back, and in a culture like higher ed
where you elevate by doing that, how do I match those things up?” Ultimately, for individuals to
navigate higher education leadership culture, it is necessary to adapt to the practice of self-
promotion in order to have one’s accomplishments be recognized and to build a case to advance.
85

L7 shared how this shift took place from being humble to self-promoting: “I also see that initially
kind of my training to be very humble and never try to get the limelight.” L7 then went on to say,
“And so I made that shift, a very conscious shift that I was initially not comfortable doing,
recognized that my training to be humble was sometimes not allowing my accomplishments to
be seen.” The cultural conflict of balancing humility with self-promotion can be a limiting
mindset that affects advancement for Chicana/os seeking to advance. An additional limiting
mindset put forth by participants was overcoming the survival mindset with an advancement
mindset.
Impostor Attitudes. Participants put forth a variety of perspectives related to harboring
impostor attitudes in their careers. Impostor attitudes are doubts, fears, or anxieties related to
abilities and talents that may affect belief in future success or being seen as incompetent (Hawley
et al., 2019). Five of the 11 participants described dealing with impostor attitudes in the past or
present. Participants reported attitudes creating feelings or thoughts that caused them to question
their success or readiness for a future role. Participant inability to recognize their
accomplishments and thus see themselves as not prepared to advance was a typical experience.
L4 offered his thoughts on his experience, “I always lagged behind in my ability to see that in
myself, especially early on and in the middle of my career.” L4 further elaborated that even
though he had moved to roles of progressive leadership, he could not see himself in his current
role of assistant vice-chancellor. He said, “All along the way, thinking I’m not ready for that next
opportunity, but people [were] pushing me and saying, ‘You absolutely are.’” Similarly, L1
stated he had doubts and battled fears when seeking his current role: “When I was applying to
the SMU job, I said, ‘Dude, I’ve never had a job before when I haven’t done everything that
everybody in my portfolio was doing.’” The doubts and insecurities L1 suffered from even led to
86

missing opportunities: “WR offered me to be the interim director of admissions. [I] turned it
down because I was too chicken shit.”
Findings also show that even when the participants had experienced professional success
there still were instances where impostor attitudes haunted their thoughts. L11 talked about how
even after being named to the assistant vice chancellor position, she debated her achievement.
She shared, “But I do have to say I struggled a little bit with some imposter syndrome after that,
because sometimes you feel like, oh, would I have been competitive over a rigorous [hiring]
process? L1 echoed similar doubts after advancement: “And even when I got to my job, I was
still scared of [not being ready].” In a humorous exchange with L8, the participant received a
phone call and was being courted for her current high-profile role of vice-chancellor. However,
due to her impostor attitudes, she misunderstood and thought they were looking for
recommendations; she stated, “When I got on the call, I recall offering up names of other folks
that I thought might be of interest for the firm.” While all of the participants have been
successful in advancing to leadership roles, L2 conveyed the negative effects that impostor
attitudes can have “When you take on those negative stereotypes about, you’re not worthy,
you’re not going to be able to succeed. You take on imposter syndrome, and that has long, long
effects in the ways you navigate education, navigate leadership.” The above findings show that
limiting mindsets and impostor attitudes are influences at the individual level that inhibit
advancement.
Theme 4: Personal Growth (Microsystem: Workplace Influences)
This study revealed workplace-level influences that supported and hindered the
advancement of the participants. All participants indicated that they had participated in various
professional growth opportunities that positively influenced their development or advancement.
87

The professional growth opportunities discussed were executive coaching, leadership
development, and mentorship. An aspect identified as hindering the advancement of Chicana/os
in the workplace was a lack of knowledge related to the hidden curriculum of advancement. This
section will discuss findings related to the hindrances and supports to personal growth in the
workplace.
Executive Coaching. One of the most influential factors contributing to the advancement
of leaders in the study was executive coaching. Executive coaching differs from mentorship and
leadership development because study participants pay individuals outside their campus.
Executive coaching can help leaders in their day-to-day leadership work, but the primary
objective of executive coaching is preparing individuals for advancement and upcoming job
opportunities. Executive coaching supported participants to become more successful in their
daily work and prepare for advancement. L6 encountered professional frustrations over the years
when trying to effect change in his work and feared that he lacked the skills and abilities to be a
leader at a higher level. L6 could feel that his frustrations were affecting his normally extroverted
nature and his will to push on in the face of difficulties. Executive coaching was beneficial to
L6’s daily work in that it changed his perspective and outlook. “[The executive coach] helped me
reframe it more … if the goal would be to eradicate racism, what happens at the end of the day
when you don’t do it? Freak out? You can’t think that way; [you] need to take the long view.”
Participants’ primary motivation for executive coaching was advancement. In their
accounts, executive coaching provided participants training on interview semantics, connections
to higher education power brokers who participate and influence leadership searches, becoming
comfortable with promotion, and a roadmap of the different stages of a leadership application
process. In recounting his experiences with an executive coach, L5 spoke of initially being
88

uncomfortable with what his coach was asking of him in prepping for his current vice-chancellor
role. L5 felt that his coach’s recommendations clashed with some of his beliefs and thinking and
that taking his coach’s advice would make him feel inauthentic. Some coaching boiled down to
specific word choice or playing down certain parts of his personality. L5 recounted the specific
advice he was given by his coach: “For the interview process, I need you to be who I need you to
be but when you get the job, after, you can go back to being who you are.” This request initially
was confusing and difficult to accept by L5. However, his coach helped him understand that it
was part of the hidden curriculum of applying and interviewing for leadership positions. L5
connected with a former GSU regent through his executive coach who made very clear what
kind of wording could work against him in an interview. L5 shared, “He warned me not to use
the word advocate, student advocate, because that was a word that set people off as presidents
thinking that you’re not on their team.” The advice of the former regent was pivotal; it
crystalized the mentality needed for the interview process and to frame his responses. L5 further
said, “Or he would tell me not to talk about HSI stuff or focus on the Latino community, talk
about the outcomes of the whole institution.” Participants in the study who used executive
coaches agreed that they were unaware of how much coaching they needed. While the
experience was sometimes uncomfortable, it was worthwhile, as L3 shared: “So I needed to hear
that [coaching advice]. I needed some of that coaching. I didn’t stop being who I was; [coaching]
was helpful to go through that process. It was the hidden curriculum piece.” Overall, these
findings suggest that executive coaching supported participant advancement. The role of
mentorship and advancement is discussed in the following section.
Mentorship. Participants currently benefit from mentorship and credit it as a positive
factor in advancement. Participants only discussed one-to-one mentoring relationships.
89

Mentoring relationships provided the leaders in the study with an ability to embrace their
leadership identity, insights on pursuing advancement opportunities and professional support in
their daily work. L9 described that leadership spaces are traditionally not diverse and that early
in his career Chicana/os were even less present in leadership. However, he avoided isolation and
felt supported in his work by a host of diverse mentors. L9 shared that support came not from
other Chicana/os, but from other leaders who had nothing in common with his background:
I actually had a lot of Jewish mentors along the way. My first two bosses were Jewish,
and both of them really supported me. And then EW, who’s African American. He
supported me. So, I was able to get support from women and men from different
backgrounds. And that was good because I don’t think I could have relied only on people
in my background to excel. I mean, it is just not realistic.
Mentors played a role in participant ability to take on leadership roles and believe in
themselves. The leaders in the study felt that the status of a mentor as an existing successful or
respected leadership figure enhanced the weight and validity of their words of encouragement
and beliefs in them as leaders. L7 explained that her leadership identity was cemented when an
accomplished Latino leader summoned her and made clear his thoughts about her leadership
potential, “To be identified by this leader, to say, ‘You know what, you can do it; you would be
great.’ I respected him so much that if he saw that, I never questioned it again.” While L7’s
leadership affirmation experience was with a known and respected mentor, the experience of L5
receiving feedback on his leadership abilities was unsolicited, unexpected, and came as a bit of a
shock. L5 stated that the first words of his newfound mentor were, “I am ‘SR,’ and I am in the
business of creating Latino presidents, and you’re my next project.” L5’s first reaction was,
“Who is this woman? How does she know me?” However, L5’s newfound mentor would
90

become pivotal in developing as a leader. In addition to convincing L5 he could compete for
executive positions, his mentor would later strategically place him in the highly competitive
GSU Executive Leadership Academy (ELA) and connect him with influential power brokers.
Mentors also play a crucial role in helping leaders overcome barriers inhibiting their
success. L1 holds a doctoral degree with 25 years in various leadership roles, yet he hesitated to
pursue dean roles or above. L1 had spent several years believing that he could not take on these
roles because he did not have direct experience with every aspect of the job description. L5’s
mentor helped him overcome this misconception and instilled confidence in his abilities. L5
shared, “The latter part of my career was FH telling me, ‘You’re a leader. You can do this. You
don’t have to know every single portion of that job.’” L1 shared that he thinks back on his career
and what a mentor would have meant to him as a younger man: “I wish [the mentor] would have
done that 20 years ago. Who knows what would have happened?”
Leadership Development Programs. A majority of the participants in the study
emphasized that leadership development programs can enhance Chicana/o advancement
preparation. Seven of the 11 participants have attended leadership development programs paid
for by their organization. Six of the of the participants had attended the GSU system-sponsored
Executive Leadership Academy (ELA). Surprisingly, while there was widespread agreement
amongst participants that they benefitted from the leadership training and that they are a tool to
groom Chicana/os for future leadership roles, few described what aspects of the training were
meaningful. L11 did elaborate on her training experiences, saying that she had taken leadership
development courses through GSU extension. She is also attending a year-long leadership
development series specifically for women in the GSU. L11 chronicled how her transition to
assistant vice chancellor had initially been challenging but that her training has been
91

empowering. She said, “I’m finding that [training] enormously, enormously helpful.” One of the
concrete areas of training that have bolstered her confidence was training in power relations.
Previously when dealing with a hostile and constantly unsatisfied colleague L11 would recoil
from their criticisms and lament interactions with the individual. However, her training imparted
techniques that have made a difference. L11 shared, “We talked openly about negotiations and
power, and how to stay in your power even when someone’s trying to maybe disempower you,
were really helpful to at least have a vocabulary or a response available at the ready.”
A subset of participants had contradictory opinions regarding the connection between
leadership training and advancement. Three participants who have partaken in leadership training
described that on their campuses and at the GSU level, it would take much more than Chicana/os
improving their skillsets for there to be an advancement to leadership positions. L10 elaborated
on this point: “I’m sorry. You can improve your skillset, improve your interviews, your cover
letter, and mentorship programs for leadership, but it’s a structural problem.” Their concerns lie
in the belief that while it is essential to prepare for advancement opportunities, the main barrier
to advancement is in the hands of campus and system leaders who would need to push for
diversifying leadership and do the hiring. L6 echoed the frustrations of L11 when he pointed out
that Chicana/os taking the initiative to be a part of leadership programs have mentors, and
outside coaching needs the accompaniment of campus and systemwide priorities to recognize
these efforts with opportunities to lead. He said, “I mean, there is executive coaching leadership
programs, but again, if they’re essentially just professional development that lead to nothing,
what is the impact that they’re having?” The changes necessary for Chicana/os to capitalize on
their training experiences are structural. They involve multiple practices that are a part of
advancing professionally. L3 stated, “If you do not change the way we hire people, the way we
92

evaluate people and the way we promote people, how are we doing that within the current
structure?” In addition, if individuals in authority lack a diversifying leadership mindset, it is a
problem, as L3 described: “Your supervisor, if they’re not trained in a particular framework of
advancing people of color, those policies and practices will have to change. It’s a cultural and
structural change on this campus.” These findings reflect that activities that lead to personal
growth, such as mentorship and leadership training, can enhance advancement readiness.
However, these activities need to be a part of the campus and system effort prioritizing the
diversification of leadership.
Exposing the Hidden Curriculum. Exposing the hidden curriculum of advancement
emerged as a study finding. A hidden curriculum is a variety of influences within organizational
structures or cultures, and learning the hidden curriculum allows individuals to thrive or fail in
environments with hidden curriculums (Hafferty, 1998). The hidden curriculum manifests itself
in four main components: resource allocation, institutional slang, role models, and explicit or
unspoken rules and regulations. Six of the 11 participants identified the lack of knowledge of the
hidden curriculum of advancement as an advancement barrier. The two areas identified as having
a hidden curriculum that needed to be identified and understood in order to advance were the
path to leadership roles and interviewing.
Unclear Path to Leadership. Unclear paths to leadership can make it difficult for
aspiring Chicana/os leaders to know which progressive leadership roles to pursue or what
competencies and skills are needed to be competitive and ready for a role. L3 pointed out what
the process of trying to figure out the steps to advancement is like:
93

And for communities of color for different reasons is that this becomes a scavenger hunt.
It’s a scavenger hunt … who am I going to ask [about advancement], where do I go from
here to there, or should I even ask?
L6 shared the notion that there is talent in positions that could advance. Yet, the road to
advancement can be camouflaged. L6 said,
I look at the system level, there are a lot of us in middle management right now, without a
clear pathway ... sociologists talk about the hidden curriculum, the navigational capital ...
I think we have to map that out.
L4 believed that the hidden curriculum of advancement is not a one size fits all approach or set
of knowledge; instead, this curriculum is a systematic approach that creates a knowledge base
around multiple positions and how to pursue needed opportunities. L4 said, “We have to unpack
all the different opportunities, what does it mean to be a dean, a chair, an administrator?
Moreover, how do you articulate the hidden curriculum of each?”
Interviewing for Leadership Roles. The hidden curriculum of preparing for and
succeeding in interviews for administrative leadership roles can hinder Chicana/o professional
advancement. All of the participants had held multiple roles of progressive leadership over their
careers. Nevertheless, they realized that there were completely different norms and processes
when interviewing for the roles of dean and chancellor. Not knowing the hidden curriculum can
make it challenging to prepare and avoid landmines in the interview process. L11 is serving as a
mentor to two Chicanas interviewing for roles and detailed their experiences with the interview
process:
They have both PhDs, they can’t even find a damn job because they have to fit a
particular model. … It’s grueling, the process that they have to go through because they
94

have to answer particular. … You almost have to play a strategic game. You’re preparing
in a particular way to answer questions.
In addition to struggling to understand how to respond to interview questions and feeling
rejected when not being hired, there were other negative feelings identified with the process. L11
described the frustration of her mentee and the inner conflict of going through a process that
leaves them feeling personally compromised. She said, “she was crying … she didn’t think she
did really well, [and she said], ‘The questions they asked me were multi prongs, three parts to it
and this, it’s like I’m selling my soul.’” An executive coach pointed out the hidden curriculum of
interviewing to L5, and he also described difficulties with the requirements: “I thought by that
point I was very polished and knew the system. I was wrong. There was very much a hidden
curriculum. I struggled with coaching.” He further shared that the hidden curriculum of
interviewing for such roles demands that you prepare to answer to the hiring committee
expectations and in essence, not be yourself. How L5 put it was that he received advice to
specifically not discuss Latino issues and avoid language like “student advocate.” Upon hearing
this advice, L5 felt conflicted because in his words, “No, I’m authentic. This is me 100% of the
time.” Through coaching, he understood that just for this process, he needed to “learn to
simulate” to meet committee expectations, and after he got the job, he could go back to being
himself. These findings document how influences at the organizational level of mentorship,
executive coaching, and leadership development programs can aid in career advancement, while
unawareness of the hidden curriculum of pursuing leadership roles can be a barrier.
Theme 5: Workplace Conditions and Advancement (Microsystem: Workplace Influences)
The workplace environment can be a supportive springboard to roles of greater
responsibility or a limiting environment that inhibits advancement. Participants responses
95

revealed findings of experiences and characteristics related to positive and unsupportive
workplace settings. Positive workplace settings include proactive career planning and
development and advancement support. Unsupportive supervisors or colleagues were
characteristics of workplaces that restricted advancement.
Positive Workplace Settings. Workplace settings that encourage employee advancement
and are proactive in employee career planning can help advance Chicana/os to leadership roles.
Seven of 11 participants responded that they had been encouraged to advance and actively
supported the advancement of others. Encouraging advancement can come in the form of verbal
encouragement, planning a future advancement trajectory, or providing resources. Multiple
participants credit their advancement at different career points to colleagues and superiors
communicating that they were either ready for advancement or should start thinking about their
next professional steps. For L6, it was verbal encouragement from a high-ranking colleague who
made clear that he was ready for the next step and shared a helpful analogy to show how ready
he was and why he needed to advance:
It’s like packing a parachute, you can pack it and unpack it, pack it and unpack it until
you get it right, but at a certain point, you’ve got to just jump and trust that you did
everything that you could in that opportunity.
The encouragement L2 received was more direct: “You’re outgrowing your role. Really
think about what’s next for you.” Multiple participants also stated that superiors encouraged
them to pursue a terminal degree as a next step in their development for advancement.
Study participants said that in addition to receiving verbal encouragement to advance,
resources made available to them in the form of time and funding made their advancement
possible. L5 commented on the vital support he received from his office: “[My boss] supported
96

me by allowing me to take Fridays off to do my EdD program. That was very pivotal in my
development.” L5 also received funding to make his development more affordable: “[My
supervisor] gave me a $3,000 for the year to help cover some of the costs around my doctoral
degree, aside from the time off and all that.” L9 also enjoyed a supportive workplace that
bolstered his development and advancement. He shared, “I was sent to leadership development
programs. Often if I saw something that would be helpful outside the university, my supervisor
would let me go. So, I definitely felt like there was support there.” L4 elaborated on how he
makes a point to be supportive by making employees aware of untapped resources. In addition,
crafting opportunities based on the needs of an employee may have included restructuring work
responsibilities and understanding family responsibilities to actualize opportunities. L4 described
his supervisor’s conversation with him about making an advanced degree work:
I’m surprised how many people don’t know that we have two-thirds off tuition in the
GSU system … you need to talk about what that would look like in your job, let’s talk
about that so that I can give you bandwidth, not just the information but bandwidth to
make it a reality. Do you have a family? What accommodations do we need to make?
Proactive organizational career planning along with verbal encouragement, funding, and
time to pursue development positively influenced participants advancement. Proactive career
planning can come in the form of regular discussions about advancement between supervisors
and employees or in-depth mapping of steps for development to support an individual’s
professional goals. L9 described taking a proactive approach of initiating advancement
discussions and establishing partnerships with aspiring leaders to support their advancement. L9
asserted that when advancement conversations become an expected norm and regular practice,
the employee and the entire workplace benefit. L9 described his commitment to advancement: “I
97

committed to supporting [colleagues] and their responsibility was to present ideas. I believe in a
proactive approach; the conversations are going to occur, and decisions will be made to support
the development of the colleague.” L3 and L6 both emphasized that proactive discussions and
planning are important. L3 shared, “Having more targeted efforts to lift [Chicana/os], to have the
conversation about what is your next step, because that’s part of the challenge for [Chicana/os]?”
L6 built on prior responses and described establishing advancement plans: “Defining different
types of leadership for folks, being intentional in the conversations, having sustained long-term
plans for each individual staff member.”
Study participants reported that to establish a proactive workplace supportive of
advancement, they need to do their part. Participants gave examples of the actions they are
taking to support advancement. L11 described her support of other Chicanas on her campus: “So
I’m currently mentoring three Latinas who are mid-career. And yeah, and then I think I’m
always willing to talk to anybody who’s interested about navigation or career.” L4 and L6
worked together in building a staff and student services center on their campus. They elaborated
on steps they took and the reputation their programs enjoyed regarding developing and
advancing their employees. L4 said, “My organization, we are known for training and advancing
from within.” L4 and L6 also described the results of being a proactive and supportive setting for
advancement: “If you invest in your people, if you give them the tools that they need to
understand what’s expected at the next level, then they rise to the top in that process.” These
findings suggest that workplace settings that are proactive and supportive in discussing,
encouraging, and planning development and advancement can positively influence Chicana/os
pursuing leadership opportunities.
98

The Workplace: Friend or Foe? Responses from participant interviews suggest that a
lack of colleague support in the workplace can lead to moments of discouragement and
negatively influence a desire to advance professionally. Six of the 11 participants shared that
they encountered experiences where colleagues were unsupportive. Two respondents discussed
difficult experiences with unsupportive and self-serving supervisors and how their experiences
prevented their advancement. L1 shared his frustrating early career experience when he earned
his PhD and was looking to continue as director of the Math Engineering Science Achievement
(MESA) Program but expand his portfolio with some teaching at the campus. L1 had devised an
arrangement that would cause no disruptions for his duties, receive funds to pay an assistant
director, and increase L1’s work time. L1’s supervisor’s response to the proposal was blunt, “No,
I don’t think it’s a good idea.” The negative response from his supervisor was an emotional
moment. L1 stated, “I’ve been working all this time at 50% time, running the program … now I
can work 67% time and hire somebody, and this white guy said no, for no reason.” L1 chronicled
his feelings afterward: “I think what really discouraged me, when the Dean of Engineering said,
‘Nah, you don’t need to teach.’ I was like, ‘Wow. Am I stuck here now as a MESA director for
the rest of my life?’” The experience of L7 with an unsupportive supervisor prevented her
advancement for a while, and only after taking legal action was L7 able to advance to a higher
leadership role. This situation is also discussed in the systemic level influences section. L7
desired to advance and felt it was warranted given her growth in responsibilities, fundraising, and
performance. L7 explained how and why her supervisor was unsupportive. She said, “A
supervisor benefited tremendously from having me in a role underneath him, the more my
portfolio grew, he used that to leverage a promotion for himself. So, he really didn’t have any
desire to lose me in that role.”
99

Findings revealed that Chicana/o colleagues and leaders are not always allies or
supportive of one another’s advancement. Six of the eleven participants indicated that there were
instances in their career where Chicana/o colleagues from whom they expected support were
unhelpful or discouraging. In full disclosure of positionality as the researcher and a Chicano
male, it was surprising and concerning to report this finding. However, as over half of the
participants encountered instances of non-support from their Chicana/o colleagues, the
experience is not uncommon. Participant L9, who served 28 years in the GSU system and
ascended to the highest role of president, shed light on why some Chicana/o leaders or
colleagues may be unsupportive: She said, “Sometimes in our community, people don’t help
each other, where there’s this bit of a dynamic where the only one wants to be the only one.”
Respondents who experienced a lack of support communicated that leadership spaces can
already be isolating places with little diversity; not having the support of other Chicana/os can
make longevity difficult. L8 shared that she makes it a point to seek out other Chicana/os and to
lead with openness and be supportive based on a previous damaging episode she had with a
Chicana supervisor. For L8, having the opportunity to work for another Chicana was something
she had been waiting for, and she had great expectations of the possibilities. L8 found that the
relationship was anything but supportive, and said, “Finally, I have a Latina boss … it was going
to be great, I was going to learn so much. And of course, it was the exact opposite, it was one of
the most trying experiences I ever had.”
A lack of support from Chicana/o colleagues also manifested itself in an unwillingness to
share information or showing no interest or openness to simply meeting to have a discussion. L1
had the opportunity to experience both of these situations. When a new Chicano vice-chancellor
was installed in his division, L1 sought to establish rapport and learn what he could from a
100

successful Chicano colleague. L1 attempted to have lunch with his Chicano superior, was
rebuffed, and the experience was quite a blow for L1. He shared,
I called the assistant [and said] “Oh, I want to go out to lunch with him.” She said, “Oh,
he won’t go to lunch with you unless your supervisor is there.” I said, “What?” Yeah, he
doesn’t do that. He’ll only go to lunch with you if your supervisor comes.”
L1 lamented that he had another Chicano so close who had achieved success and could have
shared insights and resources that may have helped his career, yet it was a lost opportunity. A
recurrence of this experience took place with a colleague whom L1 saw as a friend. A job
opportunity arose that L1 wished to discuss with his Chicano colleague, who was knowledgeable
about the position. L1 was stunned that his friend would not even entertain a couple of his
questions about the role. L1 shares his emotional experience with feeling unsupported with his
Chicano colleague. He described starting the conversation by telling his friend, “So, you can’t
meet with me? I’ve got two damn questions. If I was a white guy, you’d … answer the questions.
But you don’t want to be perceived like you’re helping me?” L1 went on to describe how the
conversation concluded: “He just refused to even answer those questions and he was my buddy.”
L10 described the betrayal she endured when harshly punished for advocating for students by a
vice-chancellor, and how her Chicano colleagues abandoned her. She said, and here’s the sad
part, the Chicanos who I thought were my colleagues, I called them [expletive] out, [and I asked
them], “What the hell did you guys do?” [They responded], “[The vice-chancellor] told us not to
talk to you. He told us.” I’m like, “You [Chicano colleagues] are [expletive].”
In a similar experience of loneliness in times of difficulty, L6 shared how he received
significant blowback from campus leaders when he raised questions about new financial aid
regulations related to course scheduling and the number of units students needed to carry. L6
101

offered his opinion that students from low-income families would be disproportionately affected
by the new regulations. While many of his Chicano colleagues on campus agreed with his points
and stance, when L6 faced a reprimand for being outspoken, the blame all fell on him. He
described this: “I also felt as it was playing out, there were lots of people who expressed their
support of me, the cause that I had taken on. But when the [expletive] hit the fan, they were
nowhere to be found. These findings show that when Chicana/os are unsupportive of each other,
it can negatively influence the pursuit of future opportunities, make it difficult to operate
successfully in leadership spaces, and inhibit the ability to form supportive work relationships
with colleagues in similar life experiences. These are examples of how the microsystem
influences of workplace conditions operating at the campus level of GSU hinder the professional
advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles.
Summary
Two research questions guided this study examining the underrepresentation of
Chicana/os in higher education leadership roles. The first research study question examined the
systemic level factors that positively or negatively influence the professional advancement of
Chicana/os to leadership. Findings and participants perspectives illustrate the belief that systemic
institutional discrimination exists and is used to maintain the homogeneity of existing leadership
spaces. Furthermore, limiting pre-conceived notions regarding Chicana/os abilities and aptitudes
for leadership are a second manifestation of institutional discrimination. Lastly, human resources
and hiring practices are additional inhibiting influences operating at the GSU systemic level.
The second question sought to identify individual and workplace influences that may
support or obstruct Chicana/os paths to leadership. In some cases, individual and workplace
themes could both facilitate or hinder advancement. For example, the leaders indicated their
102

individual leadership mentality, disposition, as well as community cultural wealth factors have
buoyed and sustained their advancement. Conversely, at times their own limiting mindsets and
cultural conflicts had to be overcome to climb the ladder of success. Likewise, the findings
illustrated that workplace conditions if proactive and encouraging with career planning and
development can propel aspiring leaders to advancement, while an unsupportive workplace can
thwart the hope of advancement.

103

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The study aimed to examine the under-representation of Chicana/os in higher education
leadership positions to understand the influences that support or hinder advancement. This study
was essential because as the number of college students of color has significantly increased,
academic parity has not (Bichsel & McChesney, 2017; Page, 2013). Addressing the
underrepresentation of Chicana/os in leadership roles could improve academic achievement for
students of color and help universities achieve their goals (Contreras, 2017). Eleven Chicana/o
leaders were purposefully sampled and shared their paths to leadership, experiences navigating
leadership spaces, and perspectives on factors that support advancement (leadership mentality
and disposition, personal growth, work settings supportive of growth and development) and
hinder advancement (human resources and hiring process, limiting mindsets, unsupportive
colleagues, and institutional discrimination and narrow views of leadership). This chapter
discusses findings connected to relevant literature and the study’s conceptual framework. The
chapter then continues with recommendations for practice, limitations and delimitations,
recommendations for future research, and study conclusions.
The questions used to guide the study were the following:
1. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’ distal
organizational environment that support or hinder their professional advancement?
2. What are the perceived influences in Chicana/os higher education leaders’ immediate
organizational environment that support or hinder their professional advancement?

104

Discussion of Findings
The research and analysis phases brought forth findings that shed light on the influences
occurring at multiple levels preventing and propelling Chicana/o professional advancement.
These findings aligned with the conceptual framework and the extant literature on Chicana/o
higher education leaders. The conceptual framework was an adapted Bronfenbrenner ecological
systems theory model that includes five interacting systems; this study focuses on the individual,
microsystem, and exosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1988; Vélez-Agosto et al., 2017). The
themes that emerged at the immediate level focused on how participants cultural capital and
participation in personal growth activities buoyed advancement while limiting mindsets in the
forms of imposter attitudes and exhibiting a survival versus an advancement outlook delayed
promotion to higher roles. In addition, the workplace and the presence or non-presence of
supportive colleagues, professional encouragement, planning, and development could serve to
facilitate or stunt advancement. Lastly, distal level influences manifested themselves at the
systemic level, existing throughout the GSU system and included institutional discrimination and
bias in human resources processes and hiring as areas limiting advancement.
Individual Influences: Chicana/o Community Cultural Wealth and Personal Growth as
Tools for Advancement
Study participants advanced professionally and obtained leadership roles by melding
home culture experiences and teachings with continuous engagement in personal growth. The
experiences and teachings utilized by leaders in the study are forms of community cultural
wealth, defined as knowledge, expertise, talents, and connections from one’s home culture
employed by communities of color to navigate and resist various forms of oppression (Yosso,
2005). Personal growth activities, including mentorship, executive coaching, and leadership
105

development programs, have provided Chicana/os tools and insights essential for advancement
and success as leaders.
Chicana/o Community Cultural Wealth
Research mined from the literature review process and study participants’ testimonies
corroborate that cultural values and teachings acquired from one’s home culture should be
validated and are educational and professional assets (Arévalo, 2013; Canul, 2003; Davis &
Maldonado, 2015; Flores, 2013; Muñoz, 2009). Eight of 11 study participants utilized familial,
social, and navigational capital forms of community cultural wealth to ascend to and practice
leadership roles. The infusion of community cultural wealth throughout the professional
trajectory of the participants exemplifies that Chicana/o administrators bring a variety of skills,
perspectives, and knowledge to leadership spaces that are assets. It also proves to aspiring
Chicana/o professionals that their own community cultural wealth can hold professional value.
The following sections discussed multiple forms of community cultural wealth utilized by study
participants, including social, familial, and navigational capital.
Social capital, which utilizes connections between individuals and resources to achieve
goals, was operationalized by study participants through the practice of collectivism (Yosso,
2005). Leaders in the study successfully achieved consensus and achieved objectives due to their
intentionality and skills in establishing meaningful working relationships with colleagues and
valuing the contributions of their team members.
Familial capital are teachings and knowledge gained from family or extended kinship.
Familial capital positively influenced the leadership styles, work ethic, and drive to succeed of
study participants. The successful Chicana/o leaders in the study learned the ability to garner and
106

use influence with colleagues to achieve an objective, persist in times of difficulty, and have the
confidence to pursue goals by observing and interacting with family members.
Navigational capital played a critical role in study participants’ prowess in operating in
leadership spaces. Higher education leadership spaces can be unwelcoming and exhibit disparate
treatment and discrimination toward leaders of color (Chun & Evans, 2015; Gardner et al., 2014;
Orelus, 2020; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011; Turner & Grauerholz, 2017). The participants in the
study have been able to circumvent difficulties and function in leadership spaces by using
navigation capital to create alliances, assess situations and counterparts, and be politically savvy.
All skills are necessary to thrive as a leader. To build upon their adroit use of community cultural
wealth, leaders in the study continually sought to build additional skills and experience necessary
to access and succeed in leadership spaces. The leaders sought and participated in personal
growth activities to achieve these skills and knowledge. Leaders in the study all shared that they
had attended leader development academies, had many mentors, and received executive
coaching. The following sections will highlight the types and benefits of various personal growth
activities that were a part of the study participant’s path to leadership.
Personal Growth
Personal growth activities instilled study participants with tools, insights, connections,
and preparation to unveil the hidden curriculum of advancement. The resources, knowledge of
explicit or unspoken rules, roles models, and institutional slang needed for advancement are parts
of the hidden curriculum that aspiring Chicana/o leaders may lack. (Hafferty, 1998). All of the
participants in the study indicated that they had participated in and benefited from development
activities such as mentorship, executive coaching, and leadership development programs.
107

Mentors provided study participants assistance in demystifying the path to leadership,
help in avoiding rookie mistakes, encouragement to pursue leadership opportunities, affirmation
of qualities and talents, support in times of difficulty, and instilled a leadership identity (Briscoe
& Freeman, 2019; Salinas et al., 2020).
Executive coaching proved equally valuable in different ways. Executive coaching
guided participants in training on interview semantics, connections to higher education power
brokers who participate and influence leadership searches, becoming comfortable with
promotion, and a roadmap of the different stages of a leadership application process. Of note,
50% of participants expressed that while personal growth activities are beneficial, structural
changes in how the GSU system identifies, interviews, and hires for its leadership positions need
to occur to achieve equitable inclusion in leadership spaces.
The findings revealed that the hidden curriculum of advancement could be deciphered by
combining Chicana/o community cultural wealth and seeking personal growth opportunities.
Aspiring Chicana/o leaders should understand that professional development activities are
central to their advancement and should actively seek these opportunities. More importantly,
Chicana/os with an eye on advancement should understand that their home cultures also endow
skills and cultural capital valuable as leaders.
Workplace Influences: Advancement Culture and Colleagues
Workplace Advancement Culture
Workplaces with a culture where career planning and development are normalized
positively influence participants’ career advancement. Seven of the 11 study participants
reported that their workplaces supported their advancement. Participant’s types of support
included encouraging discussions about readiness for advancement and professional
108

development resources. Career planning discussions with superiors provided reassurance when
participants doubted their abilities and prodding to pursue excellent opportunities. Participants’
ability to pursue and secure leadership roles was bolstered by their workplace providing release
time for professional development, schooling, funding for continuing education, and nominating
participants for leadership academies. A positive outcome of study participants’ supportive
workplace experiences is that now as leaders and administrators, the participants themselves
strive to make career planning and supporting advancement a norm with their employees.
Establishing a workplace culture supporting employees’ careers and professional development
can help organizations increase the number of diverse individuals seeking and succeeding in
advancement (De Vos et al., 2011).
Colleagues
Workplace colleagues were both facilitators and obstacles to advancement. Over half of
the participants indicated that unsupportive supervisors or colleagues had negatively affected
advancement opportunities. A lack of support by superiors occurred by refusing to recognize
professional contributions and accomplishments, denying promotion requests, or showing no
interest in participants’ aspirations. Superiors that are unsupportive of employee advancement
can negatively affect morale, employees’ sense of belonging and stagnate career growth
(Gardner et al., 2014; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011; Turner & Grauerholz, 2017).
An unexpected finding was that participants encountered episodes where their Chicana/o
counterparts did not support them. The lack of support from their once trusted Chicana/o
colleagues occurred during times of difficulty and or when seeking new roles. Over half of the
participants discussed situations where Chicano colleagues and friends refused to share even
basic information about upcoming positions of interest, experienced feelings of abandonment
109

and lack of support when embroiled in a controversy or challenging predicament, or had their
expectations crushed when one of their worst supervisors was a Chicano/a. Negative experiences
with members of one’s community can adversely affect advancement as it may decrease feelings
of belonging and compound isolation in leadership spaces where Chicana/os are already
underrepresented (Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013; Snyder et al., 2019). On the bright side, most
participants reported that they also received encouragement, acceptance, tough love, and support
in times of difficulty. Colleagues positively influenced participants’ advancement by alerting
them of upcoming opportunities, believing in their abilities, mapping out their career paths, and
helping to prepare for new roles. Caring colleagues invested in one’s professional success can
positively influence an individual’s professional outlook and sense of self-worth (Briscoe &
Freeman, 2019; Chen & Yang, 2019).
Systemic Influences: Gatekeeping Hiring Practices
Study participants conveyed that various aspects of the GSU recruitment and hiring
processes obstructed their advancement and impeded increasing the number of Chicana/os in
leadership. The factors identified as problematic to recruitment and hiring for leadership were an
overall minimalist approach to hiring diverse candidates, exclusionary job criteria, repeated
advertising of openings and recruitment patterns that replicate the status quo, non-diverse
selection committees, hiring bias, lack of training for selection committee members on implicit
bias and limited awareness of the value of leadership diversity (Wolfe & Freeman, 2013). These
factors individually and in concert are challenging to overcome because they can derail a diverse
applicant’s chances at multiple points in the hiring process.
Exclusionary job criteria that privilege factors unrelated to administrative roles or
functions, such as membership in the academic senate or faculty status, can be used to
110

marginalize capable candidates of color with non-academic backgrounds (Rowan-Kenyon et al.,
2011). Multiple study participants lamented that they had the experience and a proven track
record of competing for leadership roles; however, unrelated exclusionary job criteria prevented
them from applying. Chicana/o leaders communicated that based on the make-up of GSU
leadership and their prior participation on hiring committees, in many cases, hiring committees
have shown a tendency to hire candidates who resemble their discipline, education, or research
background. Selection committees lacking training and balance in gender, diversity, and rank can
be susceptible to practicing non-inclusive and biased hiring decisions (Kayes, 2006). Findings
showed that since multiple impeding factors can negatively influence the advancement of non-
White applicants, that simple tweaks or adjustments are insufficient to address gatekeeping
hiring approaches. A systemwide approach that comprehensively addresses hiring barriers that
disenfranchise diverse candidates with standardization and monitoring is urgently needed
(CORO, 2018; Gasman et al., 2011). Institutions that fail to diversify their faculty and leadership
risk garnering reputations of being inhospitable to the staff of color and inhibit the college’s
ability to attract diverse talent (Gasman et al., 2015). Findings reflect that the recruitment and
hiring processes of the GSU system can negatively affect the advancement of Chicana/os to
leadership roles.
Recommendations for Practice
Addressing the dilemma of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education
leadership roles requires a multi-pronged approach implemented at multiple levels. The
influences supporting and hindering advancement exist in the individual, workplace, and
systemwide settings. The adapted Bronfenbrenner conceptual model used for the study
111

designated the individual and workplace as representing the immediate settings of the individual
and microsystem levels. The GSU system represented the distal setting of the exoystem.
The findings produced two recommendations that support advancement at the immediate levels
of the individual and workplace: (a) cracking the hidden curriculum: community cultural wealth
and personal growth; and (b) work settings as a catalyst for advancement; as well as one
recommendation for the distal level: hiring: systemwide messaging, actions, and accountability.
Recommendation 1: Cracking the Hidden Curriculum: Community Cultural Wealth and
Personal Growth to Unlock Opportunities
Chicana/o leaders concerned with their underrepresentation in GSU leadership and the
adverse effects on isolated and aspiring Chicana/o professionals need to take a proactive
approach to groom future leaders. The valuable accumulation of community cultural wealth and
personal growth experiences in possession of the successful leaders in the study should be
disseminated to open doors for future leaders. Disseminating this information would aid in
undressing the hidden curriculum of advancement and position more significant numbers of
Chicana/os with essential knowledge and expertise key to securing leadership roles and
increasing representation. This recommendation can be enacted by establishing yearly
systemwide academies and training led by experienced Chicana/o administrators in collaboration
with Chicana/o campus affinity groups providing mentorship, leadership development programs,
executive coaching, and advancement resources (León & Martinez, 2013; Muñoz, 2009).
Increasing the numbers of Chicana/os in leadership positions requires proactive self-
determination efforts by experienced Chicana/o leaders and the GSU community. Study findings
revealed no current or foreseeable systemic efforts underway to address the dearth of Chicana/s
in leadership. A majority of the participants shared that they had used cultural wealth in the form
112

of knowledge, skills, teachings, and abilities from their home culture to obtain and sustain their
leadership roles (Yosso, 2005). In addition, 100% of leaders in the study cited that they had
participated in personal growth activities that positively impacted their careers.
Furthermore, 50% of participants stated that they had struggled with and, over time,
better understood the hidden curriculum of advancement, which allowed for promotions to
leadership. These findings underscore the need for seasoned Chicano/a leaders to create training
and advancement resources to respond to the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in leadership
positions. There are numerous benefits of leaders sharing their wealth of knowledge and
experience with younger Chicana/o professionals via leadership academies and training. These
benefits include overcoming the obstacles of limiting mindsets and insecurities, unclear paths to
leadership, navigating the executive hiring processes, building a sense of belonging, avoiding
novice mistakes, and low leadership self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Machida, M, 2011).
Increasing the numbers of aspiring Chicana/o leaders overcoming these obstacles through
training, guidance, and tutelage of experienced Chicana/o leaders can produce a greater
representation of Chicana/os in executive positions.
Recommendation 2: The Workplace as Catalyst for Advancement
Campuses, divisions, and units should build into their yearly strategic plans proactive
twice a year career planning and professional development opportunities and monitoring to
encourage and support the advancement of all employees, especially traditionally
underrepresented groups in leadership. Instituting workplace cultures that are proactive in
encouraging, preparing, and supporting advancement can lead to more significant numbers of
Chicana/os advancing to leadership roles. Seven of the 11 participants in the study experienced
work settings where they were encouraged and supported to participate in professional
113

development and pursue higher-level positions. Furthermore, due to the support they received,
leaders in the study consciously strove to instill a proactive development and advancement
culture to support employees with their future goals. Campuses that advocate and encourage their
divisions, department, and work units to serve as developers of talent can begin to provide a
campus-level response to the systemic issue of Chicana/o underrepresentation in leadership.
Recruiting from middle management within organizations is crucial as, in many cases, there are
blockages of staff of color in these roles (Kwon, 2018). Workplaces that make it a practice to
identify and groom diverse talent from within the organization can aid succession planning and
increase leadership diversity. Proactive workplaces that intend to increase leadership diversity
instead of looking for outside candidates should look at Chicana/os in middle management roles
and provide support to learn about how to pursue advancement (Campbell, 2018; Vardaman et
al., 2013). Campus organizational departments and units should normalize and implement
quarterly one-on-one and group discussions regarding advancement opportunities, how to pursue
different leadership paths, and types of preparation needed for advancement to leadership roles.
Workplace settings should invest and provide resources to their employees because they
will gain more engaged and productive employees and also aid in the development of a more
diverse leadership pool. Workplace settings become a catalyst for advancement when they make
resources such as funding, leadership practicums, release time, and training available to their
employees (Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013). Campus departments and units can help advancement
by exposing and providing duties to gain experience and skills in essential leadership
competencies, including budgets, fundraising, supervision, and communication skills. Chicana/o
staff interested in pursuing leadership roles could accelerate their advancement and chances of
success if workplaces practiced release time to pursue training or a degree. In addition, setting-up
114

leadership practicums where they interact with other leaders and observe executive meetings can
help build leadership acumen (Flowers & Moore, 2008). Lastly, the review of literature and
study participants cited the practice of workplaces providing vital funding to pursue graduate or
doctoral study, and nominations to leadership development programs were pivotal to their
advancement (Gagliardi et al., 2017).
Recommendation 3: Hiring: Systemwide Messaging, Actions, and Accountability
Creating equitable and standardized hiring processes across the GSU system is essential
in recruiting and hiring more diverse candidates into leadership roles. A multi-pronged approach
is needed to implement an equitable systemwide hiring process that can increase the numbers of
Chicana/os in leadership roles. The GSU hiring process should standardize the following across
the system: messaging, recruitment of candidates, selection committee composition and training,
and benchmarking and monitoring progress in increasing leadership diversity.
• Messaging: System-level and campus leadership on down must signal strong,
ongoing, and lockstep messaging about the benefits of a diverse workforce and the
importance and priority of having equitable hiring processes that produce an
employee pool reflective of the state of California at all levels, especially leadership
(CORO, 2018; Kayes, 2006). Clear messaging that minimalist or piecemeal
approaches to hiring that do not provide diverse applicant and interview pools are not
tolerated. Critical-mass hiring that brings in multiple diverse employees at a time
should be the norm to address ethnic diversity disparities in leadership representation
and minimize isolation (Gasman et al., 2011). Messaging should include plans for
monitoring and accountability.
115

• Recruitment: Search committees and human resources should expand their
recruitment approaches and eliminate exclusionary job criteria. Search firms, search
committees, and HR departments have to be committed to recruiting diverse
candidates for leadership roles. Recruitment should go beyond focusing on
individuals solely from Ivy League, A1 research institutions, or specific disciplines.
Candidates with a track record of success in a role or area deserve consideration
instead of credentials or accolades unrelated to the job’s duties. Furthermore,
exclusionary job criteria unrelated to the role of an administrator in a non-academic
unit, such as service in the academic senate, a record of research, or publishing,
should not be included in job descriptions (Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011).
• Selection committees: The composition of selection committees hiring for leadership
roles must include an equal number of members from faculty and non-faculty settings
with equal or similar ranks as well an equal balance of gender and ethnic diversity.
Members of selection committees should undergo professional development and
training on implicit bias and the benefits of diverse leadership.
• Benchmarking and monitoring: Accountability using benchmarking and monitoring
are cornerstones in establishing an equitable and standardized systemwide hiring
process that can gauge progress, attract, and hire more significant numbers of
Chicana/os into leadership roles. A key component of accountability is the collecting,
tracking, monitoring, and reporting of hiring data (Wolfe & Freeman, 2013). A hiring
scorecard reporting the progress made on diversity-related matters, including hiring
into leadership positions, should be published yearly at all GSU campus sites and
colleges or schools within the campus. Yearly evaluations of campus, division, and
116

HR leaders will include evaluations tied to efforts and progress towards advancing
diversity in leadership positions. Lastly, there should be outside evaluators brought in
every 5 years to evaluate efforts, measure progress, identify barriers and provide
recommendations (Gasman et al., 2015).
Limitations and Delimitations
The design of this study fills a gap in the literature but also presents multiple limitations
and delimitations. A study’s limitations are outcomes or occurrences not within the researcher’s
control (Simon & Goes, 2013). The target population was non-faculty Chicana/os in leadership
positions of director and above in the GSU system. These characteristics of the participants
presented a limitation as non-faculty Chicana/os are an underrepresented group in leadership.
The study utilized snowball sampling to identify and recruit participants. However, the
researcher faced challenges in constructing what is considered a viable sample of eight to 12
participants, according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The time constraints of the study also
contributed to the challenges in assembling the final sample of 11 participants.
The participants’ close connections to the study topic possibly influenced their responses.
Participants shared experiences and anecdotes about their path to leadership, professional and
personal motivations, difficulties they encountered, and perspectives on the topic of the
underrepresentation of Chicana/os in leadership. Many participants had not had the opportunity
to discuss their leadership trajectory or express their thoughts on the topic. The interview process
may have prompted participants to reflect and address experiences they may have not fully
processed or triggered a bitter moment that influenced their responses (Creswell & Creswell,
2014).
117

The study participants, their characteristics, and the setting created limitations for the
study. The study intentionally sought to fill a gap in the literature by establishing specific
parameters that non-faculty Chicana/os with characteristics of a minimum of 5 years of service in
positions of director or higher in the GSU system would be study participants. Therefore, given
the sample size, participants’ ethnicity, gender differences, differing leadership positions, and
research settings, the findings will not be generalizable beyond the study sample (Simon & Goes,
2013). An additional delimitation of the study was that triangulation was limited. Triangulation
entails using multiple types of data to increase qualitative research validity (Creswell &
Creswell, 2014). Document analysis was not included due to a lack of access to noteworthy
materials that would contribute to the study and time constraints. Qualitative document analysis
may include researching artifacts such as agendas, photos, brochures, reports, journals, diaries,
letters, charts, articles, scrapbooks, or entertainment scripts (Bowen, 2009). The study employed
detailed, thick descriptions to convey findings, presented multiple perspectives and unexpected
findings to increase validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, the researcher engaged
all study participants in respondent validation, the process of participants reviewing interview
transcripts for accuracy and authenticity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Positionality is how an
individual, in this case, the researcher, exists in the intersection of race, class, ethnicity,
sexuality, culture, gender, and power relations (Villaverde, 2008). The researcher disclosed their
positionality as a Chicano first generation to college male with a 20-year career in the GSU
system and used reflexivity to maintain awareness of their positionality (Probst & Berenson,
2014).

118

Recommendations for Future Research
Little research exists in higher education that privileges the voices of non-faculty
Chicana/o university leaders. The limited size and specific characteristics of the participant
sample provided valuable insights; however, the topic’s salience requires the inclusion of
additional perspectives and research approaches to address it more comprehensively. Based on
the findings and the study’s conceptual framework, three recommendations for future research
emerged.
The first recommendation is to expand the study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/o
non-faculty leaders to include leaders from the community college and California State
University systems. A study involving the three systems could compare the representation levels
of Chicana/s in leadership. In addition, analysis of the experiences of Chicana/o leaders from
different systems can lend insight into the similarities and differences of experiences. Lastly, a
comparison and cataloging of influences that support and inhibit advancement need examination
across the three systems. Study findings revealed that participants had experienced and believed
in the existence of systemic level biases in the recruitment and hiring of candidates for leadership
roles. Participants indicated that their underrepresentation in leadership spaces could be partially
addressed through individual personal growth efforts; nonetheless, addressing systemic level
influences requires efforts beyond just Chicana/os in the GSU system. To this end, a qualitative
study is recommended to examine the perspectives and practices of GSU systemwide HR leaders
and associated search firm representatives related to the problem of practice. The study would
review HR and search firms’ efforts and strategies to identify, recruit, and hire Chicana/o
leaders. A review of these efforts would reveal strengths and limitations and provide
recommendations for recruitment and hiring efforts to bolster Chicana/o representation. In
119

addition, the experiences of HR and search firm representatives could bring forth knowledge of
unknown pitfalls and mistakes that have doomed past Chicana/o candidates. Most importantly,
such a study could provide systemic level efforts beyond those of just Chicana/os and guidance
on how to overhaul existing HR and hiring practices to create equitable advancement
opportunities for diverse candidates.
The third recommendation for future research is to conduct a longitudinal study
examining the trajectory of the leaders in the present study. Study participants confessed their
insecurities, hurdles, and the keys to their advancement thus far on their journey to leadership.
None of the participants were of retirement age, and all had intentions of continuing to seek
advancement opportunities. Based on findings related to hiring bias and HR processes, a
longitudinal study would reveal if there had been any systemic level changes that enabled the
study participants and an increased number of Chicana/os to advance to higher-level roles. In
addition, a longitudinal study could provide meaningful information to determine if the supports
and hindrances of Chicana/o advancement identified in the present study still existed or had
expanded or changed. The findings of such as study could enable the developing responses to
any new or unforeseen barriers to Chicana/o advancement.
The three recommendations for future research and the limitations and delimitations offer
multiple angles and approaches for additional studies for individuals or entities seeking to create
leadership spaces that are more inclusive of Chicana/os.
Conclusion
This study examined the professional trajectories of successful Chicana/o higher
education leaders from the GSU system to identify barriers and recommended strategies to
increase Chicana/o representation in GSU leadership roles. Overall, the GSU system and higher
120

education have failed to employ Chicana/o administrators in numbers proportionate to their
rapidly diversifying student populations. The lack of campus leadership reflective of the now
majority Chicana/o student population in California can create an inequitable environment for
students that can negatively affect the areas of academic performance, persistence, support, and
the overall educational experience (Rodríguez et al., 2016)
Findings revealed that various influences operating at the individual, campus, and
systemic levels could influence the inclusion or exclusion of Chicana/os in leadership spaces.
Chicana/os have been adept and proactive by using their home cultures’ capital and personal
growth activities to ascend professionally. Conversely, limiting mindsets of impostorism and
cultural humility have also been self-imposed barriers to Chicana/os professional growth. In
addition, the work setting emerged as having the ability to prepare and propel individuals into
leadership roles by instilling a culture of proactive career development and support. The other
side of the coin is that work settings, and specifically, supervisors and professional colleagues,
can jettison hopes of advancement by negating promotion requests, isolating or marginalizing
Chicana/os into dead-end roles, or not sharing information about professional opportunities.
Lastly, progress towards meaningful, proportionate representation and inclusion of Chicana/os in
executive and leadership positions requires a complete overhaul of the recruitment and hiring
process to provide standardization, training, monitoring, and accountability across the GSU
system.
The findings and recommendations of this study provide valuable contributions to the
body of knowledge addressing the lack of inclusion of Chicana/os in postsecondary leadership
roles. This study addresses a gap in literature where the voices and experiences of Chicana/o
non-faculty higher education leaders are centered and gives insights on the problem of practice
121

based on their lived experiences. Aspiring Chicana/o and leaders of color can learn and find
commonalities and inspiration from the experiences of the study participants and their paths to
leadership. Individuals holding positions of power in higher education can use these findings to
understand the career trajectories of Chicana/o administrators better and evaluate how their
institutions support or hinder advancement. HR departments should use the findings and
recommendations for practice as resources to evaluate if and how their policies and practices
restrict the advancement of Chicana/os to leadership roles and make the necessary changes.
Equally important is that Chicana/o professionals in higher education realize that mutual support
is necessary to address underrepresentation in leadership. The results of this study will aid the
cause of various stakeholder groups and entities interested in or struggling with creating more
inclusive leadership spaces.

122

References
Ali, H. E., Schalk, R., van Engen, M., & van Assen, M. (2018). Leadership self-efficacy and
effectiveness: The moderating influence of task complexity. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 11(4), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21550
Arévalo, R. (2013). Leadership perspectives: From migrant fields to the presidency. Diversity in
Higher Education, 13, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3644(2013)0000013012
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. In Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. Great Minds in Management.
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/BanduraPubs/Bandura2005.pdf
Bichsel, J. (2017). Pay and representation of racial/ethnic minorities in higher education
administrative positions: The century so far. A CUPA-HR research brief.
http://www.cupahr.org/surveys/briefs.aspx
Bichsel, J., & McChesney, J. (2017). Pay and representation of racial/ethnic minorities in higher
education administrative positions: The century so far. A CUPA-HR research brief.
Bilimoria, D., & Buch, K. K. (2010). The search is on: Engendering faculty diversity through
more effective search and recruitment. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(4),
27–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.489022
Bogler, M. (2019). What’s the difference between diversity, inclusion, and equity?
https://doi.org/https://generalassemb.ly/blog/diversity-inclusion-equity-differences-in-
meaning/
123

Bordas, J. (2015). Leadership by the many the power of latino inclusion. Leader to Leader,
2015(75), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/LTL.20167
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, culture and society. Sage.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method article in qualitative.
Emerald.com, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brannon, T. N., Carter, E. R., Murdock‐Perriera, L. A., & Higginbotham, G. D. (2018). From
backlash to inclusion for all: Instituting diversity efforts to maximize benefits across
group lines. Social Issues and Policy Review, 12(1), 57–90.
Briscoe, K. L., & Freeman, S. (2019). The role of mentorship in the preparation and success of
university presidents. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 27(4), 416–438.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2019.1649920
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development: Research paradigms:
Present and future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.),
Persons in context: Developmental processes (pp. 25-49). Cambridge University Press.
Bynum, Y. (2015). The power of informal mentoring. Education, 136(1), 69-73.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/ed/2015/00000136/00000001/art00008
Campbell, C. D. (2018). Leadership from the Middle Pays It Forward: An Academic
Administrator of Color’s Career Development Narrative in Postsecondary Education
Cecil. 23(7), 1702–1716.
Chan, C. (2017, June 29). Talk about diverse hiring often means faculty. What about staff?
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/talk-about-diverse-
hiring-often-means-faculty-what-about-staff/

124

Chang, H., Longman, K. A., & Franco, M. A. (2014). Leadership development through
mentoring in higher education: A collaborative autoethnography of leaders of color.
Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(4), 373–389.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2014.945734
Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2011). Creating an inclusive leadership environment in higher education.
The Higher Education Workplace, 3(2), 20–24.
Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2015). Diverse administrators in peril: The new indentured class in
higher education. Routledge.
Coleman, M. (2012). Leadership and diversity. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 40(5), 592–609.
Contreras, F. (2017). Answering the call: Hispanic-serving institutions as leaders in the quest for
access, excellence, and equity in american higher education. Association of Mexican
American Educators Journal, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.24974/amae.11.3.368
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2013). Glass cliffs and organizational saviors: Barriers to minority
leadership in work organizations? Social Problems, 60(2), 168–187.
Coro, U. (2018). Leading with diversity: UC as a national model for cultivating diverse leaders.
https://www.ucop.edu/human-
resources/coro/2018_forms/2018_uc_coro_northern_cohort_final_report.pdf
Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2014). Research design. Sage.
Crocker, J., & Garcia, J. (2010). Internalized devaluation and situational threat. The SAGE
Handbook of Prejudice. Sage.

125

Darwin, A., & Palmer, E. (2009). Mentoring circles in higher education. Higher Education
Research and Development, 28(2), 125–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360902725017
Davis, D. R., & Maldonado, C. (2015). Shattering the glass ceiling: The leadership development
of African American women in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership, 35.
de los Santos Jr., A. G., & Vega, I. I. (2008). Hispanic presidents and chancellors of institutions
of higher education in the United States in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 7(2), 156–182.
de Onís, C. M. (2021). What’s in an “x”?: An exchange about the politics of “Latinx.” Chiricú
Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures, 1(2). https://about.jstor.org/terms
Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. M. (2017). Race and Ethnicity in
Higher Education: Executive Summary. https://www.pewsocialtrends.
Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. M. (2019). Race and ethnicity in
higher education: A status report. American Council on Education.
Esquibel, A. (1977). The career mobility of Chicano administrators in higher education. Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Esquibel, Antonio. (1992). The career mobility of Chicano administrators in higher education.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Fincher, M., Katsinas, S., & Bush, V. B. (2009). Executive management team demography and
minority student retention: Does executive team diversity influence the retention of
minority students? Journal of College Student Retention, 11(4), 459).
https://doi.org/nfo:doi/

126

Flores, W. V. (2013). Lessons in leadership: How experiences and values have shaped my
presidency. Diversity in Higher Education, 13, 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
3644(2013)0000013014
Fradella, H. F. (2018). Supporting strategies for equity, diversity, and inclusion in higher
education faculty hiring. Springer.
Freeman Jr, S., Kochan, F. K. (2013). University presidents’ perspectives of the knowledge and
competencies needed in 21st century higher education leadership. Journal of Educational
Leadership in Action, 1(1). https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/ela/vol1/iss1/3/
Gagliardi, J. S., Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., & Taylor, M. (2017). American College President
Study 2017. www.tiaainstitute.org.
Gardner, L., Barrett, G. T., & Pearson, C. L. (2014). African American administrators at PWIs:
Enablers of and barriers to career success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(4),
235–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038317
Gasman, M., Abiola, U., & Travers, C. (2015). Diversity and senior leadership at elite
institutions of higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(1), 1.
Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T. H. (2011a). Effectively recruiting faculty of color at highly
selective institutions: A school of education case study. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 4(4), 212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025130
Glass Ceiling Commission (1995). A solid investment: Making full use of the nation’s human
capital.https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/79349/GlassCeilingRecomm
endations.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Gómez-Quiñones, J., & Vásquez, I. (2014). Making Aztlán: Ideology and culture of the Chicana
and Chicano movement, 1966–1977. University of New Mexico Press.
127

Gündemir, S., Dovidio, J. F., Homan, A. C., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2017). The impact of
organizational diversity policies on minority employees’ leadership self-perceptions and
goals. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24(2), 172–188.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816662615
Hafferty, F. W. (1998). Beyond curriculum reform: confronting medicine’s hidden curriculum.
Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 73(4),
403–407. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199804000-00013
Haro, R. (1995). Held to a higher standard: Latino executive selection in higher education. In
Raymond V. Padilla & Rudolfo C. Chavez’s The leaning ivory tower (pp. 189–207).
SUNY Press.
Haro, R., & Lara, J. F. (2003). Latinos and administrative positions in American higher
education. In Jeanette Castellanos & Lee Jones’ The majority in the minority: Expanding
the representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators and students in higher education
(pp. 153–165). Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Harris Canul, K. (2003). Latina/o cultural values and the academy: Latinas navigating through
the administrative role. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority:
Expanding the representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators and students in higher
education (pp. 167–175). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Hawley, K., Paul, S. K., & Hawley, I. K. (2019). I—What Is Impostor Syndrome? Aristotelian
Society Supplementary Volume, 93(1), 203–226.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ003

128

Hersch, J., & Shinall, J. B. (2015). Fifty years later: The legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 424–456.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21824
Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2016). Projections of Education Statistics to 2023. NCES 2015-
073. National Center for Education Statistics.
Jackson, J. F. L., & O’Callaghan, E. M. (2009a). Factors influencing engagement, retention, and
advancement. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(3), 47–64.
Jackson, J. F. L., & O’Callaghan, E. M. (2009b). What do we know about glass ceiling effects?
A taxonomy and critical review to inform higher education research. Research in Higher
Education, 50(5), 460–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9128-9
Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage.
Kayes, P. E. (2006). New paradigns for diversifying faculty and starf in higher education:
Uncovering cultural biases in the cultural and hiring process. Multicultural Education,
14(2), 65–69.
Kwon, J. (2018). Staff diversity at UC Berkeley: An analysis of staff of color representation.
Journal of Higher Education Management, 33(1), 157–186. https://aaua.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/JHEM_2018_33-1.pdf#page=163
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory—What it is not! Routledge.
Lauth, R. (2005). Handing one another along: The creation of AASCU’s millennium leadership
initiative. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-
3644(2005)0000005009

129

León, D. J. (2005). Why leadership programs matter? Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 3–16.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3644(2005)0000005003
León, D. J., & Martinez, R. O. (2013). The status of latino presidents in U.S. public higher
education. Diversity in Higher Education, 13(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
3644(2013)0000013007
León, D. J., & Nevarez, C. (2007). Models of leadership institutes for increasing the number of
top Latino administrators in higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
6(4), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707305344
León, D., & Martinez, R. (2013). Latino college presidents: In their own words.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3cd3/9c1851938b5019542c22261cc499a5d178da.pdf
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education Pays 2016. The College Board Trends in
Higher Education Series.
Machida, M, J. S. (2011). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leader development. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 459–468.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811404419
Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and
sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occupations, 26(4), 483–509.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888499026004005
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
Ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Montas-Hunter, S. S. (2012). Self-efficacy and Latina leaders in higher education. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 11(4), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192712441709

130

Muñoz, M. (2009). In their own words and by the numbers: A mixed-methods study of Latina
community college presidents. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
34(1–2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903385939
Noe-Bustamante, L., Mora, L., & Center, M. L. P. R. (2020). About one-in-four US Hispanics
have heard of Latinx, but just 3% use it. Hispanicad.Com.
http://hispanicad.com/sites/default/files/phgmd_2020.08.11_latinx_final.pdf
Oates, A., Hawkins, I., Blanco, L., Nielsen, N., Garcia- Luis, V., & Meluch, W. (2017). Summitt
Proceedings Report June 5–6, 2017. Generating Engagement and New Inititatives for All
Latinos.
Orelus, P. W. (2020). The cost of being professors and administrators of color in predominantly
white institutions: Unpacking microagression, isolation, exclusion, and unfairness
through a critical race lens. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 14(2), 117–
132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2020.1719063
Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature:
Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 20(6), 876–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.005
Page, J. (2013). Hispanics: A diverse population of students to influence the landscape of higher
education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(1), 37–48.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
Perrakis, A., Campbell, D. M., & Antonaros, M. (2009). Diversifying the community college
CEO pipeline. The Community College Enterprise, 15(1), 7–19.

131

Probst, B., & Berenson, L. (2014). The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers
use reflexivity. Qualitative Social Work, 13(6), 813–827.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013506248
Rivera, L. M., Chen, E. C., Flores, L. Y., Blumberg, F., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2007). The effects of
perceived barriers, role models, and acculturation on the career self-efficacy and career
consideration of hispanic women. Career Development Quarterly, 56(1), 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00019.x
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–
258.
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Perna, L., & Milem, J. F. (2011). Underrepresentation in the Academy
and the Institutional Climate for Faculty Diversity Arizona in Transition: 2013 Arizona
Minority Education Policy Advisory Committee Report View project.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264003593
Rowe-Allen, O., & Smith, M. (2019). Intersecting identities and student affairs professionals. In
W. Carson Byrd, Rachelle J. Brunn-Bevel, & Sarah M. Ovink (Eds.) Intersectionality and
Higher Education (pp. 181–193). Rutgers University Press.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.36019/9780813597706-012/html
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. M. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

132

Samkian, A. (2020). Course Content. Connecting conceptual frameworks to interview protocols.
University of Southern California.
https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/ap/courses/2206/sections/02626899-1da2-4332-8d90-
8fe0176a4413/coursework/module/76f2bbde-bb4c-4c3c-96c7-
3407b078402d/segment/1890b2bd-34e2-4266-90fb-d865b98c6239
Santos, J. L., & Acevedo-Gil, N. (2013). A report card on Latina/o leadership in California’s
public universities: A trend analysis of faculty, students, and executives in the CSU and
UC Systems. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(2), 174–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192712470844
Seidel, M. D. L., Polzer, J. T., & Stewart, K. J. (2000). Friends in high places: The effects of
social networks on discrimination in salary negotiations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666977
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and Scholarly Research: Recipes for Success.
Dissertation Success, LLC.
Smith, G. A., & Ross, M. (2005). American council on education fellows program: Celebrating
40 years of leadership development in higher education. In D. Leon (Ed.) Diversity in
Higher Education, Vol. 5 (pp. 109–126). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3644(2005)0000005007
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics. National
Center for Education Statistics, 51(10), 51–5366. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.51-5366
133

Solórzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the
experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 11(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236926
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:
All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308314460
Stork, E. (2019). Multiple diversity dimensions and organizational climate: Faculty and staff
perceptions about agency, resistance, marginalization, and university leadership.
International Journal of Organizational Diversity, 19(1), 29–44.
https://doi.org/10.18848/2328-6261/CGP/v19i01/29-44
Suárez-McCrink, C. L. (2011). Hispanic women administrators: Self-efficacy factors that
influence barriers to their success. In G. Jean-Marie & B Lloyd-Jones (Eds.) Women of
Color in Higher Education: Turbulent Past, Promising Future (Diversity in Higher
Education, Vol. 9) (pp. 217–242). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3644(2011)0000009015
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggression: More than just race. uua.org.
https://www.uua.org/sites/live-
new.uua.org/files/microaggressions_by_derald_wing_sue_ph.d._.pdf
Turner, C., & Grauerholz, L. (2017). Introducing the invisible man: Black male professionals in
higher education. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39, 212–227.
United States Census Bureau. (2017). 2019 American Community Survey.
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/01000US-united-states/
Valverde, L. A. (1988). The missing element. Change, 20(3), 11.
134

Vardaman, D. L., Vardaman, S. A., Findley, H., & Warren, I. (2013). Do’s and don’ts in the
search for faculty talent. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17(2),
57–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2012.674983
Villalpando, O. (2004). Practical considerations of critical race theory and Latino critical theory
for Latino college students. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(105), 41–50.
Villalpando, O., & Bernal, D. D. (2002). A critical race theory analysis of barriers that impede
the success of faculty of color. In William A. Smith, Philip G. Altbach, & Kofi Lomotey
(Eds.) The Racial Crisis in American Higher Education: Continuing Challenges for the
Twenty-First Century (pp. 243–269). SUNY Press.
Wallace, D., Budden, M., Juban, R., & Budden, C. (2014). Making it to the top: Have women
and minorities attained equality as higher education leaders? Journal of Diversity
Management, 9(1). https://clutejournals.com/index.php/JDM/article/view/8625
Wolfe, B., & Freeman, S. (2013). A case for administrators of color: Insights and policy
implications for higher education’s predominantly White institutions. E-Journal of
Education Policy, Fall. http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/
Wright-Mair, R. (2020). Longing to belong: Mentoring relationships as a pathway to fostering a
sense of belonging for racially minoritized faculty at predominantly White institutions.
Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity, 6(2), 2–31.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

135

Zolner, J. P. (2005). The Harvard Institutes for Higher Education: Thirty-five years of fostering
leadership development for administrators of color. In D. Leon (Ed.) Lessons in
Leadership (Diversity in Higher Education, Vol. 5) (pp. 127–147). Emerald Group
Publishing, Ltd.

136

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate! This study would not be able to happen without
your involvement. In this study for my doctoral dissertation, I want to understand what
influences may promote and hinder the professional advancement of Chicana/os both at the
individual level and at the GSU system level.
I also want to make it clear that your participation is entirely voluntary. There will be no
identifying information included in my research, and all participants will be completely
anonymous. I want to request your permission to record this interview so that I can transcribe
responses and then code results. All recordings, notes, and transcriptions will remain in my
possession and will be destroyed once the study is complete.
I will be asking about 16 questions depending on the time and will work to keep the
interview to an hour. Lastly, do you have any questions for me before we begin?
Interview Protocol
1. How do you racially, ethnically, or culturally choose to identify yourself?
2. Please describe your position within the GSU system. What attracted you to this
campus?
3. Would you describe any practices that may have created barriers or made your
professional advancement more difficult? (RQ1, RQ2)
4. What do you believe is the GSU systems’ image or characteristics of a leader? (RQ1)
5. What are your thoughts on the reasons for the low representation of _______in
leadership in the GSU system? (RQ1)
6. As a leader in GSU, would you please share any steps or actions you have taken to
increase the numbers of ________in GSU leadership? (RQ1)
137

7. Would you share any practices you feel would promote greater advancement and
inclusion of in GSU system leadership roles? (RQ1)
8. Tell me about how your career has evolved over the years (RQ2)
9. Can you share with me what influenced you to pursue a leadership role? (RQ2)
10. I would like to hear about moments of encouragement or even discouragement in
your journey to leadership. (RQ2) What has your experience as a ______within the
GSU leadership environment been like? (RQ2)
11. How do you feel you were perceived by other leaders in GSU leadership spaces?
(RQ2, RQ2)
12. How has your ethnic/cultural identity influenced your leadership practice? (RQ2)
13. How has your ethnicity/culture, if at all, played a role in your interactions and
navigating GSU leadership spaces? (RQ2)
14. Speaking of personal backgrounds and how they influence our leadership, what type
of personal characteristics have played a role in your ascension to leadership?
(Mentality, disposition, habits, professional preparation) (RQ2)
15. How would you characterize efforts by leadership to advance _______to leadership
roles? (RQ2)
16. What practices has your office or department instituted to support your leadership
development? (RQ2)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

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

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

PDF

Black leaders: the unicorns of the biopharmaceutical industry

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

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

PDF

Collective Impact: a framework to advance health promotion in higher education

PDF

Gender-based leadership barriers: an exploratory study of the underrepresentation of women of color in technology

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Exploration of the reasons for the overrepresentation of Black patients in schizophrenia clinical trials

PDF

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Underrepresented and underserved: barriers to academic success for students of color in higher education

PDF

Shelf awareness: public librarians and diverse collections

Asset Metadata

Creator Saenz, Sergio Alfonso (author)

Core Title Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/12/2022

Defense Date 04/27/2022

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

Tag Chicana/o,community cultural wealth,Higher education,hiring,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,underrepresentation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email sasaenz@usc.edu,sergioasaenz@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111371074

Unique identifier UC111371074

Legacy Identifier etd-SaenzSergi-10827

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Saenz, Sergio Alfonso

Type texts

Source 20220713-usctheses-batch-952 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu