The movement of people across global contexts has brought people into contact from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The contact between diverse populations has resulted in organizations, such as educational organizations, implementing practices that open their institutional climate to change in the organizational culture (Mazur 2010). In some cases, the contact between diverse populations has resulted in racial and social justice discussions regarding higher education, such as South Africa (Aguirre and Martinez 2003b; Banks 2008). To accommodate change in the organizational culture requires the implementation of leadership practices that lead for diversity. For example, leadership practices that lead for diversity value multicultural differences and motivate organizational members to regard the social capital brought by diverse populations as vital to organizational change and survival (Aguirre 2008).

My purpose in this paper is to develop a conceptual framework for discussing the nexus between diversity and leadership practices in higher education. While the conceptual framework discussed in this paper focuses on institutions of higher education in the United States, the proposals presented are designed to be generalizable to institutions of higher education in other global contexts and their desire to be inclusive organizations. The proposals outlined in this paper are guided by the questions: What type of leadership practices transition the institutional climate in higher education to address diversity initiatives? What type of leadership practices transform the institutional climate in higher education into an inclusive community for diversity initiatives? While the term diversity is used in higher education to refer to multiple types of communities based on cultural, racial, ethnic, religious or sexual identity characteristics, I limit the use of the term in this paper to racial and ethnic minority communities, or persons of color. In this paper, I use the term leadership practices to identify actions and/or initiatives in higher education that seek to implement strategic planning models to alter the institutional climate for the inclusion of diversity.

A caveat is in order before proceeding with a discussion regarding the nexus of diversity and leadership in higher education. For the purpose of conceptual clarity, and to avoid definitional confusion, I propose the following: diversity is a social force associated with the life experiences of racial and ethnic minority persons that are absent from mainstream institutions in U.S. society, especially higher education. The absence of these life experiences from higher education is a direct result from the positioning of racial and ethnic minority communities on the margins of U.S. society (Aguirre and Turner 2011). Unsurprisingly, a discussion of diversity initiatives in higher education too often finds itself mired in social justice arguments that reinforce the exclusionary context for diversity in higher education rather than broadening the boundaries in higher education to be inclusive of diversity.

Leadership is traditionally described in the organizational literature as a form of power nested in the personal qualities of a leader to elicit voluntary compliance from followers (Etzioni 1965) or as a person’s ability to influence followers to do something that is required or experience sanctions from non-compliance (Steers and Black 1994). One can observe from these two definitions that leadership involves the capacity to get persons to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. Implicit in these two definitions is that there is a high degree of homogeneity among organizational members that facilitates a shared understanding for the expression of power. In contrast, diversity is a social force that challenges homogeneity in organizational culture. The challenge for diversity leadership is to develop a leadership capacity from the synergistic relationship between diversity and leadership to promote diversity as an emergent dimension in organizational structure.

The Context for Diversity in U.S. Higher Education

Ever since the introduction of the term diversity rationale by Justice Powell in his opinion regarding Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, allowing the use of race as one factor in university admission policies, diversity has been portrayed as a threat to the principles of merit that undergrid higher education (Aguirre and Martinez 2003a). Justice Powell’s opinion called for the structuring of higher education to meet the challenges posed by increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. population. The increasing numbers of racial and ethnic minority students were soon knocking on the door of higher education and demanding that it transform itself into an inclusive learning community (Aguirre and Martinez 2014). However, the institutional climate in higher organization has been resistant to efforts focused on transforming higher education into an inclusive institution, as can be observed in Hopwood (1998), Fischer I (2013), and Fischer II (2016). According to Alger (1997: 20), diversity in higher education has “become an end in itself, rather than a means to a greater educational end,” and because “universities have failed to establish the fundamental link between diversity and their educational missions”.

Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke was more than just a call to diversify university admissions, it was also a call for institutions to develop a leadership capacity for structuring higher education into an inclusive learning community. Instead of becoming a vehicle for transforming higher education, diversity leadership faced a hostile institutional climate in higher education (Aguirre and Martinez 2006). To support the push for diversity initiatives in higher education they had to be buttressed by government programs and the establishment of diversity units, such as campus diversity officers, to monitor the implementation of diversity initiatives (Evans and Chun 2014; Palmer et al. 2013; Wilson 2013). The dilemma for diversity leadership was finding legitimacy in a hostile institutional climate resistant to change. If the institutional climate in higher education is hostile to diversity initiatives efforts, how then can higher education develop a leadership capacity that leads for diversity? How do leadership practices in higher education respond to diversity?

Diversity Leadership as a Concern for Higher Education

Diversity has social capital implications for higher education. If one conceptualizes diversity as a means to an end for building and promoting an inclusive community in higher education, then diversity is important to higher education because it challenges higher education to implement institutional policies and organizational practices that promote a civic culture inclusive of diversity (Butler 2000; Checkoway 2001). Regarding the social capital implications of diversity to higher education, the inclusion of diversity in higher education’s institutional climate has the potential of transforming higher education into an inclusive learning community. An inclusive learning community that encourages social contact between diverse (e.g. sex, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.) participants in higher education in order to extend the networks available in society vital to building the social and institutional fabric of society (Beem 1999; Putnam 1995). According to Baez (2000: 44), “only through an education that emphasized diversity could individuals understand the world, recognize inequities, and gain the tools needed to remedy those inequities.” As a result, the incorporation of diversity into the institutional climate of higher education challenges a structural arrangement in society that reinforces the position of diverse populations at the margins of society (Campbell 2000).

How may one conceptualize the framework for diversity leadership in higher education? Let’s start by treating diversity leadership as a practice that functions at both organizational and personal dimensions in higher education’s institutional climate. As such, the principles features of diversity leadership are (a) its potential to engage persons in practices that identify them with diversity initiatives, and (b) its potential to change the institutional climate (e.g. values, beliefs, perceptions, etc.) by implementing diversity initiatives into the organizational culture (Aguirre and Martinez 2006). The engagement of persons with practices that seek to implement diversity initiatives into higher education’s goal attainment processes socializes persons to share a vision or a mind-set of what needs to change in the institutional climate. In particular, the implementation of diversity initiatives into higher education’s institutional climate situates diversity leadership to lead for changes in institutional perceptions, beliefs, or values that resist the inclusion of diversity goals. Diversity leadership thus empowers organizational members in higher education with a shared vision or mind-set that change is necessary for the inclusion of diversity initiatives in the institutional climate. This conceptualization of diversity leadership is consistent with observations in the organizational literature that describe leadership as coping with change, defining the direction of change, and engaging persons in the change process (Eddy and Murphy 1997; Elton 1992; Kotter 1990).

An obstacle to practicing diversity leadership in higher education is the absence of effective leadership practices in the organizational culture of higher education that legitimate diversity (Evans and Chun 2014; Palmer et al. 2013; Wilson 2013). The absence of effective leadership practices has resulted in a perception that diversity is another word for affirmative action or social justice in higher education (Aguirre and Martinez 2014; Myers 1997; Ramirez 2000). While the former term links diversity to external practices mandated by socio-legal decisions and the latter term links diversity with efforts to attain equitable venues for the presence of minority persons, I argue that diversity stands alone as a vehicle to change the institutional climate in higher education from an exclusionary one to an inclusive one. Unsurprisingly, the confusion that arises from the association of diversity with affirmative action and social justice in higher education, especially after Hopwood, has increased resistance in higher education’s institutional climate to diversity initiatives.

Practicing Diversity Leadership

An audience of stake holders in higher education that are often identified as potential change agents for diversity initiatives are minority or faculty of color (Aguirre 2000; Abdul-Raheem 2016). Minority or faculty of color are situated organizationally to enable them to create and maintain mentoring and recruiting networks for minority faculty that can serve to promote leadership roles for minority faculty (Ebbers et al. 2000; Hoops 2001; HR Reporter 2001). As participants in higher education’s institutional climate minority faculty are positioned to participate in the construction of institutional strategic plans that include diversity initiatives. As agents for diversity in higher education minority faculty have the potential of promoting diversity initiatives in the organizational culture of higher education as nested in the social reality that defines organizational behavior.

The research literature on minority faculty argues that while minority faculty could serve as potential change agents for promoting diversity initiatives in higher education, they are constrained by the obstacles they face regarding their participation in the institutional climate (Aguirre 2000, 2010). According to the research literature, minority faculty face significant obstacles in their career advancement, their inclusion in strategic planning, and participation in leadership roles in higher education (for example, see: Cintron et al. 2002; Dade et al. 2015; Diggs et al. 2009; Turner and Gonzalez 2008). As a result, a general observation made in the research literature is that minority faculty are located at the periphery of the institutional climate in higher education.

Unsurprisingly, Contreras (1998: 151) asks the following question, “Can faculty of color become viable authoritative agents of leadership in a superficial multicultural academe?” Contreras proposes the notion of leading from the margins as a possible strategy for minority faculty. While leading from the margins recognizes that minority faculty are marginalized in higher education’s institutional climate, it does not prevent the utilization by minority faculty of institutional resources and networks, such as research focused activities, to collectively enhance their presence and identifiability in higher education. In this sense, the collective promotion of diversity can be utilized to lead for change in mainstream decision making and participatory contexts in higher education (Aguirre 1987; Turner and Myers 2000). The goal of diversity leadership is to change organizational practices, such as the distribution of power and privilege, that serve as obstacles to the practice of diversity leadership.

However, instead of focusing on the situating of minority faculty in the institutional climate of higher education, one can focus on the synergistic association between diversity and leadership. The synergistic association between diversity and leadership is based on the conceptualization of diversity as a social force for promoting change in the structuration of higher education and leadership as an institutional practice for nesting diversity in the social relations that promote participation in the institutional climate. While the synergistic association between diversity and leadership can be perceived as an ideal type association between diversity and leadership, it nevertheless serves as a framework for conceptualizing leadership practices and diversity in higher education.

Synergism Between Diversity and Leadership

For illustrative purposes I will outline two frameworks for conceptualizing the association between leadership and diversity: (1) leadership practices for diversity, and (2) diversity for leadership practices. The principal difference between the two frameworks is that leadership practices for diversity seek to transform the institutional climate to an inclusive one for diversity while diversity for leadership practices transition the institutional climate to appropriate the identifiability of diversity. Comparatively speaking, the first framework illustrates the use of leadership practices to transform the institutional climate to be inclusive of diversity initiatives while the second framework illustrates the use of leadership practices to appropriate diversity into the institutional climate (Aguirre and Martinez 2002). A cautionary note regarding the two frameworks: the frameworks are heuristic tools for understanding a process, not the specification of a method for defining the association between leadership practices and diversity. For the purpose of illustrating each of the frameworks I will discuss the leadership practices associated with each framework along three dimensions: research, academic, and educational.

Leadership Practices for Diversity

Within this framework leadership practices promote diversity initiatives as a vehicle for transforming core elements – such as, perceptions, attitudes and values – in the institutional climate. A central focus of the leadership practices is to transform an exclusional institutional climate to an inclusionary one for diversity. Each dimension can be conceptualized as follows regarding leadership practices for diversity.

Research

Leadership practices for diversity promote building institutional capacity that will give presence to minority faculty in the institutional climate by implementing research networks that will enhance their contribution to the knowledge building process of the organization. For example, research networks can be established to promote the study of diversity and its contributions to society, serve as a clearinghouse for generating research funding, and provide mentorship opportunities for undergraduate and graduate minority students.

Academic

Leadership practices for diversity focus on transforming the institutional climate by empowering minority faculty as change agents for diversity. For example, sponsorship activities can be developed for minority faculty to participate as stakeholders in governance activities that define and shape academic work. Minority faculty can be agents for diversity by promoting competing mind-sets into governance activities that shape institutional policies that sort and select who occupies leadership roles, such as president of the academic senate or chairpersons of standing academic committees.

Educational

Leadership practices for diversity implement curricular changes in the institutional climate to reflect the emergence of diversity in society’s social fabric. For example, the implementation of a multicultural curriculum augments the educational mission of higher education by exposing faculty and students to world views that illustrate how diversity shapes society and multicultural life experiences. The intent is to transform a curriculum nested in a Eurocentric or Westernized social reality that excludes diversity initiatives.

Diversity for Leadership Practices

Diversity for leadership practices seek to transition the institutional climate to address diversity issues; that is, appropriate diversity into the institutional climate. As with all major initiatives in higher education, these leadership practices attempt to position the institutional climate to make strategic gains in its efforts to show its receptiveness of diversity initiatives.

Research

Diversity for leadership practices seeks to increase the institutional climate’s awareness of diversity initiatives. As such, the institutional climate utilizes diversity issues to show its readiness to accommodate them. Regarding the research mission of higher education, sponsorship activities for minority faculty can be utilized to increase their participation in the acquisition of valued resources, such as research funding. The leadership practices transition the institutional climate to increase contact between minority faculty and other stakeholders in the expansion of opportunities for research production. That is, the institutional climate is prepped to increase its familiarity with diversity, e.g. minority faculty and diverse communities.

Academic

Diversity for leadership practices promote proactive responses in the institutional climate to diversity initiatives. As such, the leadership practices transition the institutional climate from one of neglect to one of accommodation. For example, the accommodation of diversity in the institutional climate is facilitated by the creation of diversity identifiable offices, such as Vice Chancellor for Diversity & Affirmative Action. These offices promote the image of an institutional climate that welcomes diversity, without necessarily altering the exclusion of minority faculty from core decision-making activities in the institutional climate.

Educational

Diversity for leadership practices introduce into the institutional climate the perception that diversity is an emergent social force in society. Collaborative activities, for example, can be promoted with organizations and/or legislative bodies outside of higher education, and the institutional climate, to alter the curriculum to respond to diversity initiatives by offering learning opportunities, such as internships or community-based classes. The intent of the leadership practices is to enhance the institutional climate’s response to diversity as a valued thread in society’s social fabric.

A Contrastive Analysis

How the institutional climate of higher education responds to diversity initiatives depends on its investment in changing the organizational culture of higher education. Institutions of higher education that change the organizational culture through the infusion of new resources for strengthening the inclusion of diversity initiatives in the institutional climate and the re-allocation of existing resources to support an infrastructure for promoting diversity initiatives are positioned to support leadership practices for diversity. The utilization of resources to promote diversity initiatives and changing resource allocation practices are vital to measuring a higher education’s inclusion of diversity initiatives in the institutional climate.

In contrast, institutions of higher education that utilize resources to appropriate diversity initiatives into the institutional climate do so in order to create a perception that diversity initiatives are being addressed (e.g. observable motives). The purpose of diversity for leadership practices is to facilitate the institutional climate’s response to diversity initiatives in such a manner that it appears to be responding to diversity but not structuring organizational strategies that transform the institutional climate to be inclusive of diversity. While diversity for leadership practices are able to facilitate higher education’s pursuit of observable motives regarding diversity initiatives, the leadership practices do not produce measureable results for evaluating the institutional climate’s inclusion of diversity initiatives.

Institutions of higher education that promote leadership practices for diversity are more likely than institutions utilizing diversity for leadership practices to result in the inclusion of diversity initiatives in the organizational culture and institutional climate because diversity and inclusion are promoted as a unified practice. That is, diversity and inclusion have a synergistic relationship that attains actualization with the transformation of higher education. By comparison, institutions of higher education that utilize diversity for leadership practices simply construct stages for the presentation of diversity initiatives in the institutional climate. However, these leadership practices are not successful in changing the institutional climate to be inclusive of diversity initiatives because diversity and inclusion are treated as separate practices. Institutions of higher education that utilize these practices for addressing diversity initiatives are at risk of creating competing goals for diversity and inclusion in the institutional climate.

Concluding Remarks

Diversity has deep roots in the history and culture of American society, and as a result, a tenacious hold on its social fabric. Institutions of higher education have not been very responsive to the issues raised by rapidly growing diverse communities in the United States (Adserias et al. 2016). Higher education’s response to diversity initiatives is not unexpected given that it is relatively conservative about changing its institutional practices. In a certain sense, the institutional climate in higher education has neglected its educational and social responsibility to respond to diversity initiators (Karkouti 2016). In order to understand how higher education may respond to diversity initiatives I have discussed two conceptual frameworks for examining the association between leadership and diversity. My purpose has been to use the frameworks as heuristic tools for examining the type of leadership practices higher education can utilize in its response to diversity initiatives. By contrasting the two frameworks I have discussed how the institutional climate in higher education responds to diversity depends on its decision to either transform or transition the organizational culture.

As so often happens with essays like this one, several, if not many, questions are not answered. Someone may ask, “Is it possible to employ a hybrid framework in addressing diversity initiatives that utilizes the best practices of the two frameworks?” It is beyond the scope of the discussion in this paper, and perhaps not a choice one would make. For one thing, a hybrid framework requires the construction of a conceptual framework that depicts change as a dynamic process yet with measured outcomes over time. In this context, diversity initiatives only serve to accommodate organizational practices and not a catalyst for changing them. As such, the institutional climate could determine which time frame would be the tipping point for deciding that diversity initiatives had received sufficient attention. As a result, diversity initiatives are not actualized in the institutional climate; instead, they are relegated to being the quiet and unwelcome visitor in the institutional climate.

While the discussion in this paper has focused on faculty in higher education, the observations offered in this paper extend to making the campus more inclusive of minority staff and students. For example, the degree to which minority faculty feel they are part of curricular decisions and the institution’s pedagogy will affect their social relations with students, which in turn, foster a sense of belonging and inclusiveness among students (Hurtado and Alvarado 2013; Egalite and Kisida 2016). The inclusion of minority faculty into the core activities of the institution will have a similar effect on staff members’ identification of themselves within the institution. One particular approach institutions of higher education may utilize is to include the diverse community of faculty, staff and students into their mission statements. The frameworks, transitional and transformative, outlined in this paper challenge institutions to make inclusive diversity for faculty, staff and students as either a transitional phase in the organizational culture or a transformative change of the organizational culture.

Finally, I hope the discussion in this paper will motivate higher education to regard diversity leadership as a passionate plea for changing the organizational culture, and removing the resistance in the institutional climate to its inclusion. Diversity leadership offers the best hope to higher education for removing the stigma of diversity leadership as a threat to organizational culture. Diversity leadership is a change agent in higher education for removing obstructionist and exclusionary practices that erase the presence of diverse populations, and condemns them to silence. Diversity leadership’s effectiveness will be determined by higher education’s ability to respond energetically and emotionally in its commitment to change the organizational culture to be inclusive of diversity. However, to date, higher education’s inability to be passionate in its response to diversity continues the exclusion of diverse populations.