University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of shared leadership in a California community college

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of shared leadership in a California community college

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A STUDY OF SHARED LEADERSHIP IN A CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

by

Armineh Dereghishian

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2022

Copyright 2022 Armineh Dereghishian

ii

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my selfless and loving parents, Rubina and Norair
Dereghishian. You have given your heart and your soul to your children and grandchildren and
have inspired me to always work hard and do my best. To raise one child is a great feat, but to
raise quadruplets is incredible. To raise us to become ambitious and successful adults is in itself
remarkable and humbling, and I thank you for all that you have done and continue to do to help
us pursue our dreams and goals. I also dedicate this dissertation to my siblings, my best friends:
Narbeh, Nairy, and Melineh Dereghishian. You have been by my side since day one, and will
continue to be forever. The bond we share and the support we have for each other is like no
other. There is no one else I would want to be on this journey called life with than you three. I
am blessed and thankful.

iii

Acknowledgements
I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Julie Slayton for her support and guidance
throughout my dissertation process. I am very fortunate that she was willing to step in and take
on the role of being my chair. She said yes to guiding me, without hesitation, and has been a
patient, supportive leading light since. Thanks to Dr. Slayton, I have learned to pay attention to
every word on a page, and every word that is spoken, and to not generalize things. I have gained
confidence in conducting a qualitative interview, and in deciphering data for analysis. I am truly
thankful for all the hours Dr. Slayton spent coaching me and combing through data with me for
analysis, and for meeting with me multiple times per week to check in and provide support.
Through her guidance I have learned to be very detailed when reading and analyzing data, and to
ask questions to clarify, qualify, and quantify things to gain better understanding. I appreciate Dr.
Slayton’s willingness to be personable and share her own professional experiences that helped
me gain insight and perspective. I have carried these skills with me directly into my practical
work and am a stronger professional for it.
Additionally, I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Artineh Samkian for saying yes to
helping a student she has had minimal interaction with. Her kindness and willingness to support
me is humbling and inspiring. I know that I will do the same for others in the future, thanks to
her willingness to help and join my committee.
Lastly, I would like to express deep gratitude to Dr. Amber Hroch, the final member of
my committee. Dr. Hroch has served as a source of encouragement, and inspiration from day
one. She was willing to make herself available as a resource, and to spend time going through the
process of being approved as an outside committee member to help me. She has also been a great
source of moral support. Dr. Hroch recently joined the Rossier School of Education as a faculty

iv

member, and I think the students at the school are very fortunate to be able to learn from her
expertise.
I would also like to thank the individuals who gave me their time and were willing to
serve as participants by sharing their insight and experiences openly for the sake of research. It
takes a certain element of bravery and willingness to share personal experiences, and I commend
and thank you for doing so. I also acknowledge and thank you for the time you gave me, and for
the thoughtful conversations we had.

v

Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Significance of the Study 8
Conclusion 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review 9
Leadership in Higher Education 9
Collective Leadership 10
Interactive Leadership 10
Behavioral Model of Leadership 11
Distributive Leadership 12
Shared Leadership 13
Conditions for Shared Leadership 14
Shared Leadership and Effectiveness 16
Concerns and Caution About Shared Leadership 17
Shared Governance and Decision Making 17
Conceptual Framework 18
Chapter Three: Methods 23
Sample 24
Site Selection 25
Participants 27
Instrumentation and Data Collection 28
Credibility and Trustworthiness 30
Ethics 32
Data Analysis 33
Limitations and Delimitations 34
Delimitations 36
Conclusion 36
Chapter Four: Findings 37
Finding One 38
Finding Two 43
Conclusion 52
Chapter Five: Findings and implications 53
Summary of Findings 54
Implications and Recommendations 56
Practice 56
Policies 58
Recommendations for Future Research 58
Conclusion 59

vi

References 60
Appendix A 70
Appendix B 72
Appendix C 76

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Participants: Equity and student support programs’ Committee Members 37

viii

List of Figures

Figure A: Conditions to Enable Shared Leadership 16

Figure B: Conceptual Framework 20

ix

Abstract
This study utilized the shared leadership theory (Kezar & Holcomb, 2017) to explore
shared leadership and decision-making in higher education. The purpose of this study was to
examine the perceived decision-making approach in relation to the implementation and
facilitation of Equity and student support programs on a California community college (CCC)
campus. The study sought to determine what the different Equity and Support Program
committee members’ perceptions were of the approach being taken by the members of the
committee to make decisions in relation to implementation and facilitation of these programs.
Qualitative data were collected from nine participants, including staff, faculty, and administrators
from a CCC through semi-structured interviews, and analyzed through an inductive approach
using coding to track emerging themes and concepts. Interviews revealed two overarching
findings. One finding indicated that participants made their decisions based on what they
considered in the best interest of students. The second finding revolved around the dynamics of
way decisions were made within committees, with participants sharing that they were given
space to provide input, but that higher level administrators both inside and outside of the
committee held the ultimate decision-making power. This study gathered information on the
dynamics behind decision making within a shared governance committee as it related to shared
leadership. It begins to bring light to the concept of shared leadership within a shared governance
structure and makes recommendations for further studies of shared leadership within CCCs.

1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In this chapter, I introduce the background of the problem to contextualize the study. I
then present the statement of the problem, and the purpose and significance of the study. The
dissertation is grounded in the fact that there is a gap in degree attainment for African American
and Latinx adults as well as an insufficiently skilled workforce within the state of California. The
study examined the ways in which decisions were made by and within governance committees
ostensibly focused on increasing access and equity at their institution. The remainder of the
chapter presents the background and statement of the problem, the purpose and significance of
the study, and an overview of the remainder of the dissertation.
Background of the Problem
The Current President of the United States, President Joe Biden, has launched efforts to
rebuild the staggering economy and middle class through his “Build Back Better Act”
(Whitehouse.gov, n.d.). Under this framework, resources and funding would be aimed at making
education beyond high school more affordable for the American people (Whitehouse.gov, n.d.).
This will be done through the expansion of financial aid, specifically increasing the maximum
amount of funds received through the Pell Grant. Additionally, the grant would be extended to
more underserved populations, including the DREAMers (undocumented students). The
framework also dedicates resources to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and workforce training programs for the middle class.
The program is projected to expand workforce development by 50% within the next five years
(Whitehouse.gov, n.d.) The $2.2 trillion Build Back Better bill was introduced to the 117
th

congress in 2021, and was later approved by the House of Representatives on November 19
th
,
2021.

2

Locally, the California Community College (CCC) system is Second largest
postsecondary education system in the state, with 116 college campuses to date, and serving over
2.1 million students. (CCCCO, 2021). Open access education like the community colleges are a
key source in providing education and workforce training through public higher education. The
first CCC was established in 1907 and the original campus opened in Fresno in 1910. The
founding of the CCCs originally came from legislative authorization allowing high schools to
offer instruction beyond the high-school level (Smelser, 1972). These 2-year colleges were
intended to only offer courses for the first 2 years beyond high school graduation. Community
colleges are limited to awarding associate in arts and associate in science degrees, as well as
providing vocational and technical training for employment. With minimal enrollment
requirements and low tuition, the colleges serve as a gateway for individuals into higher
education through services including general education credits toward the completion of an
associate degree, vocational training, transfer units, English-language instruction, and self-
improvement and leisure courses (Dowd, 2007). Serving as the primary point of access to higher
education and vocational training for the state makes the CCC system a key player in producing
an educated and skilled workforce for the state as well as the nation (CCCO, 2018a).
In 2016-2017, 73% of the students who were served by the CCCs were from diverse
backgrounds, including Latino, African America, Native American, and Pacific Islander (CCCO,
2021). Data has shown that students who enter a community college are failing to persist and
complete a degree, certificate, or transfer. According to the CCCCO’s Vision for Success
(2018a), only 48% of students who entered a CCC earn a degree, certificate, or transfer. The
second part of this statistic is that it took those students over 6 years to accomplish their
academic goal (CCCCO, 2018a). Moreover, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (CCCO,

3

2021) reported that White adults were almost twice as likely to earn an associate’s degree than
Latino adults. The Foundation also stated that higher income students had five times higher
chances of completing a college degree by the age of 25 than students from a lower income
background (BillandMelinaGatesFoundation, 2021). Today’s students face numerous reasons
why they may not be able to persist in higher education, such as having to work full time, food
insecurity, lack of stable housing, and poverty (LuminaFoundation, 2020).
One of the contributing factors to the low completion rates is the lack of equitable access
opportunities within the California higher education system. The state of California has
implemented numerous measures and mandates over the past few decades to ensure equitable
access and support to help student access, matriculate, and complete their educational goals in a
timely manner. For example, the Board of Governors (BOG) fee waiver (Now known as the
California College Promise Grant) was adopted as an equity policy in 1992 to provide equitable
access to populations typically underrepresented in higher education (CCCCO, 2016). With this
fee waiver, these populations have more equal opportunities to access, success, and transfer
within a CCC. Following the 2008 economic recession, the Student Success Taskforce was
developed to address the economic downturn, and so came about the Student Success Act of
2012, SB 1456. This Act streamlined the focus of student equity and provided community
colleges with an updated plan with strategies to identify and address equity issues and to dissolve
disproportionate opportunities in access, success, and achievement in higher education (CCCCO,
2016). The Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) was signed into law in 2012 (Dorr,
2012). This bill supplies funding that is specifically designated to incentivize the streamlining of
student services in efforts to raising graduation and certificate completion rates. Part of the
formula for student success is student retention. Retention is affected by the college readiness of

4

incoming students, recruitment and orientation programs, academic advisement, and outreach
efforts to educate student about pathways to college (Dougherty & Hong, 2005). SSSP funding
provided resources for the streamlining and strengthening of core student services including
orientation, advisement, assessment, and counseling. The desired effect was to assist students
with making informed decisions about their educational path and goals, which essentially
contributes to retention and graduation. SSSP also worked to bridge the gap in student equity,
strengthening to mission of the CCCs in providing access to higher education for all California
residents (Dorr, 2012).
As an open access system to the people of the state, the community colleges are the
primary point of access to postsecondary education. SB 1456 was designed to reform student
services in the community college system, and to improve educational outcomes and workforce
training to supply California’s growing economy (Dorr, 2012). Further, February 15, 2017, the
State Chancellor’s Office released a memo detailing new expenditure guidelines for the Basic
Skills Initiative (BSI), Student Equity Program (SE), and the SSSP called the Integrated Plan
(CCCCO, 2017a). This memo was a call to action in integrating these three programs. This
document put forth the directive that BSI, SE, and SSSP should no longer act as independent
decision-making, programming, and funding entities on each campus, but rather should be
combined into one shared administrative body that oversees the three programs. The reasoning
behind the integration was that the three programs would serve similar goals in increasing
student success, and because there could be overlap among the three. Thus, the State
Chancellor’s Office released guiding memos on the integration of these three programs,
expenditure guidelines for the integration, and expenditure reporting requirements. The
integration guidelines were effective immediately for all three programs (CCCCO, 2018c).

5

Although each community college was left implement the requirements and funding enforced by
this law in different ways, the law requires campuses to provide a student success scorecard,
holding each institution accountable for providing equitable opportunities and support services to
help students succeed (CCCCO, 2018b).
Additionally, as part of the effort to support students from identified equity groups,
including Latino, African American, and Native American students, the state of California
announced a $150 million one-time grant called the Guided Pathways Program, designed to
supplement the current Equity and student support programs that had already been implemented
within California higher education (CCCO, 2017a). Guided Pathways implemented an integrated
approach to providing student support, and created pipelines for student support and success
through four pillars: the first pillar focuses on identifying the path, which means that it provides
support to students in identifying an area of study; the second pillar focuses on entering the path,
which entails advisement and counseling on coursework to prepare for the area of study; the
third pillar is staying on the path, entailing retention efforts through different student support
mechanisms such as a cohort model, high touch practices, and academic advisement, and lastly,
ensuring learning is happening for the students so that they reach their academic goals (CCCO,
2017a).
As detailed above, there have been several programs and efforts put in place by federal
and state government to promote and support college access and completion across the nation.
Although these mandates and programs are put forth by legislators, implementation is largely left
to the institutions of higher education to determine and administer. The California State
Chancellor’s Office Diversity Taskforce explained that one of the components to improving the
achievement gap depends on engaging a diverse faculty, staff, and administration pool who bring

6

multiple perspectives and voices (CCCO, 2019). The taskforce advised that to build equity
minded practices on campus, there was a need to examine structural procedures, practices,
implementation of new initiatives, and other efforts routinely to ensure that equity was at the
forefront of the conversations that occur in these efforts (CCCO, 2019).
Given the important role faculty, staff, and administrators were expected to play in
ensuring that additional funding resulted in increased equity and access, it was important to
understand the decision-making process and leadership of the committees that were
implementing and maintaining the mandates for Student Equity and Success.
Statement of the Problem
Efforts to reduce the opportunity gap for community college students have been
underway for Leaders of CCCs who were tasked with working to determine the development and
implementation of Equity and support programs designated by the State of California for CCCs
to address the expanding equity gap. In spite of the continuing changes at the legislative level,
little is known about the decision-making process at the local level. Essentially, the state
distributes funds to each CCC district, which are then allocated to each CCC campus. It is up to
each individual campus to make the decisions regarding convening an administering body for
creating a plan for the program, creating a process for implementation, and administering the
program funds. What this study aimed to explore is how the committees function to achieve their
program goals, and what processes the committee has in place to determine these goals. More
specifically, the study examined if and how the campus utilized the talents and skills of
individuals and allowed them to use their voice to contribute to the execution of these Equity and
student support programs. Further, the study investigated leadership and the decision-making
process of the members of the Equity and student support programs committees to see what

7

factors they used in making decisions within these committees. As these state initiatives come
down the pipeline, and strides are made to support Equity and student support programs,
institutions of higher education need to explore the most effective and efficient ways of
convening committees and promoting decision making practices.
It is important to note that this study was conducted in a space that is continually
evolving with new legislation coming at the national and state level. This study is a snapshot in
time that examines how these equity and support programs get operationalized through the
committee structure at the community college level. The problem being examined in this study
was how the decisions are made within the committee structure in implementing and facilitating
these programs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose for the study was to explore the decision making and leadership processes of
the individuals participating within the shared governance committees in designing,
implementing, and administering various Equity and support committees. This would be
explored by evaluating the rationale each member used when making decisions, and by
examining if the leadership of the committees. Also, the study explored where the decision-
making power for these committees truly existed. How did leadership exist within the
committee?
Specifically, I examined the implementation and administration of these programs. As a
committee, what actions or momentum points did they take to make sure these programs become
operational, and how is the leadership constructed? Where does the power lie within the
committee (or perhaps outside of the committee)? The culmination of the programs focused in
this study will be referred to the Equity and Support programs within this research study moving

8

forward. The intent of this research is to inform practice within community colleges, and to help
me learn and develop within their role as a rising administrator for Student Services within a
California community college.
Significance of the Study
This study can inform administrators about a current model of leadership that is
employed in the administration of Equity and student success. The study could inform CCC
administrators on how to structure committees to get more buy in, participation, and ownership
of tasks and responsibilities to foster diverse through and perspectives.
Additionally, this study is particularly significant to me in my role as a rising
administrator, who conducted this study as the capstone of her partitional degree. The
observations and finding of this study would be applied directly to my practice and would
contribute to the way they administer programs and committees.
Conclusion
The study focused on gaining insight into the leadership dynamics of designing and
implementing Equity and Student Support programs within a California Community College.
Chapter One outlined an overview and established the importance for determining effective
leadership practice in designing and administering Equity and Student Support governance
committees and programs. Chapter two provides a review of the literature by detailing different
leadership styles. Chapter three provides the theoretical framework that was used for the study,
and specified information about the conceptual framework, sample, instrumentation, data
collection approach limitations, and delimitations. This chapter also discusses the methods and
rationale for the use of a qualitative research design. Chapter four shares the findings and themes
based on the data collected through the qualitative interviews. Lastly, Chapter five presents

9

recommendations and implications for policy, practice, and future research.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This study explored the leadership role of the individuals involved in committees with
responsibilities for administering and implementing Equity and Support programs at a
community college. The research question that was asked within this study was: What are equity
and support program committee members’ perceptions of the decision-making approach taken in
relation to implementation and facilitation of Equity and Support programs? To answer this
question, I drew upon literature focusing on leadership characteristics that would describe or
explain the way decision were made within each committee. I end the chapter with the
conceptual framework that emerged as a result of data collection and analysis.
Leadership in Higher Education
As I was interested in understanding committee members’ experiences with respect to the
decision-making process with respect to Equity and student support program implementation, I
needed to ground myself in leadership theories and research focused on group rather than
individual decision-making. Thus, in this section I provide an overview of a number of group
leadership theories, starting with collective leadership (Yammarino et al., 2015), and then
moving to interactive leadership (Bensimon & Neuman, 1992), behavioral (Pearce & Sims,
2000), and distributive leadership. Then I present shared leadership, delving more deeply into
this theory as it was the one I was most interested in and expect to see enacted within the
committee contexts.

Collective Leadership

10

Yammarino et al. (2015) offer their recommendation that leadership in higher education
settings should function as a collective. The argument they made was that leadership should be
done as a collective approach, with a focal leader, although within a group or collective. With the
collective approach, they name five elements or ideas: as a team, a network, shared, complexity,
and collective leadership. They explained that formal and informal relationships are key to
connecting the individuals of the organization and building an organizational network. Also, with
the idea of the collective, they mention that in today’s organizations, it is oftentimes hard for a
leader to successfully mobilize decisions on their own, and this there should be multi-person
interactions and approaches (Yammarino et al., 2015). The leader/follower concept still requires
a shared vision for things to be accomplished, as even the followers need to be bought into the
idea or project they are working on. Thus, although the leader holds the power or authority, there
is some power in the followership, as there is a need for them to be on board and collaborate to
move forward or make progress. Within the leaders/follower dynamic, a shared vision is needed,
as is a power structure. With the power structure, several factors come into play, including
commitment of the team members, a level of loyalty amongst the members, cohesion, and
willingness to work together, unit norms, and satisfaction with the work being done (Yammarino
et al., 2015).
Interactive Leadership
In their 1992 study on interactive learning, Bensimon and Neuman examined leadership
teams in higher education. Like Yammarino et al. (2015), Bensimon and Neuman assert that
group leadership requires a “one person act” where one individual is providing direction and
directive, like the power structure offered by Yammarino et al. Bensimon and Neuman (1992)
found that spreading leadership among a group who interact together provides opportunity for

11

creative perspective and solutions. It also allows for better understanding of different
constituencies of the institution and helps spread the burden of the decision making rather than
have it be the responsibility of one individual. One of the disadvantages of interactive leadership
where a group of individuals interact and share ideas is that it is inconsistent and requires full
buy in and trust building of the group, which may be difficult to achieve. Some opposition to this
model explains that it does not promote entrepreneurship and superior leadership. The authors
caution that the faults of interactive leadership is the danger of falling into group think, where
new ideas and challenging perspectives are not brought forward or are silenced due to lack of
cohesion or willingness of dissenting individuals to speak up. The concept is also time
consuming as there needs to be relationship building, discussion, and consensus building. One
additional downside to interactive leadership is the risk of group isolation in making important
decision. If an unpopular decision is made, the group may be isolated or singled out by the
campus-wide community who may not have a full understanding of why this decision was made
(Bensimon & Neuman, 1992). On the positive end, some advantages include diverse
perspectives which lead to creative problem solving, peer support, and increased accountability
as multiple eyes are on the details. The biggest advantage is that the group can act on and
execute projects that cannot otherwise be done alone. Overall, the “co thinker” mentality behind
interactive leadership does have its advantages in creative problem solving and fostering diverse
perspectives, thoughts, and expertise (Bensimon & Neuman, 1992).
Behavioral Model of Leadership
Pearce and Sims (2000) conducted a study to examine vertical verses shared leadership as
a predictor of effectiveness. The study examined 71 change management teams (Pearce & Sims,
2000). These teams worked autonomously to some degree but were not fully self-managing.

12

Pearce and Sims (2000) explored the behavior of the team leaders, and their level of influence
amongst their team members. The study focused specifically on transactional leadership and
transformational leadership. The researchers identified five types of leadership behavior,
including: coercive power, directive leadership, transactional-transformational paradigm,
transformational leadership, and empowering leadership. By examining these different
leadership styles within the 71 Change Management teams (CMTs), the researchers observed
that behavior is oftentimes used as a currency in exchange for the ability to have influence
amongst leaders of followers (Pearce & Sims, 2000). Individuals behave a certain way or do
certain things to gain favor or influence amongst their peers. Additionally, the role of the vertical
leader is important because they are the players that develop and maintain the environment of
shared leadership, and foster collaboration and lateral influence among peers. Thus, essentially,
there is still a need for that vertical leader in the concept of shared leadership (Pearce & Sims,
2000). Also, in examining leadership through the emergent leader lens, shared leadership could
ideally be described as multiple leaders who are involved in “serial emergence.” At the end of
the study the researchers affirmed that distributive leadership and recommended that this
leadership style be incorporated into leadership training programs (Pearce & Sims, 2000).
Distributive Leadership
Fletcher and Käufer (2003) conducted a study of published literature to explore shared
and distributive leadership within management and organizational studies (MOS). In their report,
they shared that shared leadership calls for a need for newer systems of accountability to be put
in place as there are more players involved in decisions being made (Fletcher & Käufer, 2003).
They explained that shared leadership is still in the hands of the prescribed hierarchical leader as
it is the charge of this entity to create an environment that is less hierarchical. Thus, it was up to

13

the prescribed lead to work to foster and encourage the members of the team to accept leadership
in a team concept, sharing and facilitating team leadership. Their study found that the idea of
team leadership or shared leadership is also referred to as dispersed, devolved, democratic,
distributive, collaborative, collective, cooperative, concurrent, coordinated, relational, co-
leadership, and shared leadership (Fletcher & Käufer, 2003). All these terms involve similar
ideas of group decision making. They explained that this type of leadership has to do with each
individual playing a different role and having individual levels of influence in the goal setting
actions and behaviors (Fletcher & Käufer, 2003). The concept of influence is key, as it drives the
group, and effects the group members in setting direction. Essentially, Fletcher and Käufer
(2003) take the concept of self-leadership and grow it and expand it to group leadership. They
explain that people influence themselves and build their motivation, direction, and self-efficacy,
and then in turn are motivated to then engage with and involve themselves in shared leadership.
Thus, acts of individual leadership and management can be taken to the team level seamlessly
(Fletcher & Käufer, 2003).
Shared Leadership
The idea of shared leadership was originally discussed in Robert Birnbaum’s (1992)
work, How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding success and failures in the college
presidency. Birnbaum’s (1992) book focused on leadership for college Presidents, but also
discusses the need to include multiple stakeholders within the strategic leadership of a President
to be successful. Birnbaum explains that governance relies on two different organizational
influential elements; higher administration, including trustees and administrators, and the faculty.
Birnbaum details that fostering shared leadership involves implementing various systems or
opportunities for consultation and decision making. The author describes that there needs to be

14

mutual understanding amongst parties, decision making should be seen as a joint effort, and that
each party is interdependent on the perspectives, skills, and experiences of the other (Birnbaum,
1992). Birnbaum’s theory goes on to explain that although there is a difference in the weight of
the decision making, it is important to initiate capacity for involvement of all campus
constituents. Birnbaum’s idea of shared leadership emphasizes that also needs to be strong
institutional value placed in the idea of shared governance, by all campus entities, and an
element of trust building needs to happen so that there is value in the contribution of all
constituents. Lastly, in describing a good leader, Birnbaum explains that an individual should try
to avoid putting too much emphasis on bureaucratic structures, they should avoid simple thinking
and try to think large scale, they should always encourage leadership in others, and most
importantly, know when it is time to pass on the responsibility to others and leave (Birnbaum,
1992).
Conditions for Shared Leadership
Kezar and Holcombe (2017) argued that shared leadership brings key entities of the
campus together in a collaborative manner to develop an effective program design. They
explained that shared leadership should not be confused with shared governance because
whereas shared governance is based on faculty and administrator participation where authority
and decision-making are prescribed and limited, shared leadership brings in area experts who can
contribute to a more collaborative leadership style.
As the landscape of higher education shifts with innovation and economic advancement,
so should leadership practices and organizational structures. Newer models of leadership
addressed the need for a more collaborative environment where individuals through the
organization come together to produce knowledge-based practices. The traditional structure of

15

top-down leadership was no longer as effective in managing the horizon of changes (Pearce &
Conger, 2003).
Organizations should have been able to adapt, be innovative, and provide an environment
for learning to persist (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Shared leadership provided a means for
innovation, and enabled institutions to address challenges. It gave campus entities an opportunity
for co-ownership and the development of a shared vision, thus further providing stability and the
opportunity to create goals and strategies.
The advantage of shared leadership was that power and authority were disbursed, and
leaders and followers were interchangeable during different times of need; there was no top-
down assigned position of authority. A collaborative group also allowed for a shared vision, and
multiple perspectives to be used to create a vision. Shared leadership also promotes collaboration
and interaction among stakeholders which further strengthens the synergy of the organization.
The shared leadership model moves organizations away from the leader/follower model
and provides an infrastructure that leadership can be divided amongst multiple people (Kezar &
Holcombe, 2017). This is a framework that many organizations can benefit form in addressing
the changing landscape and challenges of the developing arena of higher education (Kezar &
Holcombe, 2017). Another opportunity and benefit of this model is that authority and leadership
are interchangeable, allowing for skilled expertise to be utilized to combat complex challenges
(Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Kezar and Holcomb (2017) outline the necessary conditions for
shared leadership as the following: 1) a need for vertical support, 2) clearly defined roles
amongst the team members, 3) trust and relationship building, 4) inclusiveness of all members,
and 5) the development of a supportive culture. Having these elements in place would set the
institution up for higher potential of successful shared leadership. Additionally, the researchers

16

go deeper into detail about the specific conditions that will support this leadership style,
including: supportive higher leaders, team empowerment, autonomy, having a shared purpose or
goal, external coaching, accountability, interdependence, fairness and rewards, and shared
cognition (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Organizations striving to set up the optimal environment
for shared leadership would need to attempt to meet these conditions. Figure A below details the
conditions outlined by Kezar and Holcomb (2017) that are necessary to enact and facilitate
shared leadership.
Figure A
Conditions to Enable Shared Leadership (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017).

Shared Leadership and Effectiveness
In their meta-analysis of shared leadership and its effectiveness, Wang et al. (2014)
studied 42 samples of shared leadership and how it related to team effectiveness. Through their
study they assert that shared leadership does contribute and effect the attitude of the team and
behavior of the team (Wang et al., 2014). In comparison to team performance, the behavioral
aspect was more influenced and effected by shared leadership (Wang et al., 2014). Essentially,
they were able to observe that shared leadership had unique positive effects on team
performance. It also allowed teams to take on more complex issues and problems and work

17

together to resolve them (Wang et al., 2014). This study provided positive insight into the
benefits of shared leadership in terms of team behavioral performance.
Concerns and Caution About Shared Leadership
Cardenas (2017) explains that within shared leadership, there is a focus on collaborating
meaningfully amongst members, whereas within shared governance, the idea is more focused on
distributing power. Cardenas asks the question about committee members holding different
degrees of power, and how this translates into leadership being shared and individuals being held
accountable. How does one truly achieve an environment of empowerment of multiple people if
certain committee members hold more power than others? The author also cautions that there
needs to be a clear definition in the shared purposes and principals of the group, and how the
committee will truly work collaboratively. Whereas Kezar and Holcomb (2017) detail shared
leadership as empowerment of a team, and delegation of responsibilities to include
administrators and faculty alike, Cardenas (2017) voices concerns about the realistic
implementation of the distribution of power, and maintenance of accountability.
Shared Governance and Decision Making
Although shared leadership is distinct from shared governance, shared governance is also
a form of collaborative leadership that is exercised in higher education as a decision-making
process. Shared governance in higher education can be described as various campus constituents
coming together to make decisions regarding policy and procedures on a college campus
(Association of Governing Boards, 2017). Shared governance allowed stakeholders, including
administrators, faculty, staff, students, and community members to take collective ownership of
shaping the future of the college. This means that decision-making also provides institutional
accountability and collective efficiency. It brings experts from varying areas to the table and

18

provides perspective. In the case of college administrators making decisions outside of a
governance committee, there may have been a lack of expertise or diverse perspective that could
essentially have led to a limited scope of decision making. In theory, shared governance should
have brought diverse lenses to the decision-making process, and empowered members of the
campus outside of the traditional administrative body. Shared governance promoted mutual
interest and shared understanding (AAUP.org, n.d.).
This study aimed to explore the leadership within these committees to see if they meet
the conditions of shared leadership. The leadership concepts listed above detail varying forms of
team leadership, each with its own ideas and concepts, but most with underlying overlapping
ideas. Most of the literature described above explains that leadership is more effective when
conducted as a team. It allows for expert skills to be utilized from varying members and allows
for problem solving and implementing more complex problems and projects. The literature
compares team leadership to vertical, single authority leadership as well. A majority of the
researchers and authors above will mention that in implementing systems of accountability, and a
more creative and efficient response, it is necessary to adopt some variation of shared,
distributive, or collaborative leadership structure within the governance committee (Bensimon
and Neuman, 1992; Birnbaum, 1992; Fletcher & Käufer, 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Pearce &
Sims, 2000; Yammarino et al., 2012).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework was designed based on literature presented in Chapter Two.
According to Maxwell (2005),
In constructing a conceptual framework, your purpose is not only descriptive, but also
critical; you need to understand (and clearly communicate in your proposal) what

19

problems (including ethical problems) there have been with previous research and theory,
what contradictions or holes you have found in existing views, and how your study can
make an original contribution to our understanding. (Maxwell, 2005, p. 35)
The framework serves as a preliminary theory of the orientation of concepts in relation to the
research question, based on ideas and points generated from the literature. The conceptual
framework is used to guide the research question, and it was used to design the research protocol,
and data collection. The literature described in this chapter was used as a guide for ideas and
framing (Maxwell, 2005). The framework was changed and updated following the data
collection and analysis based on the data and findings. Elements became clearer through
information acquired during participant interviews. The framework became more focused on
committee member actions and perceptions. Additionally, detailed emerging themes and
concepts focused on the conditions of collaborative leadership and decision making, specifically
through the shared leadership lens.
The diagram represents the components of shared leadership that I observed and affirmed
through my research study, and study of literature on shared leadership. The framework
illustrates how these components interact. A conceptual framework is a model used to outline a
phenomenon that will be investigated (Maxwell, 2013). In my research, I investigated the
following inquiry: What are equity and support program committee members’ perceptions of the
decision-making approach taken in relation to implementation and facilitation of Equity and
Support programs? The conceptual framework is developed based on a theoretical concept,
empirical data, and personal experience (Maxwell, 2013). It is designed based on literature
presented in Chapter Two. This conceptual framework represents my tentative theory emerging
themes and concepts that address what the equity and support program committee members’

20

perceptions of the decision-making approach taken in relation to implementation and facilitation
of Equity and Support programs are, specifically through the lens of shared leadership (Kezar &
Holcombe, 2017). Shared leadership focuses on group collaboration that also allows for a shared
vision to be developed through the input of multiple perspectives. Shared leadership also
promotes collaboration and discourse amongst stakeholders, which strengthens the synergy of
the organization (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Thus, the study examined evidence of shared
leadership within the Equity and student support committees. Further, it explores the personal
decision-making approach of the members within a committee implementing an Equity and
student support program, and the amount of influence and interaction each member believes they
have within the committee. Also, the study examines what the committee members’ perceptions
are regarding the way decisions are made within their committees in relation to implementation.
Figure B
Conceptual Framework

21

The concept map demonstrated the interconnectedness and collaboration of the individual
committee members. It illustrated the interconnectedness of the five elements listed that emerged
in examining the how committee members interacted to make decisions regarding equity and
student support programs. I argued that, when present, these five elements demonstrated the
existence of shared leadership. When absent, or partially absent, they led to members describing
their experiences of the decision-making process as one that did not always incorporate their
perspectives.
1) Goals. This element focused on the factors considered by the committee members in the
decision-making process. Goals were determined by momentum points. The questions
determined whether there were clearly defined goals that serve as momentum points
and/or whether committee members understood student needs and supports. This
included whether the committee conversation focused on the needs of the students, how
students’ needs were defined, whether the chair of the committee kept the group moving
forward in making decisions and creating the program plan and implementation, or if the
committee did this collectively.
2) Leader (Approach). This element considered the interactions of the leader with the
committee members, and if they conducted the meeting in a shared or distributed state. It
focused the leadership approach of the chair and how they facilitate the group.
Specifically the focus was on the embodied approach of the chair, behaviors, and actions
that accompany someone leading the group. The questions that determined the type of
leadership included whether committee members saw the leadership as shared and if the
interactions and dynamics of the committee meet the conditions stated by Kezar and
Holcombe (2017) as necessary to achieve shared leadership.

22

3) Committee members (unique skills and perspectives). This element focused on the
makeup of the group, and group dynamics, and trust building. Specifically whether the
members were able to contribute their expertise and skill set. I argued the extent to which
there was group synergy and if committee members were leaned on for their expertise
and unique skills. I also examined which constituents and voices were represented within
this committee as an indication of if members believe shared leadership existed.
4) Implementation and facilitation. The focus of this element was on who holds the ultimate
decision-making power for this committee or program plan. I asserted that members’
perceptions of who the ultimate decision maker, or party setting the direction, revealed
the extent to which shared leadership was present.
5) Discourse and interaction. This final element examined if committee members knew
each other, and how that made an impact. The discourse between participants, as
described by them, revealed who contributed and how. It also demonstrated how they
took up each other’s ideas. It also revealed whether factors such as pre-existing
relationships, trust amongst members, what the members value, and interactions fostered
within the committee setting played a role in the decision-making process.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter presents the research design, including a rationale for the use of qualitative
methods, the sampling process, data collection and instrumentation, analysis, credibility and
trustworthiness, limitations and delimitations, and ethics associated with the study. The purpose
of this qualitative study was to explore how CCC administrators described the decision-making
process enacted by committee leaders in relation to the implementation of student Equity and
support programs. For the purpose of this study, the Equity and Success program committees

23

being examined were: Basic Skills, Equity, SSSP, Guided Pathways and the Student Equity and
Achievement Program. The study sought to determine how administrators experienced the
decision-making (e.g., as a shared or hierarchical process) as members of committees expressly
designed to increase equity and student support. This study provides findings to answer the
following research question: The research question was: What are equity and support program
committee members’ perceptions of the approach undertaken by the members of the committee
to make decisions in relation to implementation and facilitation of student equity and support
programs?
The study sought to compile and assess administrative accounts of how the institution
was making decisions regarding the designing and administering of the different programs. The
reason I selected a qualitative research design is because I wanted to get an in depth, empirical
perspective from practitioners on the ground. Conducting interviews through the qualitative
study produce the opportunity to gather rich data that cannot be observed (Maxwell, 2005;
Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). A qualitative research study also helped me better understand the
actual events and actions that took place within these committees and helped me gain subjective
understanding of the dynamics of the players on these committees (Creswell 20014; Maxwell,
2005). I also sought to explore the experiences of the committee members in regard to their
perspective of the opportunities they had to participate within the committees and make
decisions. I wanted to understand how these individuals made sense of their experiences, their
understanding of the level of autonomy they were given, and the reasoning behind the decisions
they were making. Similar to Maxwell’s (2005) explanations, the purpose of a qualitative study
is to “seek to make understanding of how people make sense out of their lives, delineate the

24

process of meaning making, and describe how people interpret what they experienced. It is
essentially a form of inductive reasoning to gain understanding.
Sample
To answer the research question, I had to identify a site that would have these committees
and then I had to identify individuals who were on these committees. This section describes the
approach I took to site identification and recruiting participants.
For this study, I recruited a purposive sample of individuals, with a distinct set of criteria.
Patton (2002) explained that a purposive sample entails determining selection criteria, creating a
list of attributes of those who qualify. In this case, the selection criteria were based on the
individual’s participation on an Equity of student success committee within Little Tree
Community college (LTCC). Originally, I attempted to build a maximum variation sample by
sending invitations to individuals on several Equity and student support committees, but a
majority of those who responded and volunteered to participate in the study were members of the
same committee, which was the Equity and Support committee. A maximum variation sample
would seek to find a group with the widest range of varying characteristics that apply to the
study (Merriam 2009; Patton, 2002).
Originally, an invitation email was sent out to twenty participants who met the criteria of
being an actively participating member on an Equity and student support committee. Their
position in the college was not a factor in their selection, but rather a mixed group of faculty,
staff, and administrators were invited. The invitation was equally divided amongst 7 faculty, 7
staff, and 7 administrators. The initial response and commitment from the first email invitation
only yielded six participants, and so a second email electronic invitation was sent out ten days

25

later, and three more participants added to the study. In the end, the participant group consisted
of three administrators, four faculty members, and two classified staff.
Site Selection
When I originally begun exploring sites to conduct my research, I reached out to a single
district community college in Northern California to use as my research site. This community
college was one of the leaders in Equity program innovation in the state. Also, I had access to the
site through my professional network at the University of California, where I had previously met
the Director of Institutional Research who agreed to assist me with asking permission and
gaining access to the site. Unfortunately, before I could start my data collection, the Director of
this college left the institution for a promotional opportunity in a different location. The
secondary contact that I had made at the college, which was the Vice President of Student
Services also left this location within the same month, and so both of my connections to the site
were no longer available. For this reason, I had to look for a new location, a few months into
working on my dissertation, while I was still in the design phase.
I selected Little Tree Community College (LTCC)
1
as the site for this study because the
college presented a unique case for study. When I lost my initial site, I was already gathering
research and information on the Community Colleges in California, and the different Equity and
student support programs that were being put forth by state legislators for implementation. I also
learned that although these mandates were coming down the pipeline, they did not come with an
instruction manual. Therefore, while it may have been a little easier for a community college in a
single campus district to implement these measures, because there is more autonomy with single
school districts. Multi campus districts are a little more limited to maintain uniformity in
allocations of resources and practices. I was curious to learn how schools in a multicampus

1
To protect the privacy of the site, the name of the institution has been changed to Little Tree Community College.

26

district would go about with the implementations. Would they make uniform policies and
procedures across the district? Or would they leave it to each individual school to determine their
own systems? For this reason, I decided to pursue a site that was part of a multi-campus district.
Fortunately, I had recently become employed within a California community college within a
large multi-campus district, and so access to this site was a little easier to obtain. I sought out the
College President and Dean of Institutional Effectiveness of my own community college campus
and was given permission to conduct my research study locally. This college is part of a nine-
campus district, making it one of the largest community college districts in the nation. Thus,
LTCC was left to build these committees with members of the campus to facilitate these
programs independently, rather than receiving direction and guidance from the centralized
district office and administrators. Although LTCC could utilize its sister colleges and the district
office for support, it had to establish a governing body and lead as an independent entity.
Located in California, LTCC served about 20,000 students. This 2-year college was
founded in 1929 and has grown to provide career and technical training as well as degree/transfer
coursework, including over 71 associate degrees, 42 certificates, and non-credit courses for the
community. Additionally, 64% of the school’s faculty were full-time, and the student to
counselor ratio was 1,429:1. Over 52% of LTCC students received financial aid, including loans,
grants, scholarships, and work-study programs (CCCCO, 2013a). The institution was fully
accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Junior Community Colleges and by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (LTCC, n.d.).
The mission of the institution was, in part, to serve a diverse community by providing
learning centered pathways to student success. The mission described student success as transfer,
career and technical education, and building foundational skills (LTCC, n.d.).

27

Forty-five point three percent of the students at LTCC were first-generation college
students. The institution received a grant for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math in
2017, and was the recipient of a Hispanic-Serving Institution grant in 2017. While equity efforts
had been generally directed at Hispanic/Latino students as underrepresented minorities, data
showed that African American students at LTCC had a significantly lower success rate than their
peers. The college intended to continue providing support and resources for underrepresented
populations to facilitate student success through the addition of the Umoja program and
multicultural center in 2018 (LTCC, n.d.).
Participants
Originally, I attempted to build a maximum variation sample by sending invitations to
individuals on several Equity and student support committees, but a majority of those who
responded and volunteered to participate in the study were members of the same committee,
which was the Equity and Support committee. A maximum variation sample would seek to find a
group with the widest range of varying characteristics that apply to the study (Merriam 2009;
Patton, 2002). Thus, the sample was not actually a maximum variation sample in actuality.
An initial invitation email was sent out to 21 participants who met the criteria of being
an actively participating member on an Equity and student support committee. Their position in
the college was not a factor in their selection, but rather a mixed group of faculty, staff, and
administrators were invited. The invitation was equally divided amongst 7 faculty, 7 staff, and 7
administrators. The initial response and commitment from the first email invitation only yielded
six participants, and so a second email electronic invitation was sent out ten days later, and three
more participants added to the study. In the end, the participant group consisted of three
administrators, four faculty members, and two classified staff.

28

Participants for this study were selected using sample-based criterion. Sample-based
criterion requires that all participants of the study meet a list of indicators or attributes
(Merriman, 2009). For this specific study, the selection criterion focused solely on the
participants’ membership in the school’s Equity and Success program committees (Basic Skills,
Equity, SSSP, Guided Pathways and Student Equity and Achievement Program). The committee
consisted of individuals from the LTCC campus who had been appointed to sit on these
committees based on their position within the institution. They had been charged to work
collaboratively to make decisions on how the BSI, SE, SSSP, GP, and SEA funding would be
utilized to meet the goals set forth by each program plan.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
I used a one-on-one interviews as my primary approach to data collection (Creswell,
2014). The interviews were semi-structured and conducted in an online format using Zoom. A
semi structured interview includes a mix of structured and semi structured interview questions
(Maxwell, 2005). The use of the online platform was due to the constraints of in person
interaction brought on by the covid19 pandemic and social distancing safety protocol. The
interviews explored the mindset of each member as they sat on the committees, their views on
the committee’s role and their own role and influence in decision making and administering this
program.
In addition to interviews, I collected public records that were available on the LTCC
website, such as the school’s integrated plan, Equity Plan, SSSP plan, and SEA plan. I reviewed
the committees’ rosters and program plans. I also investigated the school’s mission statement to
gain more information about the background of the institution. I used documents from the
CCCCO website to learn about the mission and requirements of each of the programs. I also

29

obtained committees agendas from past committee meetings to gain better insight regarding
committee meeting facilitation. The documents provided foundational knowledge of the makeup
of the committee, the frequency of their meetings, and provided the framework in which they
operate. According to Patton (2002), the purpose of interviewing is to find out phenomena that
cannot be directly observed. If the interview process is conducted properly, it allows researchers
to gain perspective on a deeper level. I used a semi-structured interview protocol. This approach
provided uniform data across participants, which was necessary for comparability across
individuals (Maxwell, 2013). To gain contextual understanding, a semi-structured interview
allowed for a more natural exploration of a phenomena to arise from organic conversations
(Maxwell, 2013). The interview process was therefore designed with a set of interview questions
that were asked of the participants. The interviews averaged approximately 60 minutes in length
and were recorded on a digital voice recorder. My shortest interview was just under 1 hour, at 49
minutes, and my longest interview was at one hour and twelve minutes. The questions were
designed using the collaborative leadership framework in mind to explore how the campus
community was engaging in the design and implementation of Equity and Support programs.
The questions looked deeper into the collaboration of the committee, the mindset of the
committee when making decisions, and their perception on the contingency of continued funding
based on meeting Equity and Success program goals. The study aimed to produce organic
information through a series of semi-structured interview questions to gain the leadership and
decision-making perspective of the committee member. The interview consisted of open-ended
questions that allowed for an in-depth exploration of the factors the members of the committees
considered when making decisions about how to implement these programs.

30

The interview protocol (see appendix B) was designed to address the research question.
To address this question, the protocol was designed using varying question types in order to gain
a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. The larger part of the interview was guided by a list
of questions which allowed for more contextual understanding of the respondent’s worldview
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam 2009).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, it is important for the researcher to ensure credibility of the
findings and trustworthiness through the process of creating the instrument for data collection
and analysis. I took steps to ensure that the findings are accurate. I maintained consistency
during data collection by using a semi-structured interview protocol, checked interview
transcripts for errors, and documented my interview procedures, as recommended by Gibbs
(2007). I also triangulated my data by using different types of notes in my research, as opposed
to just interviews. I made sure to write descriptive memos following each interview where I
documented observed actions such as participant body language, for example, noting if they
seemed nervous and strained, or if they seemed comfortable in the interview. I also used thick
description to give readers a clear image of the findings.
With respect to my role as the researcher, it is important to note that I conducted research
at my own site of employment, so there may have been an inherent bias. I have been employed
for 5 years at a CCC where the Student Equity, the Basic Skills Initiative, the Student Services
Success Act (SB 1456), AB 705, Guided Pathways, and the Student Equity & Achievement
Program (SEA) were being implemented. This provided an opportunity for me to became
knowledgeable of the practical application of these funds. I did my best to make sure that I did
not form strong biases or opinions in this process by reminding myself that I was wearing the hat

31

of a researcher and needed to keep a professional mindset. I did this by paying attention to how I
attended to the participants including being attentive of my body language during interview to
make sure I was not sending a message I did not intend to communicate. I must add that my
working at the college gave me background perspective as I was familiar with the organizational
structure, and roles of the participants. For this reason, I tried to remain as objective as possible,
knowing the magnitude of the research study being conducted and the importance of my role as
the researcher. By continually reminding myself of my role as the researcher, and by making
sure to refer to the standard definitions of shared leadership, I made sure to not allow myself to
define what I wanted to be true about shared leadership to be revealed in the data. I went back to
the definition and compared the data to what the participants actually said. Although it is almost
impossible not to have formulated opinions about things, I did my best to remind myself to
remain professional in my researcher role and questioned my ideas and thoughts throughout the
interview process to make sure I was not bringing in preconceived ideas and opinions. I allowed
myself to have my opinions and thoughts but was realistic in separating these from the data
during the interview and analysis process. At the community college, my role was originally to
provide outreach and student support services as a classified staff member, to help this
community college’s students achieve success. Throughout the duration of this study, I
progressed into a management position. This gave me an opportunity to gain more exposure and
learn about the administrative lens of the Equity and Support programs. Prior to transitioning to
the California Community College campus, the I spent 6 years of my professional career
working in a private university within various roles mainly focused on providing student support.
I also worked at a different CCC campus very briefly after completing my undergraduate degree
in English from the University of California. Within this role, I worked as a program advisor in

32

the college’s Matriculation Office, where I learned about how to design and implement an
academic support program and advise community college students.
Ethics
Throughout the study, I made sure to follow proper protocol and precautions to maintain
ethical practices. To gain access to this site, I obtained permission from the President of LTCC
and the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, as well as the Institutional Review board (IRB) of the
University of Southern California. Additionally, to ensure confidentiality during this study,
participants were informed of the measures taken though a cover letter that was included with
their participant consent form they read and sign; this letter served as informed consent. The
chair of each of the committees as well as the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness aided in
distributing the recruitment letter to the members of the committee. The cover letter and
information sheet was emailed to respondents electronically. To ensure a participant’s candid
response, it was essential to maintain confidentiality at all times (Creswell, 2014). Participants
were notified that there would be no identifying factors that would be disclosed which could
potentially link them to their responses. Moreover, the respondents were informed that their
participation in the study was voluntary and would not be reflected in their performance
evaluation or affect the continuation of their employment with LTCC. Each member signed an
information sheet about California Community College site, granting permission (see appendix
C) prior to participating in the interview.
The interviews were conducted through online video conferencing on the zoom platform.
Each of the interviews was audio recorded, and then transcribed. Data and field notes from the
interviews were secured in my password protected laptop. The laptop and voice recorder were
also securely locked in a drawer in my office when not being used. Interview recordings and data

33

will be permanently deleted exactly 1 year after the study is published. Results of the study will
be published within my doctoral dissertation and will be available online through the University
of Southern California’s library website.
Data Analysis
I started data analysis during data collection through field notes taken during at the
interview. At the close of each interview, I took notes of any emerging themes or repetitive
points that are brought up, or any significant data the participant may have shared, or I may have
observed. Generally, I wrote down their notes and analysis at the close of the interview to obtain
the information and not lose it over time. It was my charge to make sense of the data. This
process involved multiple steps, including gathering field notes, organizing the data, conducting
different analyses, and making interpretations of the themes and findings to form a summative
idea or understanding of the phenomenon being researched (Creswell, 2014). I used a standard
analysis process in which the first step was to collect the raw data; the second step was to read all
of the data, organize it in preparation for analysis, and make sense of it; the third step was to
code the data and determine emerging themes; while this was happening I took note of any
interrelating themes and descriptions; and finally, I worked with my chair to interpret the data
and meanings of the results.
The interview data was first be transcribed and organized to prepare for analysis.
Following transcription, I conducted an initial read through of all the data to gain a sense of the
information collected, as recommended by Creswell (2014). I then implemented an inductive
approach that generates theory based on coding interviews and the emergence of themes and
concepts (2007). The frequency of each code helped strengthen and solidify themes in the data as
each theme continues to emerge from multiple respondents. This approach allowed for the

34

comparison of data and for me to observe interrelatedness and distinctions (Creswell, 2014).
Coding was performed in segments and each category was indicated by color. The themes and
meanings of each color were indicated in a codebook, identifying the a priori codes. I recorded
the instances of each code or emerging theme on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to gauge the
strength of the themes by frequency. Once the emerging themes were tallied, they were clustered
in order to build overarching themes and make connections (Miles et al., 2014). Clustering also
help identify patterns, and compare and contrast concepts to move to a higher level of analysis.
Finally, a logical chain of evidence was physically mapped on an Excel spreadsheet using the
frequencies of the themes to illustrate prominent ideas and their interconnectedness. This also
help determine causal relationships among the themes (Miles et al., 2014).
Limitations and Delimitations
There were four main limitations when considering this study. First, this study was
conducted at a community college that is part of a multi-campus district and may not fully
capture the climate and practices of the 114 campus CCC system as a whole, as the CCCs are
also comprised of single-campus districts throughout California that may have fewer resources.
Second, this study was conducted at an institution of higher education in the state of
California. The practices and policies of CCCs may not apply to community colleges outside of
California. It is therefore important to not only consider the findings and recommendations of
this study as a guide to practice, but also take into account the unique in-state parameters of each
state community college system.
The next limitation was the willingness of the participant being interviewed to be fully
honest. Although each participant signed a statement of confidentiality, and were ensured that
their privacy was protected, I had no way of fully enforcing or measuring the level of honesty of

35

the participant’s response. Additionally, the concern for full honesty is also a point of focus
because all of the participants were actually colleagues that I work with in my place of
employment. I did my best to ensure that I was conducting the study through a researcher lens
but had no way of determining if the participants felt fully comfortable being completely honest
in their responses.
Last, this research study only examined data collected from the selected institution’s
Equity and Success committees and the leaders involved in the program implementations. In the
case of a stand-alone campus committees, the campus leadership would have focus solely on
meeting the mandates set forth for a singular source of funding. In the case of the institution
under study, I may not have be able to distinguish the rationale behind the decisions made
between the different state mandates because the participants likely served on multiple
committees. Therefore, I did not consider factors that affect other projects and mandates that the
same committee is tasked to oversee.
Delimitations
The main delimitation was my limited experience in conducting a qualitative study and
conducted semi structured interviews with mostly open-ended questions. For this reason, the
instrument was ridged and constrained due to lack of interaction and guidance from my previous
chair. Because our interactions were limited, I did not feel confident in asking for guidance when
building the interview protocol. Further, during the interviews, I led the interviews by following
the established interview protocol. Due to lack of practice and confidence on my end, there was a
limited number of probing questions asked. I was unsure of how appropriate it was to stray from
the original interview protocol. This resulted in the omission of potential valuable information
and data that may have been missed as participants may have given short answers and may have

36

needed more encouragement or prodding. After conducting this research study, I was asked to be
a research assistant for another doctoral student’s research study, and I was able to be more
confident in my interview skills based on the learning and practice that occurred during this
initial study.
Conclusion
This chapter outlined the methodology that was used to conduct this study. I worked with
the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness at LTCC to acquire access to the survey group and
acquire email addresses of the individuals invited to interview. The research methodology
ensured a systematic method of data collection and analysis that provided trustworthiness.
Additionally, maintaining anonymity with the volunteer interview group fostered rich and quality
response data. The following chapters will provide a detailed analysis of the emerging themes
and findings of the interview questions and analysis of documents.

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived decision-making approach in
relation to the implementation and facilitation of Equity and student support programs on a
California community college campus. Nine community college administrators, faculty, and staff
were interviewed using semi-structured, open ended interview protocol. The participants in this
study served on a campus governance committee focusing on the implementation and
administration of an Equity or student support program. Although the invitation to participate
was extended to a variety of individuals on different campus committees, five of the nine
participants that volunteered for the study were from the same committee, the Equity Initiative

37

committee. The chart below lists each participant, their classification, and the nature of the
committee membership they referenced in participation of this study:
Table 1
Study Participants
Name Rank
Role on
Committee
Committee
Represented
a
Katie Administrator Participant Student Success
Albert Administrator Chair Student Success
Katarina Faculty Participant Equity District Level
Sadie Administrator Co-Chair Equity Initiative
Juliette Faculty Participant Equity Initiative
Victoria Faculty Participant Equity Initiative
Gabe Classified Participant Equity Initiative
James Classified Participant Equity Initiative
Mark Faculty Chair Faculty Committee
a: The titles of the committees have been omitted to protect participant identity.
The research question that guided this study was:
What are committee members’ perceptions of the decisions in relation to implementation
and facilitation of student equity and support programs?
Interviews revealed two overarching findings. The first finding provided insight into what
participants relied on when making decisions. An overarching theme in this finding indicated
that they made their decisions based on what they considered in the best interest of student. The
second theme that presented itself in relation to decision making was that participants believed
that personal relationships with committee members played a role in their decision making as
well.
The second finding revolved around the dynamics of way decisions were made within
committees. There were two themes that emerged in relation to this finding: First, participants
indicated that they were afforded space to provide input and have a voice within committees.

38

Second, they believed that higher level administrators both inside and outside of the committee
held the ultimate decision-making power for the Equity and Student Support programs.
Finding 1: “Students’ Best Interests” and Relationships Drove Decisions
Participants expressed a range of reasons as the basis of their decision making in the
committee. Some focused more on what they perceived to be the in the best interests of the
students, writ large or a smaller group of students for whom they had a specific responsibility.
Others grounded their decision making in relationships they held with colleagues on the
committee and the level of influence that relationship held.
Four participants indicated that they made decisions based on what they believed to be in
the best interests of the students. They defined “best interest” based on the needs of the students,
and what it would take to help them be successful in persisting and completing their courses.
This finding connected directly to the first element of the conceptual framework, committee
members, which focused on the members’ individual skills and experiences and their ability to
contribute their perspective of student needs based on their experiences.
One of the four participants, Victoria, facilitated a special program for students in an
identified equity group, students who were aging out of the foster care system. Therefore, in her
response she detailed that the needs of her student population weigh in on the decisions she
made, but she was also mindful of the needs of the greater student body. She said:
So I’m constantly thinking about needs of those students and services those students need
as well as like, the greater like, the traditional students, you know… So absolutely. It
does make sense, it does have influence on decision making.
Victoria focused primarily on the best interests of the students in the equity group to which she
had an assigned coordination responsibility. She spoke to “constantly thinking about” the needs

39

and services that would be appropriate for students aging out of the foster care system first and
then extending to “traditional students.” In connecting the rationale behind Victoria’s decision
making, and how it applied to a shared governance committee where shared leadership was
being practiced, Pearce and Conger (2003) explained, when leadership was conducted as a team,
such as in the case of shared leadership, it became more flexible, allowing those participants with
the most relevant insight and knowledge to take on the leadership role when appropriate. In this
case, Victoria had an expert opinion on what the needs of students within an identified Equity
group were due to her role in administering the Foster Youth program. Thus, she applied her
knowledge from that role to the decisions that were being made within the shared governance
committee.
Similarly, Albert indicated that he kept students in mind when making decisions within
the SSSP committee. His frame of reference for student needs came from his experiences
interacting with student leaders in the student government. Whereas Victoria worked directly
with an identified equity group of students from a special population, Albert worked with a broad
range of students from different backgrounds who had self-selected to become student leaders on
campus.
I try to make my decisions based, off of first, my perspective of what students’ needs are,
and I say my perspective because we all have our opinions, and I try to base my opinions
off of working with student leaders.
Albert may or may not have known if these students come from an identified equity group,
unless the students disclosed it to him, but he did bring this perspective of their experiences to
the committee that falls under administering student success and equity and he used this lens
primarily in his decision-making process on the committee, before he considered other factors or

40

perspectives. He used his experiences in working with student leaders to determine student
needs, which again connects to the committee members element of the conceptual framework
that examines the input of the committee members’ unique skills and perspectives. Albert’s
perspective may be constrained by the specific group of students he interacts with and the limited
scope of relationships he has with this select group of students. These factors may have limited
his understanding of the needs of students. Nonetheless, Albert based his decisions on his
understanding of what the needs of students were in making decisions within the committees he
participated in. Although Albert’s perspective was not solely based on a student group that was
uniquely form an identified equity group, Albert’s participation did bring an additional voice, or
perspective. Kezar & Holcomb (2013) emphasized that capitalizing on expertise and differing
perspectives were one of the conditions of shared leadership that helped meet the needs of the
changing landscape of decision making in higher education. Whereas Victoria operated out of
the lens as a faculty lead, Albert served through his role as an Administrator. Both participants
had a similar driving factor, which was to look at what was best for the students based on their
experiences, although their experiences may have provided opportunities for diverse insight
based on the different groups of students they interacted with. Different individuals with
differing relevance of expertise assumed leadership at various points, within the shared
leadership model (Yammarino et al., 2012). Here, Albert and Victoria assumed their role of input
in the shared leadership process by utilizing their differing experiences, yet similar rational.
Four participants indicated that their decisions were based on the trust and relationships
that they had with other members of the committee. This connected to two elements of the
conceptual framework: discourse and interaction, and committee members. The individuals were
making decisions based on their relationships with others in the committee, and based on

41

conversations they were having with their colleagues. Bensimon and Neumann (1993)
emphasized the importance of trust building and collaboration in their study of Presidential
Cabinets and team culture. A similar concept was observed as participants shared that their
decisions were based off relationships or trust they had with other committee members.
Bensimon and Neuman (1993) detailed that in the process of enacting authority or leadership,
there should have been a focus on personal traits, that highlighted elements that included
trustworthiness. Because this group was building their perception of shared leadership within the
governance committee, the element of trust for a colleague surfaced as a driving force for the
decisions that were made. This paralleled the third element described in my conceptual
framework involving individual members and group dynamics and trust building. Katarina
explained that different members of the committee could carry a level of influence, and that she
had made decisions based on the fact that this specific individual was in agreement with an item
or decision that was being made. She explained that it was based on the trust that she had for the
person, and their logic and judgement. These relationships would have been established through
individuals working together over time. Bensimon and Neumann (1993) explained that in
creating an environment for shared leadership, it was crucial to cultivate space for developing
relationships and building trust. Katarina shared that she sometimes made decisions because the
person proposing the item thought it was a good idea, and that she trusted their professional
judgement. This tells us that over time, or at some point, Katarina had previous experience
working with this individual, and had observed their logic and reasoning, and that she was in
agreement with their ideas, as she explained below:
I have built such great relationships with folks in the committee that I think sometimes it
can be influential. Like, if someone is pro something, and I trust them, I probably will

42

think it’s a good idea. Something that’s proposed because I just have, I trust that person’s
like, logic, their professional judgment.
Another example came from Katie who explained that through her relationship with the
coordinator of the Umoja program [a program serving African American Students], she trusted
their plan or the reasoning for their requests for resources:
In some ways, the decision making is less at the nitty gritty, you know, each little project
approving and I have come to the think, which frankly, is just kind of a waste of time,
and it’s more, okay, if this is something that Umoja is doing, we’re going to trust that you
know, they’re working for that goal… I do think part of that may have to do with the fact
that people on the committee certainly know each other, work closely together, and
generally try to support each other.
In her statement, Katie described decision making as more trust and relationship based. The
decision is factored based on whoever was presenting the item was doing their work to achieve
the goal that they were working towards. She did not focus on the minor details of the proposal,
but rather she focuses on her trust and relationship with the colleague presenting the item. This
concept circled back to importance of creating relationships amongst team members and building
trust to make shared leadership more successful (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Kezar &
Holcomb, 2013). It also again spoke to the third, and previously mentioned element of the
conceptual framework, committee members. Administrator, and committee chair Albert, echoed
this concept in his explanation, as he discussed that when there was a relationship with an
individual, there was an element of consideration, and more willingness to hear the other
perspective, and willingness to come to a conclusion or be swayed in decision making. This
insight additionally connected to the fifth element of the conceptual framework, discourse and

43

interaction as the committee members discuss and hear each other’s perspectives. Essentially,
there seemed to be an added layer of willingness to collaborate.
I think the individuals that you have good relationships with, it’s easier to find a common
ground to support one another. There’s dialogue, there’s patience. And even if you see
things differently, you can try your attempt maybe easier to come to a conclusion to
either convince the individual of what you’re trying to get passed on the committee or get
convinced by the other individual that you have a strong relationship with.
Through examples provided by participants in response to the reasoning and thought process
they used when making decisions, it was clear that these two themes emerged as primary
considerations in the personal decision-making process of most participants.
Finding 2: Differences in Perspective (role) Translated into Different Interpretations of
Whether the Decision-Making Process Reflected Shared Leadership.
The data also provided a second overarching theme, which touched on the way decisions
were made within the committees. The data revealed that leaders believed that decisions were
made “together” (thus, shared leadership) and perception by members of the committee that
decisions were guided or directed by those in positions of leadership (not shared leadership). As
Cardenas (2017, p. 1) explained, “The Shared part of both leadership and governance matter;
what are the purpose and principals we share?” For the purpose of this study, shared leadership
will be defined as “the empowerment of multiple people and cross-functional teams—from the
delegating of responsibilities to the faculty [staff, and administrators]—(versus administrative
bodies) under shared governance” (Kezar & Holcomb, 2013). In addition to Kezar and
Holcomb’s (2013) definition which included reference to faculty, staff and administrators were

44

added to the definition that would be used and referenced in this study as faculty staff, and
administrators were among the participants, and contributed data and information to the study.
Participants explained that decision making was an attribute of the way the leadership of
the committee was enacted, connecting this point to the second element of my conceptual
framework, leader (approach). Specifically, participants described the committee chairs’ overall
approach to leading the committee, and allowing for participants to speak, was perceived as
shared leadership. Further, a collective and democratic decision-making process was established
through shared leadership. Thus, they viewed decision making as collective and democratic,
through group discussion, which they equated to a shared approach to leadership. Participants
holding a higher level position such as campus administrators equated being given space to
participate in the discussion, a means of facilitating shared leadership, whereas committee
members in lower ranking positions explained that although they were provided space for
participation, the ultimate direction and decisions was made by higher ranked administrators and
senior staff, which meant that the leadership was not shared. This paralleled the fourth element
of the conceptual framework, implementation and facilitation, in which decision making power
was questioned, and who actually holds the power of the decision and direction the committee
takes. In my conceptual framework, I described shared leadership as involving multiple
individuals who utilize their knowledge and skills to accomplish a common goal (Pearce &
Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims 2002; Wang et al., 2014). This also touched on the first element of
the conceptual framework, goals; and fourth element of the conceptual framework,
implementation and facilitation. These elements examined of who kept the committee moving
and who set momentum points, and if it is was shared process. Similarly, Faculty Coordinator
Victoria explained her perception of shared leadership:

45

It’s just not one person making a decision, or one, you know, sort of hierarchy of decision
making, but it’s a collective. It’s really looking at how, you know, not like minded, or
just making decisions, but are looking at various reports, coming together to make
decisions and the committee’s shared leadership looks like collective voice.
Like the Pearce and Conger (2003) definition, Victoria echoed that there is a merging of thoughts
and opinions, and that the outcome was a collective voice and decision. In their article, Shared
Leadership in Higher Education” Important Lessons for Research and Practice, Kezar and
Holcomb (2017) explained that newer models of leadership are more collaborative, rather than
top down. The newer models utilize the organization’s knowledge base, and it provide
opportunity to learn from each other and be adaptive, to make decisions that meet the needs of
the institution. By involving participants in the decision-making discussions, the chairs were
setting up the stage for shared leadership in decision making. A similar thought process emerged
from the data were five of nine participants explained that the leadership approach of the chairs
were collaborative and provided room for participation. Committee Chairs gave room to
committee members to participate and voice their opinions. This spoke to leader approach, the
second element of the conceptual framework, referring to the embodied approach of the chair
and how they facilitated the group. It also connected with the implementation and facilitation,
element four of the conceptual framework and the examination of who holds the ultimate power
within the group. Having a chance to contribute to discussion and participate may not necessarily
mean that what is spoken carries weight or influence in the decision that is made. Participants
may have equated being given space as an element of shared leadership. James explained his
understanding of shared leadership, in reference to the chair providing space for participation:

46

that [the chair] is making sure everyone at the table has a voice. So basically, that has to
involve everyone in the community college level….and just making sure that all voices
are at the table, all stakeholders and that everyone has equal say at the table.
Here James explained that to have shared leadership, all voices must be represented. He did not
mention if they need to be considered, or if they influence the discussion. His opinion or
perception of shared leadership stated that the voices needed to be present and be spoken. He
saw it as the charge of the chair to make sure that this happens. Within the conceptual
framework, element two focused on leadership approach as an ideal shared state. This element
considered the interactions of the committee, and if they are in fact in a shared or distributed
state. It focused the leadership approach of the chair and how they facilitate the group. What
James described was not actually a shared state. There were interactions by the members in
vocalizing their thoughts, but the leadership is not distributed as members are merely
participating in discussion. It was important to note that James was a classified staff member,
who was early in his career. He did not have a lot of experience serving on committees, nor has
he seen many examples of diverse leadership types. Therefore, what he did see and expect was
that there was representation, and opinions were voiced.
Similarly, Sabrina, a campus administrator, described that the chair “…allowed for
discussion and input.” Sabrina explained that the group members were able to provide input and
speak. This contributed to the understanding of the fifth element of my conceptual framework,
discourse, and interaction. Learning about the discourse of the participants contributed to my
understanding of who contributes and how. It revealed dynamics between relationships, and
power structure as well. As such, participants named the ability to share their voices and
thoughts as their perceived component of shared leadership in the decision-making process. This

47

aligned with the recommendations of shared leadership by The Higher Education Program and
Policy Council on Shared Governance in Colleges and Universities (n.d.). In their publication,
Shared governance in colleges and universities (n.d.), it was explained that the voices of the
collective campus stakeholders should have been involved in decision making,
We believe that all college and university employees—top tenured faculty, junior faculty,
temporary and part-time/adjunct faculty, graduate teaching and research assistants,
professional staff with and without faculty rank, the classified and support staff that keep
the educational enterprise going—should have a guaranteed voice in decision-making, a
role in shaping policy in the areas of their expertise. (Higher Education Program Policy
Counsel, n.d., p. 3)
Throughout the study, committee members with lower positional authority described that while
each committee member was given room to participate and voice their opinion within the
discussion, and that direction was essentially set from the chair and other members on the
committee who ranked higher on the campus organizational chart or held positional authority
such as campus administrators. Members on the committee with less positional authority, who
stood lower on the organizational chart or had less power were aware that their superiors set a
direction, and Gabe, a classified staff member, explained that whereas the chair would share
direction with the group, and allow for opinions to be given, lower ranking staff members were
not necessarily the drivers of the planning. They knew they had room to contribute, but that the
plan had already been made. This was very telling of the fourth element of the conceptual
framework which examined implementation and facilitation; looking at what member
participation looked like and who actually held the decision making power. Gabe said,

48

They can express a voice or a concern, but because a lot of the decisions are still made
from the very top down, we kind of are just kind of told kind of how it’s playing out. And
then we try to adapt. I mean, there is a little bit of dialogue… but most of the stuff
already kind of planned out, but it is a very equitable, I think there’s a place where
everybody can share opinions and they do whenever they feel like it’s a pretty valid
point.
His point demonstrated that convening a committee for administering Equity and student support
programs may have been a move by the college to foster shared governance and shared
leadership, and to demonstrate that a diverse body of voices were represented in the decision-
making process, although the direction of the decisions had already been set by administrators.
Birnbaum (1992) details that fostering shared leadership involves implementing various systems
or opportunities for consultation and decision making. The author described that there was a
need for mutual understanding amongst parties, decision making should have been seen as a joint
effort, and that each party was interdependent on the perspectives, skills, and experiences of the
other (Birnbaum, 1992). Birnbaum’s theory went on to explain that although there was a
difference in the weight of the decision making, it was important to initiate capacity for
involvement of all campus constituents. Oftentimes, vertical leaders had played a part in
fostering and guiding shared leadership (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003; Kezar & Holcomb, 2017). In
Gabe’s perspective, the top-down leaders, or vertical leadership were actually an implication that
the decisions were being made by higher level administrators and may not have actually been
part of the elements of fostering shared leadership and decision making. Kezar and Holcomb
(2017) pointed out that oftentimes the current system of higher education, and the way the

49

hierarchy of the administration was set up made it difficult to sustain or promote shared
leadership, as we observed through Gabe’s perception and response.
Sabrina, who was a college administrator shared that the committee participated in
gathering different perceptions, but similarly to Gabe acknowledged that a lot of it had to do with
what your rank is within the campus organizational structure:
It really is a matter what your role is, what your title is, so to speak. But I think because
of the combination of experiences those folks have had individually, across their careers,
and what they bring to the table, they’ve been able to do that kind of give and take, you
know, step up, step back for those kinds of things.
Gabe described that decisions and plans came in a more top-down procedure, with allowance for
opinions to be expressed from all members, although it should have been noted that expression
of opinions didn’t mean that the direction would change. Sabrina expressed that role and title
played a part in the discussion, where individuals took note of a person’s position during the
discussion, and the individual’s breadth of experience their title or position would bring. It
seemed that your title would bear more or less weight in the discussion, causing you to “step
forward or step back,” meaning that you would speak up, or listen based on your rank. In the
conceptual framework, the third element examined committee members, and the expertise each
parties bring, and the extent to which they are leaned on for their expertise. It seemed that
members were able to provide input, giving each an opportunity to provide their expertise and
experience. But, as the fourth element of the conceptual framework examined implementation
and facilitation, Gabe and Sabrina’s insights indicated that the members also understood who
held the true power within the group based on their positionality. Similarly, faculty member
Katarina too expressed the awareness and caution of participants based on their position.

50

Similar to Gabe, she expressed that, “Whatever you say you have to be super careful
because you are speaking in a very, in an environment where it could have a lot of
repercussion….” This echoed the sentiment of the previous two participants in that there was
always a broader awareness of the different individuals on the committee, and their roles and
titles. Space was given to participants to speak, but those of a lower rank had to be careful of
what they were saying, that the higher-ranking colleges essentially had more weight in the
decision making, and that these individuals set the plan and direction of the student equity and
support committee. Overall, each committee had representation, and opportunity for
participation, but the reality of it was that not everyone truly contributed to the conversation, or
perhaps expressed their actual opinion, based on what role they played on campus.
Katarina explained the relationship building in terms of social capital. She described that
coalition building amongst the lower ranks was important, and that she shares the feeling of
having a duty to represent the (undocumented) students but knows that the chancellor set the
direction and directive. Katarina described the decision-making process as bureaucratic where
the Chancellor updated them and informed them on new laws and regulations that were coming
down, and they (the committee) took the directive and made the decisions and planned how to
implement at the local campus level. She acknowledged and shared her awareness of the political
ramifications of sharing too much or dissenting because they are in the presence of the most
powerful person in the district and having to tread lightly.
Similar to what Katarina explained about the power structure being at the top, Albert, an
administrator and executive of the college also detailed that essentially, the direction of the
committee was set from the leadership of the college, and the person with the highest positional
authority and power on the committee:

51

You know, I think it has to be the person that has the most amount of power. Or I would
say two people, one, the Vice President. If the Vice President wants to go in a specific
direction, that’s what the committee’s direction that committee is going to go in. So, the
Vice President can push …if anyone’s going to influence the committee it would be the
Vice President.
Albert’s explanation correlated directly with the fourth element in my conceptual framework that
focused on power, and who held the ultimate decision making power or program plan. Albert
went on to explain that participation is symbolic, and that there is a general awareness of
positionality and power in the room, despite the facilitation of open conversation:
It depends on who’s in the room. I think there are days where, for example, the Vice
President was in the room of student services, and people were maybe more likely and
less likely to say something, whereas maybe days that she wasn’t in the room, they’d be
less like, they would be more likely to do it, less likely when she’s there.
Cardenas (2017) challenged the concept of shared leadership in questioning how leadership was
shared effectively when committee participants did not hold the same degree of power. She
cautioned that there would be difficulty with the attempt of shared leadership as the assumption
of expression of thoughts and opinions was perceived as actual shared weight in the decision that
were made (Cardenas, 2017).
Administrator Albert pointed out the reality that lower ranking officials needed to be
careful of what they said in the presence of their superiors, indicated a level of hesitancy on the
part of the participants, or perhaps a level of awareness that they may have faced repercussions
for speaking their mind. Overall, it showed that the assumed openness and inclusiveness of the
space created by the chair was not the reality that existed. Katarina shared this level of awareness

52

when she mentioned that she had to be mindful of repercussions based on what she shared in her
meeting. Thus, even in the attempt at gaining “shared leadership,” the reality was that the top-
down power structure did not allow for full open conversations to be had. Lower ranking
participants, and some higher-ranking individuals voiced the reality in that the concept of shared
leadership through open discourse during meetings was a facade, and that lower ranking
individuals did not have the liberty to truly speak their mind without facing potential
consequences. Thus, the conditions for shared leadership, as defined by Kezar and Holcomb
(2017) were not actually met in this circumstance as the team does not truly establish a
hierarchical leadership system in which team empowerment takes place. The vertical rigidity of
the top-down system remained in place as lower ranking individuals perceive and understand
that the college administrators ultimately set the direction of the decisions and action plans.
Conclusion
In analyzing the data from the interviews, and through the discussion above, it was
confirmed that true shared leadership did not exist within any of these campus Equity and
student support committees. The five elements described in the conceptual framework were not
fully present within the data provided by the participants. Although a large part of the data
focused on one specific Equity and student support committee, data from all of the committees
discussed revealed similar findings.
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to explore how administrators at a
California Community College (CCC) made decisions regarding implementation and
administration of Student Equity and Support programs through shared governance. This study
represented the perspectives of nine CCC staff, faculty, and administrators who each served on a

53

shared governance committee that implemented an equity or student support program. The study
examined collaborative leadership and decision making using Kezar and Holcomb’s (2013)
shared leadership framework that guided the research in order to explore how and why campus
administrators governance committee members made decisions when implementing
programmatic changes and funding in different Equity and student support programs. These
programs were developed to meet the needs of the evolving landscape of the education and
building an educated and skilled workforce. In providing supplemental support programs, the
California Community Colleges would strive to meet the call to action put forth by former
President Barak Obama to graduate 5 million additional students by the year 2020. The need for
these programs continues as higher education continue to evolve and build equitable means of
access and support.
I conducted a qualitative study, where I interviewed a purposive sample of individuals
who were staff, faculty, or administrators as LTCC. I specifically conducted the qualitative
interviews to explore and answer the following research question: What are the different equity
and support program committee members’ perceptions of the approach being taken by the
members of the committee to make decisions in relation to implementation and facilitation of
student equity and support programs? To gather information to answer this question, I conducted
one on one, semi structured interviews using an open-ended interview protocol (Maxwell, 2013;
Patton, 2002). The selection of participants for this was from a role group, by means of a
purposive sample as it took a specific set of individuals who worked with the different mandate
committees to speak to the true experience of the efforts being taken in these committees and by
the campus (Light et al., 1990; Merriman, 2009; Palys, 2008). The selection of the participants
was done through purposive sampling, as recommended by Merriman (2009), to gain

54

information rich data that could be relied on from an informant that was experienced in the
subject being researched.
Each interview was conducted on the online Zoom platform, and each interview lasted
about sixty minutes. Throughout the process of conducting interviews, data analysis was being
done using coding- first open coding, then grouping by theme and subject with in vivo coding to
identify emerging ideas and concepts. Parallel to this process, I developed a codebook to
organize codes with themes and meanings, and I drafted analytic memos for each interview, to
identify ideas, themes, and note any emerging data that may be significant (Creswell, 2014). To
protect participant identity, I used pseudonyms for each committee title, and participant name.
In this chapter I present a summary of my findings, as well as implications for practice, policy,
and future research.
Summary of Findings
Throughout the study of exploring committee member’s perceptions who worked directly
in implementing and administering Equity and Student Support programs, two main findings
emerged through the participant data. The first finding was based around what participants relied
on when making decisions within the governance committees that specifically served Equity and
Student Support programs. Specifically, upon reflection of what participants based their decision
making on within the committees, it was shared that some individuals tried to make decisions
based on their perceived idea of what was in the best interest of their students. While some
participants worked with students within a specified equity group and had insight into the needs
of these students in shaping Equity and Support programs, others worked with a more general
population, but still attempted to implement the reasoning of their perceived idea of what was
most beneficial or advantageous for students behind their decision making.

55

Additionally, data showed that another factor that played a role in participant decision
making was the relationships each individual had with their committee members. It was shared
that if the participants had a relationship or trust built with another member they would usually
“trust them” and support their reasoning or what they were asking for within the committee
including resources and funding.
Finding two revealed the dynamics of how decisions were made within the Equity
and student support committees. Participants shared that within their committees, they were
afforded space for discussion and to provide input. Data showed that some participants equated
the allowance of participation to shared leadership. For the purpose of this study, shared
leadership was be defined as “the empowerment of multiple people and cross-functional teams--
from the delegating of responsibilities to the faculty [staff, and administrators]- (versus
administrative bodies) under shared governance” (Kezar & Holcomb, 2013). In addition to
Kezar & Holcomb’s definition which included reference to faculty, staff and administrators were
added to the definition that would be used and referenced in this study as faculty staff, and
administrators were among the participants, and contributed data and information to the study.
Therefore, having the opportunity to provide input within a committee and discuss things, did not
actually meet the definition of shared leadership. This was, in fact, a misinterpretation or
misunderstanding of shared leadership, that several participants shared.
Last but not least, in examining the dynamics of how decisions were made, the data
demonstrated that although participants mostly discussed having the ability to provide input
within the committee, lower ranking staff members within the committee discussed the fact that
they knew that their input was not really part of the direction the ultimate decision would take.
They acknowledged that senior administrators were the ones making the overall decision of the

56

shape and design the programs would take. Conversely, mid-level administrators (committee
chairs) voiced that they believed they were providing space for input from all committee
members, which would result in shared leadership and decision making.
Implications and Recommendations
The qualitative interviews conducted during this study demonstrated and informed the
experiences of nine participants that can be utilized in the development of policy, practice, and
areas for future research within governance and shared leadership in higher education. In this
section I share the recommendations and implications for each of these areas. Each section will
begin with a discussion and follow with implications that could inform future policies, practice,
and research in the attempt of shared leadership within the governing committees implementing
Equity and Support programs.
Practice
Through the information shared by the participants regarding how they make decisions
when participating in Equity and student support committees, and about their understanding of
shared leadership and who the true decision makers of these committees are, there are some
implications and recommendation for practice that can be suggested. Primarily, the goal of the
leadership composition of the committee and leadership should be determined. If there is a
directive that has been set in a top-down fashion from the campus executive, and a committee
has been enacted to implement the program, then a shared leadership approach of co-leaders
(Kezar & Holcomb, 2013) would be enacted, with the clarity that these individuals are leading
the group towards a direction that has been predetermined. If the objective of creating the shared
governance committee is to gain insight and direction from the different stakeholders on campus,
then there should be an intentional approach taken by the chair of the committee to create a space

57

where all participants are encouraged to participate, and that the chair of the committee takes
time to foster relationship building amongst committee members so that there is a knowledge of
the different skill sets available within the committee, and so that there is an element of trust
built. As Cardenas (2017) shares in their criticism of the shared leadership framework, when
individuals on a committee have different levels of power, we have to be mindful of how it
effects the dynamic of the group, and how it influences the decision making process. Study
participants who were of lower ranking within this study did share that although they appreciated
the room for discussion and input, they acknowledged that the administration had set the
direction of the committee and the decisions made, and that they acknowledged that it was in the
administrator’s role to do so. Thus, if there is an attempt to enact true shared leadership, then it
is recommended that committee chairs follow the conditions to enable shared leadership as
recommended by Kezar and Holcomb (2013). It may be the case that the chair thinks they are
encouraging input and insight by allowing for discussion within the committee, but within true
shared leadership, each committee member would be taking on a role and responsibility within
the committee, and not just voicing their insight, as some of the participants in this study equated
shared leadership to.
Policies
By reviewing the findings of this research study, a policy recommendation that could be
beneficial in administering Equity and Support programs would be that there is a creation of a
program plan for each Equity and Support program in which the seats of the implementation
committee are defined, and further, the roles and responsibilities of each of the committee
members is identified. The program plan should also clearly articulate if there is a direction set
by the senior administrators of the college in which they wish the committee to undertake and

58

implement. With equity programs, there is typically a requirement to submit an implementation
plan to the state, but the plan that is submitted to the state is broad, and more general as a
representation of the college, and not a guiding document for Equity and student support
committee chairs and members.
Future Research
Based on the findings of this student, there are some implications for future research that
I recommend. The first recommendation would be to conduct a similar study of shared
leadership and decision making with a participant group who work in the same governance
committee. Although a majority of the participants in this study were part of the same
committee, a few participants were not. The objectives and the goals and nature of each
committee is unique, and although similar in the nature of promoting Equity and student support
programs, participant information may vary based on the work and group of individuals within
each unique committee.
Additionally, it is highly recommended that there be an observational component to
future studies related to researching group dynamics in a decision making body. Administrators
who also served as committee chairs shared that they provided space for participants to
contribute ideas and interact. Kezar and Holcomb (2013) encourage an element of trust building
and relationship building to foster conditions for shared leadership. A researcher might observe
the dynamics and interactions of the participants which the participants may be unwilling to
share in a formal interview setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants may also share what
they believe to be their understanding is of the interactions and dynamics that go into decision
making, which might actually be different than what their actions show that occurs within the
setting of a committee meeting. Observations would allow for me to get a firsthand glimpse of

59

the interactions, and it would give them open-ended information of how the dynamics really
work within the committees (Creswell, 2014).
One last consideration for future research would be related to tracking the success of the
programs with the implementations of the actions from these committees. Within this study, I did
not consider the progression of the academic performance of the students at the institution after
the implementation of each mandate had been made to see if the program was working. Within
the student success and equity programs, there is a push from the state level to track momentum
points of student success using data, and to engage in data driven decision making. It was not
my intention to determine if the program is effective and if student success momentum points
were being met; rather, the study examined the shared leadership model among the committee.
Conclusion
This study gathered information on the dynamics behind decision making within a shared
governance committee as it relates to shared leadership. The findings suggest that while some
participants believe that providing space for committee participants to participate is a version of
shared leadership, while others understand that ultimately, the decision is made by the
administrators. There have been recommendations made based off of the findings for research,
policy, and practice.

60

References
American Association of Community Colleges. (2009). President Obama brings national effort
to increase awareness of community colleges. http://aacc.nche.edu/Advocacy
American Association of University Professors. (n.d.) Statement on government of colleges and
universities. https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2017). Shared governance:
changing with the times. https://www.agb.org/sites/default/files/
report_2017_shared_governance.pdf
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2021). Postsecondary Success.
Postsecondary Success | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation
Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative
leadership: the “L” word in higher education.
https://rossierapps.usc.edu/facultydirectory/publications/12/bensimon-cv-280.pdf.
Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: teams and
teamwork in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the
college presidency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, J. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity,
problems and prospects. Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute Press.
California Community Colleges. (2015). System operations.
http://extranet.cccco.edu/SystemOperations.aspx.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013a). Student success scorecard.

61

http://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecard.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013b). Scorecard: An accountability
framework for the California community colleges.
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/TRIS/Research/Accountability/ARCC2_0/Final%20A
RCC%20Scorecard%20Framework.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2014a). California community
colleges key facts. http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu
/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2014b). Student success and
support program funding guidelines.
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP/Matriculation/SSSP_Funding_Guidelines_Final
_3-12-14.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2014c). SSSP and student equity:
resources to protect access and success for all students.
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP/Student%20Senate/SSSP%20and%20SE%20for
%20SSCCC%20GA%2011-14.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2015, January 16). Key facts about
California community colleges.
http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016). Student equity.
http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017a, February 15). 2016-17

62

expenditure guidelines: Basic skills, student equity, and student success and support
program. https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP/
Integrated%20Planning/Expenditure%20Guidelines%20V2%20%202016-17.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017b, July 27). 2017-18 SSSP credit
advance allocations memo. Retrieved from https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP/
Allocations/SS17-16_SSSPCred_Advance_Allocations_Memo_Final.pdf.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2018a). Vision for success: strengthening
the California community colleges to meet california’s needs.
https://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/Reports/vision-for-success.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2018b). SB 1456 student success act of
2012. http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/Matriculation/
SB1456StudentSuccessActOF2012.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2018c). Basic skills initiative (BSI),
student equity (SE), student success and support program (SSSP) integrated planning.
Retrieved from http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/IntegratedPlanning.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2019). Vision for success diversity, equity,
and inclusion task force. https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/CCCCO-
Website/Reports/CCCCO_DEI_Report.pdf?la=en&hash=69E11E4DAB1DEBA3181E05
3BEE89E7BC3A709BEE
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2021). Diversity, equity, and inclusion.
69E11E4DAB1DEBA3181E053BEE89E7BC3A709BEE
California State Legislator. (2012). AB-705: Seymour-Campbell student success act of 2012.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.

63

California State University. (2013). History. Retrieved from
https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/about-the-csu/Pages/history.aspx.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An
investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management, 50(5),
1217-1234. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.20159921.
Cardenas S. (2017) “Shared Leadership in Higher Education”.(What I’m Reading). The
Chronicle of higher education. 2017;64(5). Retrieved from:
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_gale_infotracc
piq_510296806.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Callan, P. M. (2009). California higher education, the master plan, and the erosion of college
opportunity. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (Report #09-1).
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508092.pdf.
Dorr, P. M. (2012, September 27). Governor Brown signs student success act of 2012 into
law, ushering in improvements at California Community Colleges [press release].
Retrieved from http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0
/DocDownloads/PressReleases/SEP2012/PRESS_RELEASE_SB1456StudentSuccessAct
Signed_FINAL_092712.pdf
Dougherty, K. J., & Hong, E. (2005, July). State systems of performance accountability for
community colleges: Impacts and lessons from policy makers.
http://www.achievingthedream.org/sites/default/files/resources/Policy_brief-
PerfAccountibility.pdf

64

Douglas, J. (2007). The conditions for admission: Access, equity, and the social contract of
public universities. Stanford, CA: University of Stanford Press.
Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the
access “saga” toward equity outcome. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-419.
Retrieved from Dowd_HER_CCs-as-Gateways-and-Gatekeepers.pdf (usc.edu).
Fletcher, J. K., & Käufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: paradox and possibility. In C. L. Pearce
& J. A. Conger (Eds.), Sared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp.
21-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Flynn, W. J. (2012). Community college funding. The Catalyst, (41)1, 11-13.
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-2775009761/community-college-funding
Gaither, G., Nedwek, B. P., & Neil, J. E. (1994). Measuring up: the promises and pitfalls of
performance indicators in higher education. Washington, DC: Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED383279
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W., Campbell, A., & Crosby, E. A. (1983, April). A nation
at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States
Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/title.html
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage.
Higher Ed. Program and Policy Counsil. (n.d.) Shared Governance in American Community
Colleges and Universities. shared_governance.pdf (ulm.edu).
Holy, T. C. (1961). California’s master plan for higher education, 1960-1975: A factual
presentation of an important development. The Journal of Higher Education,
32(1), 9-16. doi:10.2307/1980319.

65

Johnson, H., Mejia, M. C., & Bohn, S. (2015, October). Will California run out of graduates?
Public Policy Institute of California. http://www.ppic.org/publication/will-california-run-
out-of-college-graduates/.
Kezar, A. J., & Holcombe, E. M. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education: Important
lessons from research and practice. American Council on Education Center for Policy
Research and Study. http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Shared-Leadership-
in-Higher-Education.pdf.
Light, R. J., Singer, J., & Willett, J. (1990). By design: Planning research on higher education.
Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
Los Rios Community College District. (2015). Student success and support program plan (SSSP)
summary 2014-15. http://www.crc.losrios.edu/files/as/SSSP_PlanSummary.pdf.
LTCC. (n.d.). About LTCC.
Lumina Foundation. (2009, February 26). Meeting President Obama’s higher education goal:
New report provides 50-state roadmap to increasing college attainment.
http://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-events/meeting-president-obama-s-higher-
education-goal-new-report-provides-50-state-roadmap-to-increasing-college-attainment.
Lumina Foundation. (2015). Facts and figures.
http://www.luminafoundation.org/facts-and-figures.
Lumina Foundation (2020). Lumina’s Commitment to Racial Justice and Equity.
http://www.luminafoundation.org/resources/luminas-commitment-to-racial-equity/.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
Ed.). Thousand

66

Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriman, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michalowski, L. (2014, September 15). Overview of student success & support
program [PowerPoint slides]. http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP
/Matriculation/Resources/SSSP%20Training%202014/SSSP%20Training%202014%20-
%20SSSP%20Overview%20-%20Linda%20Michalowski.pdf.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, M.A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mullin, C. (2010). Rebalancing the mission: The community college completion agenda
(Policy Brief 2010-02PBL). Washington, DC: American Association for Community
Colleges. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522995.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.) Fast facts: Enrollment.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2012). Education at a
glance: OECD indicators 2012. https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/
CN%20-%20United%20States.pdf.
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412963909
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

67

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys
of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical Versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the
Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive,
Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice 6 (2): 172.
Ruppert, S. S. (1995). Roots and realities of state-level performance indicators systems. New
Directions for Higher Education, 91, 11-23. doi:10.1002/he.36919959104.
San Diego Community College District. (2013). Status report on student success and
support program (SSSP) planning 2013-2014.
http://www.lavc.edu/Committees-Workgroups/matriculation/library/implementation-
plans/2013-2014-Status-Report-on-SSSP-Planning.pdf.
Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J .B. (2007). A distributed perspective on and in practice. In
J. P. Spillane & J. B. Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in practice (pp. 146-166).
New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. (2014). State higher education
finance study [data report]. http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-
files/SHEF%20FY%202014-20150410.pdf.
State of California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2011). Definition of time
status terms. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/
Glossary.asp?ListType=15.
Smelser, N. J. (1972). California: Three layers and coordination. In J.A. Perkins &

68

B. B. Israel (Eds.), Higher education from autonomy to systems (pp. 23-34). New York,
NY: International Counsel for Educational Development.
The Higher Education Program and Policy Council on Shared Governance in Colleges and
Universities (n.d.). Shared governance in colleges and universities.
www.ulm.edu/sharedgovernance/documents/shared_governance.pdf.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2005, November). Policy alert
supplement (2005). http://www.highereducation.org/
reports/pa_decline/states/CA.pdf.
The University of California Office of the President. (2014). A brief history of the University of
Southern California. (2014) http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-
programs/programs-and-initiatives/faculty-resources-advancement/faculty-handbook-
sections/brief-history.html.
The University of California Office of the President. (2007). Major features of the California
master plan for higher education.
http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm.
The Whitehouse. (n.d.) The Build Back Better Framework.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/.
The Whitehouse. (n.d.). Higher education.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education.
The Whitehouse. (2009). Investing in Pell Grants Make College Affordable.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/education/higher-education/investing-in-
pell-grants-to-make-college-affordable.
Thelin, J. R. (2014). Essential documents in the history of American higher education.

69

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
University of California. (2015). The Parts of the UC: Campuses.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-system/parts-of-uc
Usher, A., & Cervenan, A. (2005). Global higher education rankings 2005. Toronto, ON:
Education Policy Institute. http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/global2005.pdf.
Wallin, D. L. (Ed.). (2010). Leadership in an era of change: New directions for community
colleges. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. 2014. A Meta-Analysis of Shared
Leadership and Team Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2): 181–198.
http://doi.org/10.1037/ a0034531.
Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L.
(2012). Collectivistic Leadership Approaches: Putting the ‘We’ in Leadership Science
and Practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 5(4): 382–402.

70

Appendix A
Participant Recruitment Letter
You have been selected to participate in this study because of your position working at Little
Tree Community college, and your role as a member of an Equity or Student Succeess related
governance committee at your community college. Your participation in this study will assist
community college leaders who are working on implementing similar programs on their campus,
and give them insight on working in a team as collaborative leaders to possibly implement
multiple programs through one governing administrative body.

The intent is to discover how leaders are collaborating and making decisions in relation to shared
leadership and decision making in Equity and Student Support related governance committees.
All of the community colleges in the state of California are required to implement and facilitate
Equity and support programs, which are a source of grant funding for the colleges.
The following research question was been developed to gain insight into the leadership mindset
and accountability practices of the leaders involved in administering such programs:
1) What are the different equity and support program committee members’ perceptions of
the approach being taken by the members of the committee to make decisions in relation
to implementation and facilitation of student equity and support programs?
Exploring the perceptions of the campus members currently administering such programs and
serving in related leadership roles will provide a guiding framework for other colleges to follow.
Identifying strategies of shared leadership and accountability may help others learn the potential
advantages and anticipated challenges of working collaboratively to administer programs
through . The study will serve to support the practice of shared leadership and decision making

71

within shared governance committees in Higher Education.

Your participation in this study should take approximately one hour and will consist of the
following:
• One interview
Thank you for considering this request to participate in my research study. Your participation is
integral to the success of this study.

72

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Location _________________________________________________
Date _________________________________________________
Time _________________________________________________

Interview Introduction
Hello. My name is Armineh Dereghishian and I am a doctoral student studying Education
Leadership at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. I am
currently conducting my doctoral level research on shared leadership and accountability of the
Student Success and Support Program (SSSP). I thank you for your willingness to participate in
my study by letting me interview you. During our interview, I am going to ask you some
questions about your role on LTCC’s integrated plan committee, and about your role as a leader
on campus. With your consent, I would like to record our interview so that I can capture your
responses more accurately.
The information you share during your interview will be used for research purposes only.
I will not disclose your name, or information to anyone. Your responses will be kept
confidential. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. You are welcome to let me know
if you would like to stop the interview at any point, or if you would like to skip a question. The
interview will be about 60 minutes in duration. Before we get started, do you have any questions
about the interview? With your permission, I would like to record this interview. Do I have your
permission to record?

73

Interview Questions

I am going to start our conversastion by asking you a few questions about your
background.

1. Please briefly describe your role at the college.

2. What is the name of the committee you will be representing today?

3. What is the purpose of this committee?

4. Please explain how you became a member of the committee.

5. Which department or area do you represent as a member of this committee?

6. What is your role on the committee?

7. How many Equity or Student Support program related committees do you participate
in at the college?

Thank you for that information. Now I am going to ask that we turn our attention to your
experiences on X committee. I am going to start by asking about the way the meeting
content is focused.

8. Tell me how the agenda for the meeting comes to be?

9. Who, if anyone, leads the meetings?

a. How do you define the role of the leader of the meeting, if there is a leader
in the meeting?

b. Is there more than one person that leads the meeting, or is it the same
person every time?

10. How often do these meetings occur?

11. What is the length of time of the meetings?

12. How were the frequency and length of the meetings determined?

13. How, if at all, does the frequency of meetings contribute to the committee’s ability to
meet their program implementation goals?
a. What would be an example of how the frequency does (or does not) support the
group’s ability to meet the implementation goals?

74

Alright, now I am going to shift the focus a little to committee members’ participation within the
committee. I want to get to know about who serves on the committee with you, and how the
dynamics work.
14. Who, if anyone on this committee serves on other committees with you?

15. How, if at all, do your relationships with the committee members influence the
decisions you make on this committee.
a. Think about a recent meeting where your relationship with someone on the
committee influneced your decision making process. Tell me about that. For
example, what was it that this person said? How did this person’s words,
thoughts, actions influence your decision making? Describe it to me.

16. What is the process the committee utilizes in setting goals or momentum points for
the program?
a. Tell me about a recent meeting where the committee discussed upcoming goals
and how that conversation went.
b. Describe to me how the discussion contributed, or did not contribute, to the
establishment of goals or momentum points.

17. How, if at all, do you believe that each member of the committee has an equal
opportunity to participate during the meeting?
a. Think about a recent meeting and describe the meeting for me. Walk me through
who participated and how they either found or were given the opportunity to
contribute.

Now that I know a little bit more about the general makeup of the committee, I would
discuss the leadership of the committee.

18. How would you describe the type of leadership demonstrated by the person or people
who run the meeting?
a. How do you describe your own leadership style, and how it aligns or
differs from those of the person or people who run the meeting?
b. Can you give me an example of how your defined leadership style aligns
or differs from that of the other members of the committee?

19. Give me an example of if, or if not, you think the committee is being run as a top
down leadership model or a shared leadership model?
a. Describe your thoughts on whether this is, or is not, an effective way to
run the committee in order for the committee to meet its goals.

20. Think about a recent meeting. Tell me what the leader(s) did in terms of engaging
other people on the committee in the conversation.
a. For example, did they invite others to share their opinions or did they tell people
how they believe the committee should be doing?
b. Who do you think are the true decision makers of the committee?

75

21. Think of a time when there has been conflict between the committee memebers from
the different departments when discussing the decisions of the committee. Tell me
about that. What happened? (1.b)
a. What did the people in positions of leadership do?
b. How, if at all, was the conflict resolved?

I would like to continue exploring the decision making process of the committee.
22. How did the decision makers you named become the decision makers?
1. Give me an example of the factors you consider when making decisions for this
committee?
a. Think about a recent experience and tell me about what happened, what you
considered and why.

23. Give me an example of when an action item was discussed at the committee
meeting. Was the task completed in a timely and effectively following this
discussion?

24. When making decisions within the committee, are you considering the other
programs and mandates you may be a part of implementing? (1.b)

25. Explain how, if at all, other committees you are a member of affect the decisions you
make within this committee?
a. Think about a recent time when something happened on another committee where
you are a member. Describe how the experience in that committee translated into
something you did (or did not do) at a meeting for this committee.

26. What is your perception regarding your responsibility to maintain the requirements of
the specific program you represent within this committee?
a. In your opinion, who else holds the ultimate responsibility to meet the
goals that have been set for this program?

27. Why or why not you think the committee is running efficiently?
a. Walk me through a recent meeting that you think demonstrates how efficeint the
committee is. What aspects of the meeting are indicators of how effient the group
is?

28. What have we not talked about that would help me understand your experience ?

76

Appendix C
Informed Consent Form

University of Southern California
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269.
(323) 223-2340 | irb@usc.edu

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

THE STUDENT SUCCESS AND SUPPORT PROGRAM: A STUDY OF SHARED
LEADERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN A CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
COLLEGE

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Armineh Dereghishian, M.Ed at
the University of Southern California. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding
whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. If you
decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will explore the leadership mindset and leadership practices that are being used to
administer the Student Success and Support Program. Additionally, the study will focus on the
group’s synergy and collaboration through the shared leadership frame. This study serves to help
inform and improve leadership practices and the administration of programs in community
colleges.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in one 60-minute
interview that will be audiotaped. If you prefer not to be audiotaped, handwritten notes will be
taken as well. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to. You are welcome to
ask any questions you may have. You may also be asked to contribute documents that relate to
the study. You may also choose to not participate at any point.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The information gathered for this study will be kept confidential. Your responses will be coded
using a false name (pseudonym) and will be kept in a securely locked location. Any audiotapes
that are used will be destroyed once the interviews are transcribed.

77

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Principal Investigator Dr. Julie Slayton at jslayton@rossier.usc.edu
Co-Investigator Armineh Dereghishian at dereghis@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269.
Phone (323) 223-2340 or email irb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

78

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study utilized the shared leadership theory (Kezar & Holcomb, 2017) to explore shared leadership and decision-making in higher education. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived decision-making approach in relation to the implementation and facilitation of Equity and student support programs on a California community college (CCC) campus. The study sought to determine what the different Equity and Support Program committee members’ perceptions were of the approach being taken by the members of the committee to make decisions in relation to implementation and facilitation of these programs. Qualitative data were collected from nine participants, including staff, faculty, and administrators from a CCC through semi-structured interviews, and analyzed through an inductive approach using coding to track emerging themes and concepts. Interviews revealed two overarching findings. One finding indicated that participants made their decisions based on what they considered in the best interest of students. The second finding revolved around the dynamics of way decisions were made within committees, with participants sharing that they were given space to provide input, but that higher level administrators both inside and outside of the committee held the ultimate decision-making power. This study gathered information on the dynamics behind decision making within a shared governance committee as it related to shared leadership. It begins to bring light to the concept of shared leadership within a shared governance structure and makes recommendations for further studies of shared leadership within CCCs.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Community college leadership for student success

PDF

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

PDF

A different world: exploring how Black students facilitate their own success at a public, 4-year institution

PDF

Promising practices for building leadership capacity: a community college case study

PDF

Activating student engagement in shared governance

PDF

Perspectives of Native American community college students

PDF

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

PDF

Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Improving graduation equity in community colleges: a study on California Assembly Bill 705 policy implementation

PDF

Managing leadership transitions in an international school context

PDF

Cultivating critical reflection: an action research study on teaching and supporting district intern participants through critical reflection

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing representation of Black male hip-hop educators in the community colleges in California

PDF

LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television: a qualitative research study

PDF

Black@: using student voices to dismantle colorblindness and inspire culturally relevant pedagogy in southern independent schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Dereghishian, Armineh (author)

Core Title A study of shared leadership in a California community college

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/21/2022

Defense Date 10/06/2022

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

Tag community college,community college administration,OAI-PMH Harvest,shared governance,shared leadership,shared leadership theory,student equity programs,student success programs

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Hroch, Amber (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email arminehd@gmail.com,dereghis@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111037423

Unique identifier UC111037423

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Dereghishian, Armineh

Type texts

Source 20220421-usctheses-batch-931 (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