Benjamin Gibbs
University of Montana
Correspondence related to this article should be directed to Benjamin Gibbs, University of Montana, Benjamin.gibbs@mso.umt.edu
Abstract
The landscape of leadership in higher education is becoming increasingly complex (Gagliardi et al., 2017; Jaschik & Lederman, 2016; Wesley et al., 2021). Significant instances of racial violence and geopolitical unrest have instigated conversations and ongoing movements towards greater social justice in American society and on university campuses. With these movements, higher education leaders at faith-based institutions have been called on to communicate and lead within a social justice context, through the act of sensegiving. This qualitative study investigated the perspectives and roles of presidential leaders who have provided communication regarding social justice topics. The purpose of the study was to understand presidential leadership perspectives and communications around social justice. The communicative leadership act of sensegiving provides a platform for higher education leaders to guide institutions and promote strategic change through language. However, additional research is needed to understand how presidents understand their leadership role and how that understanding could influence presidential practice.
Leading an institution of higher education is complex and demanding work, and the ongoing need for college and university presidential leadership comes at a time when social justice and equity issues are at the forefront of leader and stakeholder concerns (Gagliardi, 2017; Moody, 2023; Valbrun, 2024). Presidential statements and communications are just one area of leadership. However, they are often measured against the incident to which they are responding and against the perceived capabilities of the leader. The perceived ineffectiveness of presidential statements to unify fractured communities, engage stakeholders, and drive organizational change suggests that the statements are hollow or that the leadership capabilities of those issuing the communications are lacking (Cole & Harper, 2017; Jaschik & Lederman, 2016; Morton et al., 2021; Wesley et al., 2021).
One area in which presidents can lead as communicators is through an informed practice of sensegiving. Sensegiving stems from sensemaking, a concept detailed within the strategic decision-making process in which a leader arrives at a decision after making sense of the contemporary context and other factors, and then communicates that decision by giving sense to others (Fiss & Zajac, 2006). Sensegiving has been used effectively by higher education leadership scholars to describe how presidents promote strategic change (Brown, 2021; Eddy, 2003; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Kezar, 2013; Smerek, 2013). Therefore, when presidents issue statements on social justice topics, it could be argued that they lead as sensegivers and promote organizational change through their communications.
Contentious events and polarity, particularly around themes of and calls for social justice within American society, have unsettled the landscape of higher education for much of the last ten years, as evidenced by recent surveys of college and university leaders (Gagliardi et al., 2017; Jaschik & Lederman, 2016; Melidona et al., 2023). Moreover, there is a gap in existing literature between how presidential leaders instigate strategic change as sensemakers and sensegivers (Brown, 2021; Eddy, 2003; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Kezar, 2013; Smerek, 2013), and how university leaders communicate on social justice topics (Cole & Harper, 2017; McNaughtan & Pal, 2019; Morton et al., 2021; Wesley et al., 2021). A study of why presidents choose to lead through language will better connect these two components of presidential statements and inform the practice of presidential leadership.
Stemming from this gap in scholarship, this study investigated how college and university presidents at faith-based institutions use communications to facilitate their leadership agenda and understand their leadership role when issuing sensegiving statements. University presidents will continue to issue leadership statements in a social justice context. If those statements are ineffective or fail to advance justice, then additional analyses or reflections on how statements contribute to leadership are necessary to inform presidential practice.
Through an understanding of this research problem and purpose, this study investigated how presidential leaders understood their role when communicating on social justice topics. This study answers the following research questions:
- How do presidents at faith-based institutions of higher education use communications to facilitate their leadership agendas?
- How do presidents at faith-based institutions of higher education understand their roles as leaders when communicating in a social justice context?
Answering these questions will narrow the gap in scholarly literature between how presidents lead change efforts and how they communicate as sensegivers on social justice topics. Secondly, the results of the study will inform presidential leadership at faith-based institutions and promote improved presidential communications.
Literature Review
Recent survey data of college and university presidents has described the numerous demands on a leader’s time and how these demands can make it challenging to work with constituencies, advance the strategic direction of an institution, and respond to crises (Gagliardi et al., 2017; Jaschik & Lederman, 2016; Melidona et al., 2023). This challenging leadership environment is made more complicated by an expansive conversation on the nature and advancement of social justice causes on campuses and beyond. Several strands of literature were investigated in order to explore the leadership roles of presidents and to provide a foundation for the design of this study.
Presidential leadership has been studied extensively, and the theoretical frameworks of sensemaking and sensegiving have been used effectively by higher education leadership scholars to describe how presidents promote strategic change (Brown, 2021; Eddy, 2003; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Kezar, 2013; Smerek, 2013). One area in which presidents at faith-based institutions of higher education can more effectively lead is through a better understanding of the nature of sensegiving communications on social justice topics.
Presidential Leadership and Social Justice
Presidential leaders shape the goals, direction, and responses of higher education institutions. Many contemporary contexts exist in which university presidential leadership is significant, and could facilitate institutional and systematic change. Presidents often express that their roles, and a significant portion of their work and time, are devoted to fundraising, government relations, and crisis communications (Gagliardi et al., 2017; McNaughtan & Pal, 2019). These areas are substantial; however, in the contemporary presidential leadership context, the presidential role in improving equity and responding to social justice issues may take on added significance.
As presidents lead within various roles and react to various stakeholders, social justice will likely remain an area of focus. Adisparity in presidential confidence concerning race relations on campus can be found from a campus level to a national level. A 2016 survey of 727 college and university presidents found that 84 percent of presidents described race relations on their campuses as excellent or good, but that at a national level, only 24 percent of presidents described race relations as excellent or good. This percentage was a decrease from a 2015 survey (Jaschik & Lederman, 2016). Similarly, 66 percent of surveyed presidents responded that they expected more protests on racial issues in the future. However, only nine percent of presidents thought those protests could occur on their campuses (Jaschik & Lederman, 2016). In comparison, Melidona and colleagues sampled over 1000 college presidents in 2022 for the American Council on Education and found similar instances of difficulty around communicating on contentious topics for presidential leaders. When asked about how the changing conversation around racial injustice has affected them as a president, an average of 65.7% of presidents described how they are leading their institution to take steps to address racial justice issues, and within that 19.7% have faced challenges publicly addressing issues, and 18.7% have been criticized because of the way they chose to address racial justice issues (Melidonia et al., 2023).
If presidents perceive that race relations on their campuses are better than race relations on campuses nationwide, or if presidents expect to continue facing challenges while publicly addressing racial justice issues, they may be unwilling to engage in local challenges or to speak to nationwide situations. This unwillingness to publicly make a stance may speak to a potential reason why presidential statements on social justice topics could be perceived to be ineffective (Cole & Harper, 2017).
Rhetoric and Other Factors in Presidential Statements
An increased awareness of social justice issues, advanced by data, technology, and mass communication, forces university presidents to issue statements in response to various events and crises (Gruber et al., 2015; Lucas et al., 2015). Several scholars have analyzed the rhetoric of presidential statements in a social justice context, particularly in response to racial violence, and drawn numerous conclusions (Cole & Harper, 2017; Lucas et al., 2015; Morton et al., 2021; Wesley et al., 2021). Notably, presidential statements often note the incident without much detail (Cole & Harper, 2017). This incomplete observation diminishes qualifying statements that make no mention of the incident or a broad mention of the incident. The rare statements that provide a detailed description of the incident contrast these ineffective statements. Moreover, statements often address perpetrators but not victims, leading scholars to conclude that statements address the racist but not the racism (Cole & Harper, 2017; Morton et al., 2021).
Beyond a mention of racist perpetrators and the detail of statements themselves, scholars have noted that university presidents use statements to disconnect institutional values or mission and vision statements from racist and violent actions, including contentious political events such as the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections in the United States (Cole & Harper, 2017; Hypolite & Steward, 2021; McNaughtan & Pal, 2019; McNaughtan et al., 2019; Morton et al., 2021). This rhetorical technique allows university presidents to assert that the violence perpetrated by racism on or near campuses is outside of the values and mission of an institution. Moreover, the connection of mission, vision, and values in the rhetoric of statements also highlights a presidential desire to unify diverse audiences and communicate with an institutional voice (McNaughtan & Pal, 2019; McNaughtan et al., 2019).
Aside from drawing a connection to institutional missions, presidential communications can set or promote a diversity agenda (Cole & Harper, 2017; Lucas et al., 2015), emphasize the unifying role of a university in a broader community (McNaughtan & McNaughtan, 2019; McNaughtan & Pal, 2019), and denounce hatred (Morton et al., 2021). With these leadership actions in mind, investigating the leadership intent of statements is crticial.
Presidential statements in response to a contentious event are a response in themselves. Therefore, the motivation to produce a statement stems from an exigence or pressure to respond (McNaughtan & McNaughtan, 2019; Morton et al., 2021), such as public outrage (Cole & Harper, 2017) and a goal orientation (McNaughtan & Pal, 2019). Moreover, statements in response to an event can be proactive or retroactive, even if issued retrospectively (Morton et al., 2021). Statement timing leads to questions about why institutional positioning statements by presidential leaders, particularly concerning diversity and equity, are not issued with greater urgency, rather than after a racial violence incident (Cole & Harper, 2017; Dwyer & Gigliotti, 2017; Morton et al., 2021).
Leadership Communications and Sensegiving in a Social Justice Context
Presidential communications can contribute to an institution’s movement towards greater social justice by providing a platform or “as a tool to start meaningful dialogue around race and racism on college campuses” (Cole & Harper, 2017, p. 330). As presidents provide leadership to institutions through communications on social justice, they do so through the communicative leadership act of sensegiving, which is crucial to effective communications and building consensus within an organization. The connection between the cognitive act of sensemaking and the leadership act of sensegiving developed out of the strategic change movements of business leadership (Fiss & Zajac, 2006; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Weick, 1995) and has recently gained more traction within scholarship on presidential leadership in higher education (Brown, 2021; Eddy, 2004; Eddy, 2010; Smerek, 2011; Smerek, 2013), transformational change in higher education (Kezar, 2013), the work of middle managers (Hope, 2010; Rouleau, 2005; Sharma & Good, 2013), and organizational design theory (Brown et al., 2015). This framework allows for more general connections between presidential leadership and presidential communications as a leadership tool at a respective institution.
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) and Gioia and Thomas (1996) instigated the first connection of the theoretical underpinnings of sensemaking and sensegiving to the leadership practice of university presidents. Both studies detailed how leaders and their management teams initiated and drove strategic change as sensemakers and sensegivers. This initiation of change led to phases of understanding and influence that tie to cognition and action (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) and draw in stakeholders to reshape an organization’s future direction. A second central finding was the significance of a leader’s desired future outcome or vision and its influence as a connector between context and interpretation (Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Eddy builds on this by studying how presidents communicate these strategic changes as sensegivers. Eddy found that presidents used “visionary” and “operational” frames to connect a future vision to the present and address issues on campus and share information (2003). Leadership cognition motivates change efforts, including implementation (Eddy, 2004), and how leaders construct their environment informs their reflection and planning (Eddy, 2005). Kezar (2013) adds to this by emphasizing the concern with outcomes. Kezar and Eckel (2008) studied change efforts at 28 campuses and noted that change requires a revision of existing understandings by stakeholders, and organizational sensemaking, as driven by leadership. Kezar (2013) and Kezar and Eckel (2008) both emphasize the need for leaders to establish a basis for change and communicate out of that basis through sensegiving to effect change.
Smerek (2011) pursues this thread of information transfer within a sensemaking framework through a study of presidential transitions and the simultaneity of new institutional leaders learning about an organization while leading it and persuading others of new directions. Through a study that included numerous presidential interviews, Smerek (2011) concluded that movement between cognition and action is simultaneous rather than staged, as Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) asserted. Degn (2015) also describes this process of making sense of changing circumstances and communicating values and norms simultaneously. In response to uncertainty and overload, Smerek (2011) found that presidents communicate about broad goals and safe harbors, seek advice, maintain an attitude of wisdom, and set priorities. Within these findings, using safe harbors and broad goals are crucial when looking at presidential leadership, sensegiving, and social justice. Smerek notes that “with the existence of multiple viewpoints in colleges and universities, presidents use safe harbors to promote unified diversity and to facilitate collective action,” which facilitates “presidents to simultaneously give sense while they are making sense of the organization” (Smerek, 2011, p. 84). Moreover, Smerek builds on his 2011 study by continuing to investigate how new presidents understand their role and generate action. Smerek’s 2013 study details how presidents listen to stakeholders within their community and seek to reduce uncertainty and equivocality through communication before advancing a plan.
Presidential leaders understand some of their role as sensemakers and sensegivers when leading and facilitating strategic change. As the work of Gioia, Eddy, and Smerek connects theoretical frameworks to presidential practice and communications, Brown (2021) extends this connection into the communication strategies of presidents. Brown examines how presidents use sensegiving strategies in communications to help sensemaking constituents and drive foundational, configurational, and transformational strategies. Leaders connect cues to frames or events and communicate to external audiences to position their institutions. While Brown does not investigate communications in an explicitly social justice context, he investigates the tension between religious and market logics of several institutions that could connect very generally to a tension surrounding presidential communications on social justice topics (Brown, 2021, p. 272). Brown also investigates crisis communications of presidents and the need for presidents to give sense after a period of uncertainty. The crisis example, for Brown, is tied to market challenges rather than social pressures but points towards the need for a leader to “emerge” and “make sense of major events that seemingly conflicted with core organizational tenants” (p. 290). This assertion correlates to Smerek’s (2011) and Eddy’s (2004) descriptions of presidential leaders instigating change. Namely, it solidifies Eddy’s points that institutional leaders are drivers of change and that university leaders become sensemakers and interpreters as events, such as social justice incidents, inject uncertainty and unrest into communities. As presidents instigate institutional change as sensegivers through communication, it becomes more evident that the language of communications is tied directly to leadership.
Theoretical Framework
The leadership and communications theory and practice of sensegiving guided thisstudy’s design, including how data were collected and analyzed to determine themes and significance. Leadership and communications are investigated through many perspectives, contexts, and experiences. Scholarship connecting presidential leadership and communications in a social justice context is limited, and these seemingly divergent fields act against any uniform theoretical framework that could be implemented in a similar study. The most natural comparison area, the scope of research foundational to this study itself, is recent scholarship that examines presidential statements on social justice topics. Namely, the rhetoric of statements and the response to communications by various stakeholders have been studied by some scholars. This context led to a desire to understand what motivates presidents, as leaders, to issue such statements and if presidents consider these statements a leadership platform. Within this realm of research, Cole and Harper (2017) analyze presidential statements on campus racial issues over several years, Morton and colleagues (2021) studiedpresidential responses to the violence and white supremacy in Charlottesville, and Lucas and colleagues (2015) investigated university communications prior to the Darren Wilson verdict, which concerned the killing of Michael Brown by police in Ferguson, Missouri and subsequent community outrage and unrest.
The theoretical framework behind presidential leadership and strategic change management ties the contemporary context of social justice communications to the more established framework of sensemaking and leadership through sensegiving. When surveying the foundational studies of presidential leadership and sensegiving, it is evident that Gioia and Chittipeddi’s (1991) implementation of sensegiving as a leadership practice, rather than simply a theory of examining organizational change, sparked continued scholarship. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) and Gioia and Thomas (1996), adding to the sensemaking scholarship of Weick (1976, 1995), moved beyond survey analysis and outsider interpretation to a more interpretive and narrative ethnographic approach to data collection. Eddy (2003, 2004, 2005, 2010) built on this approach by using multi-site case studies and semi-structured interviews to develop phenomenological studies focusing on presidential cognition, change management, and the construction of leadership through sensemaking.
Smerek (2011, 2013) built on the foundation of Weick (1995), Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991), and Eddy (2003, 2004, 2005, 2010) to seek an understanding of how new presidents transition into their presidency and promote strategic change initiatives by utilizing semi-structured interviews. This scholarship informed contemporary research by Brown (2021) into how higher education leaders use sensegiving strategies to lead through language by reviewing published statements and creating a comparative case study. When examined as a progression, Gioia and Chittipeddi’s (1991) claim that other data sources must augment survey data is further developed by using semi-structured interviews and presidential surveys by Eddy (2003, 2005), Smerek (2011, 2013), and Jaschik and Lederman (2016); and rhetorical analysis by Brown (2021) and Wesley and colleagues (2021). Therefore, the theoretical framework of sensegiving, understood as a communicative leadership act, can be applied to the context of social justice communications made by presidential leaders at faith-based institutions of higher education, to better understand how those leaders use communications and understand their roles.
Research Methods
The following section details the design and implementation of a qualitative study to investigate presidential leadership and communications. This section outlines how data were identified and collected. Further specification of how data were conceptualized and analyzed is provided, and the section closes with a description of the study’s limitations, including research positionality.
Identifying and Collecting Data
The study’s emphasis on presidential leadership and communications at faith-based institutions of higher education necessitated that specific parameters be set around participant selection and the collection of data. Purposive sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) led to the creation of a set of potential participants that exceeded 50 presidential leaders at 50 institutions spanning four faith-based affiliations. All study participants held the role of president, chancellor, or chief executive at the time of their interview. Additionally, all participants had oversight over a degree-granting postsecondary institution in the United States, and their institution was self-identified as “faith-based” and confirmed as connected to a religious affiliation. The participant population was not limited to presidents who had been serving for a particular length of time, either in higher education or in their presidential role. No limitations were placed on the study’s participants toward a particular religious affiliation or geographic area.
A specific total number of participants were not initially defined, but it was assumed that sampling adequacy would be reached with greater than ten presidential participants. After fifteen interviews, there was a sense of saturation among the language and themes highlighted in participant feedback where “no new information seems to emerge during coding” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, as cited in Saldaña, 2021, p. 312). As an added sense of justification, projects with similar themes and scopes seemed to achieve saturation with several participants at one or two sites (Eddy, 2003; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) or with a range of eight to eighteen total participants (Brown, 2021; Eddy, 2005; Smerek, 2011).
In an intentional effort to co-create and collect knowledge from presidential participants, this study utilized multiple data collection methods, including a demographic questionnaire, semi-structured interview, member checking, and researcher memos, to arrive at a more complete understanding of how presidents understood their roles and responsibilities as leaders within a social justice context. Careful attention was paid to the exploratory, open-ended focus of the study and allowed for sufficient space for participants to offer perspective (RQ1), and a description of roles (RQ2) when evaluating the connection between leadership and communications on social justice topics.
Conceptualizing
In an attempt to allow participants space to reflect on their backgrounds and experiences, “social justice” was defined in a broad sense as inequity in the possession of wealth, opportunity, and privileges. Participants were prompted with this broad definition during semi-structured interviews and allowed to provide examples or other context for their understanding of social justice. No participants sought further clarification and several took the opportunity to describe a more nuanced understanding of social justice that included topics of racial justice, economic opportunity, access to healthcare, gender discrimination, and political representation. Data analysis and coding for social justice topics did not subdivide areas within the larger theme of social justice into more focused areas such as issues of representation or identity or themes of marginalization. Presidential participants did not dispute the use of this broad definition for “social justice” and the definition itself did not hinder dialogue within the semi-structured interview.
Sensemaking and sensegiving definitions were also provided to participants and described as the frameworks for the study. Sensemaking was defined as a research focus and cognitive act that includes the construction of meaning and its consequences (Smerek, 2011) and includes a proposition that one “comes to know what [they] think by seeing what [they] say (Weick, 1995, as cited in Smerek, 2011, p. 81). Sensegiving was described as a concept derived from the strategic decision-making process where a leader arrives at a decision after making sense of the context and other factors and communicates that decision, thereby leading the organization by giving sense to others (Fiss & Zajac, 2006). The definitions and scholarly literature on both topics informed the creation of a thoughtful interview protocol.
Analyzing
To analyze data, semi structured interviews were coded in multiple rounds with a transition from start codes to first-cycle coding techniques, including In Vivo, Values, and Concept coding (Miles et al., 2020; Saldaña, 2021). Codes expanded as data analysis continued through inductive coding, and the code tree grew from more broad parent codes into more precise child codes. The start code list grew from 11 parent codes to 38 parent and child codes, including codes tied to values and themes. A second round of coding was facilitated by an ongoing review of researcher memos, particularly memos drafted after each semi-structured interview. Ultimately codes were tied to broader themes that responded to the study’s research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Beyond coding semi-structured interviews, the investigator engaged in member checking with participants. The investigator also completed extensive site notes prior to the interview and memos after interviews and throughout the data collection process. The implementation of member checking, in particular, allowed for additional data analysis through receiving feedback and improved the validity and credibility of the study. Memo creation facilitated the researcher’s personal reflection on the interview process and initial data analysis; moreover, memo writing forced the researcher to reflect and provide clarifying questions for participant follow-up (Miles et al., 2020). This process of reflection through memo creation facilitated thoughtful data analysis that was mindful of the researcher’s positionality and privilege.
Limitations and Researcher Positionality
Self-awareness of the researcher’s positionality facilitated the research design and informed the trustworthiness of the study. The researcher’s demographics, lived experience, professional role, and aspirations must be accounted for within the study, and by utilizing Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) principles for trustworthiness, the study was designed to meet the standards of conformability, credibility, dependability, and authenticity. The study’s research design considered these principles by utilizing purposive sampling and sampling adequacy. Moreover, the study’s semi-structured interview, memos, and member checking also facilitated the researcher’s ability to design and implement a trustworthy study that accounted for the researcher’s positionality and informed presidential practice.
This study includes particular limitations. First, this study is limited in scope to a study of presidential leadership at faith-based institutions of higher education. While this study has gleaned specific insights into presidential perspectives and roles, particularly around social justice, it has not provided insight into the broader perspectives of other constituents. Moreover, the study’s focus on faith-based institutions was a limitation and must be considered when drawing conclusions beyond the leadership experiences of institutional presidents; this intentional desire to focus on a particular population of presidents advanced presidential practice and informed leadership at faith-based institutions. However, it also narrowed the scope of potential insights. The study was limited by the likelihood that data would not include samples from a wide range of institutions, such as geographic qualifies, faith orientations, or Carnegie classifications. To counter the limitations of sampling size, purposive sampling was paramount and strove to include a varied range of participants. The intentional nature of the semi-structured interview and interpretivist paradigm facilitated an open dialogue and the opportunity for participants to present a range of perspectives.
Lastly, when speaking about challenging and emotional topics such as racial violence, social justice, and equity, the researcher attempted to foster a comfortable environment grounded in a thoughtful interview protocol. These are uncomfortable and emotional topics. By grounding the interview protocol in elite interviewing techniques (Harvey, 2011), member checking, and creating detailed memos, the researcher remained grounded in the theoretical framework and research questions. The discipline of the study and the principles of quality research led to valuable insights that informed presidential practice.
Results
This section describes the participants and findings of a qualitative study to investigate presidential leadership and social justice communications at faith-based institutions of higher education. Data collected during this study successfully answered the study’s two research questions:
- How do presidents at faith-based institutions of higher education use communications to facilitate their leadership agenda?
- How do presidents at faith-based institutions of higher education understand their role as leaders when communicating in a social justice context?
Study participants are described and compared using several variables gathered from a participant questionnaire, including their length of service as a presidential leader and institutional faith affiliation. Lastly, the section lists several findings tied to coded interviews and the study’s research questions. These findings are significant when placed into the context of the study’s literature review, the study’s goal of understanding why presidential leaders issue sensegiving statements in a social justice context, and the potential implications for future presidential practice at faith-based institutions of higher education.
All 15 participants confirmed their eligibility to participate in the study by holding the role of chief executive, president, and/or chancellor of a faith-based institution of higher education in the United States of America. In general, participants had similarly long tenures in the field of higher education but more varied ranges of time in their current presidential role. Participants had similar variety of characteristics with respect to their position held prior to their presidential role, path to their current role, reporting structure, and tenure status at their current institution. While the demographic characteristics of gender and racial identity were not fundamental to this study and not requested within the confidential questionnaire, participants were forthcoming with these demographic factors in semi-structured interviews or the background information was offered in other biographical sources or in publicly available data.
Recent data released on the demographics of presidents of institutions of higher education by the American Council on Education has added to the conversation around the demographics of racial or ethnic identity and gender of college and university presidents (Melidona et al., 2023). Purposeful sampling facilitated the creation of a diverse set of participants, and within that pool of participants, six identified as female and nine identified as male. Seven self-described themselves or were described in publicly available data as a person of color or someone from a historically marginalized group, and eight were not persons of color. In the broadest sense, each participant’s personal faith affiliation matched their institutional affiliation with two presidents leading Jewish institutions, seven presidents leading Protestant institutions, and six presidents leading Roman Catholic institutions. Except in three instances, the participants noted that their personal faith affiliation matched their institutional faith affiliation, and in the three cases where the participant expressed a difference those participants ascribed to one subset of a Protestant faith while leading a Protestant institution. All presidential participants were described or quoted using a pseudonym to maintain confidentiality.
Data collected from this study affirmed how presidents at faith-based institutions of higher education use communications to facilitate their leadership agenda and that these communications provide a platform for presidents to argue that faith-based institutions have a voice in social justice themed leadership communications. Presidents were clear, across faith-affiliations, that communications play a significant role in their ability to advance their institutional leadership agenda. Some presidents tied this to crisis communications, others described how communications advance strategic planning and institutional vision, and others emphasized the relationship building nature of communications.
President Cypress noted that “my primary platform for facilitating my leadership agenda is through my role as president and hence through my presidential communications.” President Cypress continued by noting the many forms that his presidential communications take, including written and oral communications with a variety of audiences. President Juniper and President Alder added to this sense that a president’s leadership agenda is advanced through communications by tying communications to the promotion of institutional vision and planning. President Alder described how “communications to the public is we’re here, this is our vision” and this was echoed by President Juniper who noted that she spends much of her time communicating and her job was “to keep my eye on the future, on the vision, the mission.” Within these communications, she was careful to recognize that “every communication establishes or reestablishes my agenda as a leader… what I am… the brand of the university… my core values.”
Beyond utilizing presidential communications to set a proactive leadership agenda, one that promotes a particular vision or sets a precedent, some presidents spoke to how they utilize communications to respond to crises. President Aspen stated that “I’m coming in with a perspective that you got to be ready for whatever is coming around the corner because something’s coming around the corner, you’re either in a crisis, coming out of a crisis, or about to go in one.” This sense of a crisis context and the opportunity it presents creates a chance for a presidential leader to unite a community. President Hawthorn spoke to this as an opportunity to appeal to a sense of shared mission and “deal with it as humanely and prudently as possible.” Several presidents shared the perspective that communications facilitate their leadership agenda insofar as they assist with the building of relationships, both within campus communities and beyond. President Hazel described how these communications can create and strengthen connections with others. As she describes, she is always trying “to be mindful of, of what will allow for the best connection and also… mindful of needing to either correct or confront assumptions about me… who I am or maybe what’s going on at the institution.” President Laurel echoed this in describing how each conversation she has with a constituent, including faculty and students, is an opportunity to speak to someone, build a relationship, and respond to any misunderstandings.
Presidential leaders also provided valuable context that identified how they conceptualize their role as a leader when communicating in a social justice context. Participants affirmed the study’s theoretical framework, as described in the literature review by identifying and describing the presidential leadership role of sensegiving in a social justice context and also detailed the ways in which presidents understand they are communicating into polarized communities.
The scope of this scholarly literature, which was foundational to the design of the study itself, informs the finding that presidential leaders understand and communicate as sensegivers in a social justice context. President Aspen described this communicative act and sensegiving role in the context of influencing the responses of other individuals when she stated “I like for people to learn something and then give people enough information to form their own perspective. And that could be me contributing in a way through a conversation that says, here’s how I’m thinking about this, here’s how I’m coming to this conclusion.” This was paralleled by President Birch’s argument that his role as a leader is to put information in a framework, or as he describes “determining when, where, and what to address usually comes down to something that I think students can or others can take whatever the issue is and put it in their own context. And what I tried to do is give them a framework for applying.” Put differently, this statement could be seen for its alignment with President Laurel’s assertion that he communicates to draw people in and inspire them. Ultimately, it becomes clear that these leaders understand the opportunity that their communications platform presents, and they utilize that platform to act as sensegivers, both in a social justice context and more generally.
Presidential participants also clarified that, while they understand the role they must play as communicative leaders, they also see limits to their communications abilities. President Cedar described this succinctly when he stated that “you can’t communicate everything… decisions have to be made.” In this moment, President Cedar was speaking generally about how communications facilitate his leadership agenda, but the opportunity for connection to social justice centric communications is clear. President Rowan, among others, described how institutional stakeholders, particularly students and faculty/staff, want to know that their concerns are being addressed by someone. Described more simply by President Maple, people “just want to know that you care.” This allows presidents the space to contextualize some event or action through their communications and provide an opportunity for their community to reflect on both the event or action and the communication itself.
Additionally, presidents described how they sought to communicate to inform the perspectives of others, thereby giving sense, in a host of contexts, including social justice. The last finding of this second research question which explored how presidents understood their communicative leadership role within a social justice context focused on the environment in which presidents were communicating, namely that presidential leaders recognized the polarization in American society around social justice and it influenced their communications on these topics. This sense of the polarized environment surrounding social justice communications came out in presidential feedback that negative responses and dissent were expected but that people still needed to know that the leader and their institution cared about the institution and the situation. Presidents also spoke to the model that faith-based colleges and universities can serve as a place for discussion on complex ideas and an honest broker of information. Finally, there was feedback on the responsibility of a leader to respond being tied to both institutional values and a personal inclination when a situation impacted the institution and/or its students.
Several presidents spoke to their understanding that they must communicate as leaders but that they recognized the ongoing potential for negative responses. President Birch provided a metaphor of how people on either extreme of an issue can condemn one another before noting that “as long as you get sort of equal numbers of people mad at you, you’re probably OK… I think in these kinds of roles, you have to be OK with and have a thick skin… because I want to make sure that the message is heard.” President Hazel also noted the potential for negative responses from constituents when receiving a presidential communication when she stated “human nature is people are going to complain and not like things” but that she always tries to understand their core concern and “what is the issue that is causing this person to be as vocal as they are… as negative as they are.” President Cypress tied this possibility for negative responses more directly to the environment of faith-based colleges and universities and noted “you will always have people who dissent” and this provides an opportunity for leaders and institutions to stick to the principles of the faith-orientation and educational mission.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Increased attention to social justice has had a long history in higher education, and the significant number of presidential respondents who noted criticism or challenges around their communications on social justice topics points towards an environment where stakeholders, such as faculty and students, are receiving presidential communications which are seen as ineffective or received in a polarized environment. This understanding validates findings in earlier literature, which suggested that presidential statements could be seen as ineffective (Cole & Harper, 2017).
This study’s findings have implications for the study of presidential leadership theory more generally. The study of presidential leadership at faith-based institutions of higher education was grounded in the scholarship of leadership theory, particularly scholarship focusing on the influence of leadership on followers, traits of high-quality leaders, and how leaders initiate and sustain organizational change. Within this area of leadership theory, the data collected in this study emphasized the motive, mode, and mindset of servant leadership across presidential leaders at faith-based institutions of higher education (Eva et al., 2019). While not explicit about their use of the characteristics of servant leaders, leaders interviewed for this study regularly referred to the influence of mentors, a motive to serve others, and a mindset that is connected to servant leadership. The study’s emphasis on leadership practices which are effective in advancing social justice lends itself to further study on traits and practices of effective leaders.
In short, presidential participants struggled to find uniform situations that warranted a presidential statement within a social justice context. The findings of this study would suggest that it will continue to be difficult, but presidential leaders should emphasize situations where they or their institution have the credibility and the authenticity to speak about an event or incident. The participants in this study were keen to point out that they are always speaking on behalf of their institution, and they try to do this with a sense of mission, strategic focus, and optimism. However, responding to challenging events under the polarized umbrella of social justice forces presidents to be authentic and transparent in their communications. If presidential leaders could spend all of their time responding to incidents but choose not to, then there is a level of reflection and choice in their responses. This sense of a leader having a responsibility to respond to an event that affects them or their constituents should be balanced carefully with the opportunity to speak authentically and truthfully when a challenging situation is presented.
In addition to the practice of presidential leadership, presidential communications as a leadership practice are informed by the findings of the study. The components of a leader’s use of their personal voice, individual or group reflection prior to communicating, and understanding of audience all inform communications. It was telling that the presidential leaders interviewed in this study emphasized that they affirmed the educational values and mission of their institutions when speaking on social justice topics. The literature supporting this study suggests that communications issued after an event might be an opportunity for presidential leaders to disconnect their institutional values from the event. Presidential leaders seemed to take a more positive approach, and rather than distance themselves from the incident, they affirmed their core values. This realization speaks to the sense that communications, especially crisis communications, can fall into systems or procedures that might not lend themselves to empathetic and authentic communications. If presidents understand that people receiving social justice communications want to know that the leader and the institution both care, then empathetic and authentic communications ought to be emphasized, and these communications will likely need to be developed outside of a standard procedure for communications. Presidents must also understand that statements as an action are only partially sufficient. Statements advance a leadership agenda, but sustainable actions toward a better future must still be pursued beyond the issuance of a communicative piece.
Future Research Opportunities
This study’s literature review, methodology, findings, and implications for future policy and presidential practice lead to numerous opportunities for future research. The scholarly areas of presidential leadership, leadership at faith-based institutions, communications, and communications on social justice topics all warrant further investigation and can be combined to facilitate relevant and interesting scholarship. Future projects could also vary in scope or focus to other institutions beyond faith-based institutions. Scholars could take this study’s focus on leadership and social justice communications and expand the participants beyond presidents to leaders within one or several sites. Such a project could include vice presidents for communications, provosts, chiefs of staff, board chairs, faculty, and students. Similarly, this study could be replicated at institutions that do not identify as faith-based, such as public HBCUs or institutions within a particular geographic region. A project of a similarly scholarly scope could also investigate the influences of legislators, boards of regents, and outside communities on presidential communications. Similar to the scope of this study, scholars could further investigate the communicative role of sensegivers and tie it more directly to various communicative intentions, such as the intention to persuade an audience.
Future research could also look at similar projects but with a new scope. Taylor and colleagues (2022) demonstrated that a content analysis of presidential communications on social justice topics is ripe for additional investigation. Additional scholarship could investigate presidential communications by event, theme, or connect language across communications. Research with this scope, or with the scope of leadership, could investigate similar questions with a critical epistemology, which would likely influence the study’s literature review, methodology, and research questions. Such a study could also investigate the power and privilege accompanying a presidential role and examine how that power is directed through communications.
Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate a gap in scholarly literature and inform an understanding of how presidents at faith-based institutions of higher education lead and communicate on social justice topics. At the core of this leadership is a need to serve an institution’s educational mission and its students.. Presidents will continue to promote social justice and their leadership agendas through communications. A failure to do this effectively is a failure to lead and will promote the creation of ineffective statements. Presidents are also faced with the significant need to promote the educational mission of their faith-based institutions of higher education. Presidents should not diminish their responsibility to lead and use words to promote action. Anything short of an intentional effort is a failure to lead and a failure to promote necessary advances toward a more just society.
References
Brown, A. D., Colville, I., & Pye, A. (2015). Making sense of sensemaking in organization studies. Organization Studies, 36(2), 265-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614559259
Brown, J. T. (2021). The language of leaders: Executive sensegiving strategies in higher education. American Journal of Education, 127(2), 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/712113
Cole, E. R., & Harper, S. R. (2017). Race and rhetoric: An analysis of college presidents’ statements on campus racial incidents. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000044
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Degn, L. (2015). Sensemaking, sensegiving and strategic management in Danish higher education. Higher Education, 69(6), 901-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9812-3
Dwyer, B. & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). From institutional diversity and inclusion to societal equity and justice: Higher education as a leadership training ground for the public good. In A. B. de Moras, R. L. Dutra, & H. E. Schockman (Eds.), Breaking the zero-sum game: Transforming societies through inclusive leadership (pp. 285-303). Somerville, MA: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Eddy, P. L. (2003). Sensemaking on campus: How community college presidents frame change. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(6), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/713838185
Eddy, P. L. (2004). The impact of presidential cognition on institutional change. Community College Enterprise, 10(1), 63-77.
Eddy, P. L. (2005). Framing the Role of Leader: How Community College Presidents Construct Their Leadership. Community College Journal of Research and Practice., 29(9-10), 705–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920591006557
Eddy, P. L. (2010). Leaders as linchpins for framing meaning. Community College Review, 37(4), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552110362744
Eva, R. M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1173-1193. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478255
Gagliardi, J. (2017, December 4). The evolving nature of the college presidency. Higher Education Today. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2017/12/04/evolving-nature-college presidency/
Gagliardi, J. S., Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., & Taylor, M. (2017). American college presidents study 2017. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370-403. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393936
Gruber, D. A., Smerek, R. E., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & James, E. H. (2015). The real-time power of Twitter: Crisis management and leadership in an age of social media. Business Horizons, 58(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.006
Harvey, W. S. (2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431-441.
Hope, O. (2010). The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697011003795669
Hypolite, L. I., & Steward, A. M. (2021). A critical discourse analysis of institutional responses to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000158
IPEDS – National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Integrated postsecondary education data system: Use the data. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2016). The 2016 Inside Higher Ed survey of college and university presidents. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/2016%20IHE%20Presidents%20Survey%20booklet.pdf
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: Examining transactional and transformational presidential leadership styles. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 379-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120802317891
Kezar, A. (2013). Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up. Higher Education, 65(6), 761-780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9575-7
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lucas, T. J. Jr., Linsenmeyer, W., & O’Brien, K. (2015). Crisis management: An assessment of college and university executive communications prior to the Darren Wilson grand jury decision. Western Journal of Black Studies, 39(4), 300–311.
McNaughtan, J., Louis, S., García, H. A., & McNaughtan, E. D. (2019). An institutional north star: The role of values in presidential communication and decision-making. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1568848
McNaughtan, J., & McNaughtan, E. D. (2019). Engaging election contention: Understanding why presidents engage with contentious issues. Higher Education Quarterly, 73(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12190
McNaughtan, J., & Pal, P. R. (2019). Crafting the message: The complex process behind presidential communication in higher education. Journal of Research on the College President, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.54119/jrcp.2019.304
Melidona, D., Cecil, B. G., Cassell, A., & Chessman, H. M. (2023). The American college president: 2023 edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th edition). Jossey Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th edition). SAGE Publications.
Moody, J. (2023, October 18). Presidents Can’t Win. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2023/10/18/college-leaders-mideast-statements-spark
Morton, B. C., Delmas, P. M., Giles, R. L., & Bhakta, S. (2021). No place for hatred: University presidents’ responses to Charlottesville. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(3), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1794297
Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413-1441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00549.x
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th edition). SAGE.
Sharma, G., & Good, D. (2013). The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1). 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312471375
Smerek, R. (2011). Sensemaking and sensegiving: An exploratory study of the simultaneous “being and learning” of new college and university presidents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 80-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810384268
Smerek, R. (2013). Sensemaking and new college presidents: A conceptual study of the transition process. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 371-403. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2013.0028.
Taylor, Z. T., Pereira, M., Rainey, L., Gururaj, S., Gibbs, B., Wiser, J., Benson, C., Childs, J., &
Somers, P. (2022). Saying his name: How faith-based higher education leaders addressed the George Floyd Murder. Religion & Education. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2022.2156262
Valbrun, M. (2024, January 4). Former Harvard President Defends, Explains Herself in Op-Ed. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/01/04/former-harvard-president-defends-explains-herself-op-ed
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wesley, A., Dunlap, J., & Russell, P. G. (2021). Moving from words to action: The influence of racial justice statements on campus equity efforts. Washington DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.