Abstract
This article presents the findings from a qualitative phenomenological study with 21 Faculty of Color in departments of educational leadership and administration who were tenured within the past 7 years. An emphasis was placed on examining the role of emotional and social intelligence as the participants successfully navigated the promotion and tenure process. Results of the study provide three themes: Sense of Belonging Through Community, Understanding Self, and Strategic Recognition of Organizational Environment. Participants were able to draw on the competencies of self-awareness, organizational awareness, and relationship building in ways that positively impacted their tenure and promotion journey.
Keywords
Much of the research to date on the experiences of Faculty of Color navigating promotion and tenure has centered on challenges they have encountered, focusing on how and in what ways Faculty of Color were able to navigate institutional spaces whose values at times counter those of their own (Antonio et al., 2002). Martinez et al. (2016) highlighted the marginalization and racism experienced by their faculty participants while also discussing how they were able to focus on the positive cultural aspects they possess. Similarly, Warde (2009) found personal factors and culture contributed to successfully navigating the tenure and promotion process. Previous research has established that the highest number of Faculty of Color are found in the lower ranks, in positions classified as contingent, nontenure track, and typically adjunct in nature (Bernal & Villalpando, 2002). Future research must continue to better understand the experiences of Faculty of Color through the advancement process. Faculty of Color, hired in the few available tenure-track positions, are being tasked with meeting multiple demands in higher education. Kezar and Maxey (2016), for example, stated, “there are signs of strain as these individuals take on an increasing and probably unsustainable level of responsibility” in the three main areas of the professoriate: teaching, research, and service (p. 3). In delving in deeper to the work of Kezar and Maxey (2016), it is important to factor in institutional type, recognizing key differences from Research institutions and the levels of responsibility associated with teaching, research, and service at institutions that are categorized as teaching. Despite describing experiences of racism, sexism, in the academy, operating in working environments that were unsupportive and devoid of mentorship, Turner (2015) found their participants persisted and stayed in the academy “because of their love of teaching and the feeling that they could continue to make a difference” (p. 347).
In light of changes in student racial demographics, faculty racial demographics have not experienced change to the same degree, with low numbers of Faculty of Color in tenure-track and tenured positions (Turner et al., 1999). In analyzing the most recent race and ethnicity data on faculty in colleges and universities in the United States as reported by the Kena et al. (2016), there were 1.5-million faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in 2013. Of the 1.5-million faculty, 51% worked full-time in various ranks of the professoriate and 84% were White (Kena et al., 2016). Three percent of all full-time faculty were Black and 3% were Hispanic. Nine percent of full-time faculty were Asian/Pacific Islander and less than 1% were American Indian/Alaska Native or mixed-race. Projections show a need to increase the number of faculty appointments so as to better support the increasing number of students of color as well as to account for an increase in faculty retirements (Austin et al., 2007; Ponjuan et al., 2011).
There has been debate over the system of tenure and promotion in regard to promotion shielding faculty from job loss, biases and postsecondary education politics, and unclear guidelines and goals for faculty working to achieve promotion and tenure. It is not uncommon for postsecondary institutions of higher education to discuss and acknowledge the need to diversify their faculty due to the low number of Faculty of Color represented in the academy, yet introspective views of the campus culture for Faculty of Color do not take place. Fries-Britt et al. (2011) found that Faculty of Color experienced a campus climate that was uncomfortable for them. The experience of being on the tenure track can be categorized as emotional and stressful, with implications on one’s professional and personal life. Early career Faculty of Color must understand the advancement process in the academy, recognizing that tenure decisions are not solely based on teaching, research, and service.
This study seeks to add to the discussion on the experiences of early career Faculty of Color, in particular faculty in departments of educational leadership and administration, by considering the role of emotional and social intelligence in the process of navigating the tenure track. While there is a very real need to better understand the experiences of Faculty of Color across the academy in all disciplines, this study was intentional in not going outside of educational leadership and administration. As indicated by previous studies, staying within one particular discipline/field “allowed for an understanding of faculty culture that was not complicated by disciplinary and field differences” (Eddy & Hart, 2012, p. 8). With this in mind, this study was guided by the following research question:
Review of the Literature
Literature on Faculty of Color
Gasman et al. (2011) found higher education institutions are focusing more on the recruitment of Faculty of Color and point to the benefits to the academy, which include having role models for a diverse student body. Moreover, they highlighted the benefit to the campus as a whole, stating that Faculty of Color “promote an enriched intellectual environment, and provide enhanced student counseling and mentoring services on college and university campuses” (p. 212). Turner (2003) stated a diverse faculty enhance, expand, and enrich scholarship as well as impact teaching and learning. The findings from Umbach’s (2006) quantitative study on the contributions Faculty of Color have on undergraduate education found that Faculty of Color employ a wide range of pedagogical techniques, which they identify as creating more active learning and collaborative opportunities and environments that increase diverse interactions.
Faculty of Color have also been found to serve as supportive mentors to graduate students, “demonstrating cultural sensitivity towards their underrepresented graduate students” (Lechuga, 2011, p. 767). With an ever-growing diverse student population, Turner et al. (2008) point to how universities across the nation are engaged in diversifying their faculty both racially and ethnically to better prepare their students, yet found these efforts have not yielded fruitful gains for Faculty of Color. And while the benefits are innumerable, it is important to note that Faculty of Color work in academic environments that are less than favorable, with Martinez et al. (2016) noting, “Overall, FOC [Faculty of Color] have solidarity in that they experience marginalization within higher education institutions” (p. 698). In this same vein, Gonzáles et al. (2013) found “Latinas experience loneliness” and their “solo status makes them hypervisible and at the same time invisible” (p. 80).
Tenure
Tenure for faculty is defined as the attainment of security in their position after completion of a specified length of service and demonstrated achievement of certain criteria (Byse & Joughin, 1959). Tenure has recently come to the forefront of discussion in both higher education and more notably in public policy. Critics of the tenure system in the U.S. higher education claim that it promotes laziness or complacency (Finkelstein, 2001; McPherson & Schapiro, 1999) and lacks accountability (Finkelstein, 2001). In examining why tenure exists in U.S. higher education system, Allen (2000) stated, “Tenure became even more important to academic freedom as research became more prevalent in universities” and has assisted in moving forward contentious ideas or contributed to current findings that have impacted our world (p. 77). Often associated with tenure is the concept of permanence in one’s faculty role. Byse (1959) highlighted how the term permanent for tenured professors is used in an expansive way, discussing ways in which a tenured professor could be let go, such as financial exigency. In discussing promotion and tenure, Thompson (2008) highlighted struggles that faculty may encounter, which include attacks on their credibility as well as other barriers to success in the academy. Previous research has called on educational leaders to be more mindful in considering the gaps that exist in the manner in which faculty are prepared and the ways in which their roles are carried out (Terosky & Gonzales, 2016).
Faulty of Color in Educational Leadership Departments
Hackmann et al. (2017) defined educational leadership as “an applied field” where “high quality preparation is essential so aspiring administrators attain the knowledge and skills to effectively lead the nation’s schools and school systems” (p. 143). Quezada and Louque (2004) pointed to the increased need for educational administrators who are ethnically and racially diverse to assist the new generation of P-20 leaders charged with guiding increasingly diverse educational communities. In addition, Dancy and Brown (2011) in focusing on departments of educational leadership stated, “The professional development, mentoring, and induction of Faculty of Color are critical, given that they prepare education leaders and workers across educational contexts” (p. 607). The implications on not supporting Faculty of Color in departments of educational leadership and administration can be dire.
The topic of Faculty of Color specific to departments of educational leadership and administration has received limited attention in the literature (Hackman et al., 2009). Peters (2011), through narrative storytelling, investigated the experiences of four early career African American women in the field of educational leadership and administration and found that they operated in environments that questioned their credibility and the impact of their chosen research agendas, which were often grounded in areas associated with social justice. Khrabrova and Sanzo’s (2013) study on the experiences of foreign-born faculty working in departments of educational leadership and administration in the United States confirmed the important role a diverse faculty plays in supporting the growing international, racial, and ethnically diverse student population enrolling in education. Their study stressed how culture was an important factor in how racially diverse faculty approached the professoriate, positively impacting students and the profession of educational leadership.
Martinez and Welton’s (2017) research on the experiences of Faculty of Color is seminal in that it addresses the underrepresentation of Faculty of Color in departments of educational leadership. Their study focused on pre-tenure Faculty of Color at four-year institutions in predominately White departments in the United States. Martinez and Welton’s (2017) study departs from how Faculty of Color had been previously discussed in the literature. Their focus, which is on critically understanding self as Faculty of Color negotiate tenure, is a shift in how experiences of Faculty of Color have been viewed to date.
Conceptual Framework
Faculty are hired for their expertise in their particular discipline. In addition to the disciplinary knowledge that becomes an entryway toward obtaining a tenure-track position, multiple intelligences play a role in navigating the academy. Salovey and Mayer (1990) acknowledged the existence of different types of intelligence while highlighting the need to better understand the role of emotions. Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p.189).
The study of EI made its most significant impact in the literature and research regarding intelligence in the 1990s and took yet another step forward with research empirically validating emotional competencies (Berrocal & Pacheco, 2006). Goleman (1998) initially introduced a model of EI comprised of 25 competencies nested within five domains, which has been refined to the most recent model by Boyatzis (2009), which now includes social intelligence (SI). The current model is comprised of 12 competencies positioned within two main areas: EI and SI. Competencies located within EI per the model are found within two main clusters: self-awareness and self-management. SI competencies are found within the following two clusters: social awareness and relationship management. A competency per the model is described as a behavioral approach toward an intelligence (Boyatzis, 2009).
Self-awareness, the first cluster found within competencies associated with EI, is defined as “knowing one’s internal states, preferences, resources, and intuitions” (Boyatzis, 2009, p. 754). This cluster has one competence, emotional self-awareness, and is described as one being aware of their emotions and their outcomes. The second set of competencies is found within the self-management cluster, comprised of the four competencies: emotional self-control, adaptability, achievement, and positive outlook. This cluster is defined as “managing one’s internal states, impulses, and resources” (Boyatzis, 2009, p. 754). The competences within this cluster are defined as having the ability to be flexible in dealing with change, being positive, and managing disruptive emotions.
The SI competencies are located with the social awareness and relationship management cluster. Social awareness is defined as “how people handle relationships and awareness of others’ feelings, needs, and concerns” (Boyatzis, 2009, p. 754). This cluster has two competencies: empathy and organizational awareness. They are defined as being engaged and intuitive to others’ feelings, being able to recognize “power relationships,” and “read a group’s emotional currents” (Boyatzis, 2009, p. 753). Last, the final cluster, relationship management, is comprised of the following five competencies: inspiring leadership, influence, conflict management, and teamwork and collaboration. This cluster is defined as being concerned with “the skill or adeptness at including desirable responses in others” (Boyatzis, 2009, p. 753). The competencies associated with this cluster are defined as being moving and motivating, convincing, influential, bringing others together to meet goals, and addressing and solving differences.
Promotion and Tenure and EI
Much of the literature regarding EI in education has focused on its use by teachers (Anari, 2012; Patra, 2011) or principals (Ayiro, 2009). Lillis (2011), who applied EI to the ways in which faculty interact with their students, found that those faculty with higher levels of EI positively impacted a student’s desire not to drop out. While there are no specific studies examining the use of EI in navigating promotion and tenure, a considerable amount of research exists on how EI has been utilized strategically within organizations. For example, Kilduff et al. (2010) found that by being able to understand and manage one’s emotions within the workplace, individuals were able to advance their own personal workplace goals.
Given that academic organizations benefit when administrators have high levels of EI (Hendrickson et al., 2013), having a better understanding of emotional/social intelligence can prove to assist Faculty of Color in their pursuit of tenure and promotion. A competency associated with emotional and social intelligence Faculty of Color have been found to access while on the tenure track is networking and mentoring. To this point, networking and mentoring was discussed by de Janasz and Sullivan (2004) as it relates to faculty in academe. The work of de Janasz and Sullivan (2004) found that faculty must move toward a model of mentoring that incorporates numerous individuals to support them in attaining their career goals. In addition, having the skills of identifying who is a good mentor must also be developed. It is this network of individuals that early career faculty members can utilize to make progress in the areas of teaching, research, and service in their pursuit of promotion and tenure (de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004).
Research Design
Qualitative research methods are employed when wanting to better understand a phenomenon from the perspective of those involved (Glesne, 2006). A qualitative research approach offered a platform for the research participants—Faculty of Color within 7 years of having been promoted to the rank of associate professor—to share their stories in their own voice. More specifically, this study utilized phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994) because phenomenological studies are employed when researchers are interested in better understanding “intense human experiences” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 26). The goal for this qualitative research approach is to get to the essence of the lived experience of the participants (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994).
Participants
This study utilized purposive sampling in addition to snowball sampling (Creswell, 2013). Snowball sampling has proven to be effective when researching populations that are frequently challenging to identify and where the research being conducted is sensitive (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997). Inclusionary criteria for the study were the following: (a) self-identify as a Faculty member of Color, (b) hold at a minimum the rank of associate professor, (c) serve in a Department of Educational Leadership and Administration focused on K–12 or higher education, and (d) not exceed more than 7 years from having been promoted and tenured. The rationale for participants being within 7 years is strictly for memory recall purposes.
Recruitment of participants was carried out through multiple means. A call for participation email was sent via one national organizational listserv focused on faculty in educational administration, one Facebook group for higher education programs, and individually to personal and professional contacts in educational leadership departments. Twenty-one participants were recruited, resulting in 21 interviews. Of the 21 participants, 12 focused on K–12 educational leadership with the remaining nine focused on educational leadership in higher education. Table 1 provides key information for the participants involved in the study.
Breakdown by Sex, Age, Institutional Category/Type, and Year Tenured.
Note. R1 is defined as a doctoral granting university with highest research activity. R2 is defined as a doctoral granting university with higher research activity. R3 is defined as a doctoral granting university with moderate research activity.
The length of time from having been promoted and tenured to when the participant engaged in the study varied considerably, with six of the participants having just been promoted and tenured and three having been promoted and tenured 7 years from the start date of the study. Roughly 60% of the participants were in the 35 to 44 age range with the remaining 40% consisting of participants in the 45 to 54 age range. Participants self-identified their sex, with 11 women and 10 men participating in the study. Participants were given the opportunity to self-identify their ethnic and racial backgrounds via two questions used to obtain demographic information. The self-identified ethnicity and race data were so specific that protecting the anonymity of the participants would have been virtually impossible if their data were shared in-depth. As a whole, seven of the 21 participants self-identified as African American or Black. Six participants self-identified as Mexican American, Latino, Latina, or Chicano. Two participants self-identified as multiethnic. Two participants self-identified their race as White and their ethnicity as Hispanic. One participant chose to self-identify as other. Black participants comprised the largest racial group among the participants, 11 in total. The second largest racial group was Latina, Latino, and Chicano (n = 4). Finally, the participants were also asked to describe what Carnegie Classification best described their institution of higher education. Sixty percent of the participants were employed at R1 institutions with the remaining 40% working at R2 or R3 institutions. Finally, roughly 85% of the participants worked at public institutions with the remaining 15% employed at private nonprofit institutions.
Data Collection
Data collection began upon completion of the informed consent form, which was distributed online using Google Forms once approval was granted by the institutional review board. Upon providing consent, the participants were transferred to a webpage to complete an 11-item questionnaire that included general contact information such as email address and Skype username, and demographic information related to their race, ethnicity, sex, and age. Participants were also asked for information regarding the research category of their institution using the Carnegie Classification system and whether or not their institution is private or public. Interviews were scheduled upon submission of the completed demographics form. One semistructured interview took place by phone, Skype, or in person with each participant. Interviews ranged between 60 and 90 min in length. All interviews were transcribed verbatim with the exception of any identifying information, which was deleted from the transcript. All participants were given an opportunity to choose a pseudonym for this study.
Data Analysis
This study employed Moustakas’s (1994) hermeneutical framework to analyze the data with an emphasis on knowledge that is derived as it appears in consciousness. The steps as outlined by Moustakas (1994) included epoche, phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis. Epoche is described as setting aside biases and by employing/using bracketing as a way of allowing for new awareness to be realized. By journaling my own experiences, I was able to realize my preconceived notions of the professoriate as a Faculty of Color. Journaling allowed me to have an “unfettered stance” and to establish positionless toward the data being presented (Moustakas, 1994, p. 85). Furthermore, the use of a researcher positionality statement also assisted in bringing to light any potential biases I have toward the subject.
Phenomenological reduction (Moustakas, 1994), the second step, takes a divergent approach from epoche in that all items are described in “textural language, just what one sees” (p. 90). As I began the process of phenomenological reduction, I highlighted the research question in all of the electronic transcripts, so as to remind myself of the topic at hand. The transcript was read in full, with all statements being made by the participant holding value. With the research question in mind, statements and comments that provided an explanation of how the participant experienced the phenomenon were highlighted. As the transcript was read, and reread, textural meanings of the phenomenon were arrived at while statements not pertinent to the phenomenon or that overlapped were discarded.
Individual statements that were highlighted and retained were then grouped into themes. For example, mentoring, collaboration, and community were all repeated themes that emerged at the individual transcript data analysis stage. The individual themes were then grouped as they were integrated with all of the participant descriptions, yielding a universal textural description (Moustakas, 1994). The third step, imaginative variation, is defined as meaning making through the use of imagination or as Moustakas (1994) described, the “how” associated with the “what” (p. 98). With the data reduced, emphasis was placed on the context for which the phenomenon occurred. For example, better understanding the composition of each participant’s department assisted in illuminating how their research agendas were viewed. The final step, synthesis, is a statement blending phenomenological reduction and imaginative variation, which ultimately led to an account of the essence of the experience. Integrating “what” and “how” the participant described their experience (structure) along with “what” and “how” it was described (texture) led to the creation of themes describing the essence. For example, in the data analysis, importance was placed on how the participant described in depth the range of emotions they felt as they engaged in completing their executive summary. This task led the participants toward engaging with others as they completed tasks that are difficult for some People of Color, focusing on “I” and not “we.”
Trustworthiness
To ensure trustworthiness, I used multiple methods to ensure the study met proper standards for qualitative research. The interview protocol was shared with two different faculty members, and changes were made to eliminate any biased language by the researcher prior to data collection. Member checks were conducted at the end of the data collection period, with transcripts being shared with the participants. The participants were also asked to check their narrative for accuracy (Creswell, 2013). Furthermore, as an early career Faculty of Color, I used a critical friend to discuss my preliminary findings so as to safeguard that my own personal biases were not being reflected in my findings.
Researcher Positionality
Defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2015), researcher positionality takes into account how and to what degree the researcher is considered an “insider” or “outsider” (p. 63). For the purposes of this study, I am both an insider and an outsider. From an insider’s perspective, I self-identify as mixed-race, meeting the inclusionary criteria I set forth for this study as it pertains to serving as a Faculty of Color. Similar to my participants, my faculty position is located with a department of educational leadership and administration. Unlike my participants, I am not tenured or promoted. While I can relate to some of the experiences of my participants, I cannot speak from a place of having successfully navigated the tenure track as I am still 1 year away from submitting my dossier. My experience as a tenure-track faculty member, influenced by the striving nature of my university, has made rethink my approach to the profession. With a passion for teaching, and want to serve given my background as a former student affairs professional, the need to produce in the area of scholarly activity has been a recurrent theme throughout my tenure-track years.
Findings
The primary aim of this study was to better understand the lived experience of Faculty of Color post-tenure in departments of educational leadership and administration, with a specific emphasis on how and in what ways emotional and social intelligence were utilized to navigate the promotion and tenure process. As noted previously, the faculty participants in this study had all achieved the rank of associate professor with a handful of participants having also been promoted to the rank of full professor. Institutional type varied widely participant, informing their approach toward the end goal of promotion and tenure. A total of three themes emerged: Sense of Belonging Through Community, Understanding Self (Advocacy, Awareness, and Regulation), and Strategic Recognition of Organizational Environment. I elaborate on each theme below, followed by a discussion on the essence of their experience.
Sense of Belonging Through Community: Navigating Politics, Structure, and Uncertainty
The process of being on the tenure track can be one that is isolating, vague, and lacking fidelity with how policy is written and how it is ultimately enacted. The participants discussed in great depth social awareness, self-awareness, and belonging as concepts that intersected. A recurrent theme in the interviews was community as a source of support in navigating the highly political, stressful, and ambiguous nature of promotion and tenure in structures not conducive for Faculty of Color. Community included other Faculty of Color at various ranks in the profession who assisted the participants in better understanding the unwritten rules of promotion and tenure. Often these were colleagues outside of their home institution, with whom they felt safe with and trusted. These relationships speak to the relationship management cluster located within competencies associated with SI. Charles recognized that “safe space is not always found within [his] institution” so he reached out to colleagues at conferences to discuss “navigating the political terrain.” Penelope shared, “having those really open conversations with your most trusted people and letting them know what you’re going through” is what she relied upon to balance the stressors promoted by the advancement process. In reaching out to trusted advisors and mentors, the participants displayed a high degree of self-management, in particular the competency of emotional self-control.
In addition, community was also utilized to sustain oneself in the profession, an area that was sought out through the participants’ ability to recognize their emotional need for support. Nicholas acknowledged that succeeding on the tenure track was in large part due to the community of support he had around him. Andrew pointed to a handful of faculty members, who during his educational trajectory took the time and cared for him by making themselves available to answer questions when he struggled with how to navigate the academy.
Several participants acknowledged that getting promoted and tenured went beyond excelling in the areas of teaching, research, and service. This realization came by way of confirming for themselves what mentors and others had shared regarding the experience of Faculty of Color on the tenure track. Alexis discussed keeping the big picture in mind when navigating the politics and pressure of the academy, citing how the professoriate can become “frustrating and lead to burnout quite quickly in addition to microaggressions and discrimination.” To stay grounded, the participants at times would rely more on colleagues in the profession rather than close personal friends, because a shared understanding of the nuances of the profession was important. In relying on colleagues from other institutions, understanding that each institution has distinct approaches to promotion and tenure, shared meaning was found despite individualized situations. Add to this the varied experiences of Faculty of Color at R1 and R2 universities for example, and how different this can be from faculty at teaching institutions. In addition, program type also plays a role, with some educational leadership and administration programs placing a heavier emphasis on producing school leaders, student enrollment type (full-time/part-time), and program faculty (full-time/adjunct). Scholarship is prioritized at institutions that are categorized research institutions, yet there were no significant differences in how scholarship is rated as key as it pertains to R1 to R2, and so on. Added to this is student numbers, advising, and so on, all which take time away from scholarship (Hollman et al., 2018).
While reaching out for the purposes of connecting with others focused on promotion and tenure issues, they also connected to lighter issues in the academy. Edna, for example, shared how she reaches out to her community for everything, to include “something as simple as what do you think about this outfit versus how do you reference or cite a video.”
Andrew shared that “tenure is one-third of what you have accomplished and two-thirds politics.” Robert echoed this sentiment, stating that “for women, for people of color, for any marginalized group, tenure is not just about your productivity, not just about your scholarship” and that promotion and tenure was “40% scholarship, and 60% relationships.” The participants all had a shared understanding that promotion and tenure processes went beyond productivity in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Community assisted the participants in staying the course, in particular those in outside departments. Throughout their years in the academy, participants witnessed Faculty of Color being passed over for promotion and tenure. Maya pointed to the great work she has seen her Faculty of Color colleagues do in the field but still not earn promotion and tenure. She summed it up as issues with “niceness” or faculty who were “not afraid to speak their minds.”
Santiago shared his thoughts on the challenges Faculty of Color encounter in the promotion and tenure process saying, “it’s a moving target” with those in power constantly “changing the rules.” One of the challenges faced by the faculty participating in the study was how best to approach the unclear guidelines for promotion and tenure, with varying decision-makers not in alignment regarding the value and worth of certain activities. Of this, Maritza shared, “I knew that how the policy is written isn’t necessarily how it is carried out,” deciding to seek her own information to better understand the experiences of the tenure and promotion policy from different people on her campus. Maritza gained much of the information she needed to craft a dossier for promotion and tenure that was one of the best received at her institution from visiting with senior faculty who were full professors in her department. She had a clear understanding of the power dynamics taking place within the hierarchical organization.
In examining the structure of promotion and tenure in the academy, Robert stated, “it’s still based on a White, patriarchal type of system . . . as a person of color, how do you find space in that?” To combat feelings of isolation, Robert relied on coaching from other Faculty of Color colleagues; this helped him feel empowered to share his perspective and carve out a space for himself within his department. Feeling devalued and “terrorized” at her institution, her mentor from another department at the same institution helped Alicia find the courage to push back on how she was being treated, to include receiving unfair annual evaluations. As Alicia put it, the institution she worked at wanted “my culture in theory but not in practice. In practice, my culture irritated them . . . I found that to be true everywhere I’ve been.” This approach can be seen as a way to combat institutional oppression rooted in promotion and tenure practices that are not culturally competent.
Understanding Self (Awareness, Advocacy, and Regulation)
Successfully navigating promotion and tenure went beyond networking and community reliance so as to better understand the often-confusing, untenable, politically charged nature of the process. The participants also displayed a strong understanding of self in the areas of emotion and self-awareness, revealing behaviors that contributed toward their promotion and tenure experiences. In describing the emotions experienced as part of the tenure-track process, the participants were able to accurately identify specific feelings, which included frustration, fear, stress, and humiliation. The participants were able to react to these emotions in ways that were productive and not detrimental toward reaching their goal of associate professor by being self-reflective. Mercy described her experience on the tenure track as not being a “popularity contest, but rather in many ways a validity contest.” With this understanding, and recognizing her own strengths, what fueled her want to succeed was not simply showing others she was capable of being promoted and tenured, but rather proving it to herself.
Self-awareness in regard to institutional fit was also crucial in the successful navigation of promotion and tenure for many of the participants. Alexander, for example, chose to leave his institution because of negative evaluations regarding the amount of time he was spending mentoring students and crafting his teaching. He shared, “I care about my teaching, I spend a lot of time with students. I remember getting told every year during my annual evaluation that I needed to spend less time with students and more time on my research.” Self-awareness took a different form by way of scholarship for Devin, who shared, “As a qualitative scholar, I’ve got to have some self-awareness about the work I’m doing because I’m doing critical research and I’m asking people to be authentic and genuine.” He grounded his approach to promotion and tenure in authenticity, choosing to remain authentic when interacting with his colleagues and not focus on the departmental-level implications associated with being genuine in how he feels and responds to issues. Nicholas summed it up by saying the following in regard to his feelings on self-awareness: “Overall I think we are set up in academia to be emotionally a wreck. In many respects, by neglecting that emotional component we turn ourselves into robots.”
The participants discussed challenges associated with the culture of the academy and the emphasis on personal acclaim and honors, a double-edged sword tightly connected to the concept of advocacy. Ernestina mentioned the self-awareness she showed regarding challenges associated with highlighting her accomplishments in the executive summary she was required to submit for promotion and tenure, recognizing the implications that could have occurred because of her feelings of discomfort in doing so. In drafting her executive summary and recognizing that the onus was on her to advocate on her own behalf, she approached it with an understanding that “the tenure and promotion process is convincing other people how great you are.” In her case, she wrote the first draft referring to herself in third person so as to create the illusion that the letter was being written for someone else, and upon completion edited the letter to reflect “I” statements. She knew that psychologically it would be easier for her to praise someone else than it would be to praise herself, a perfect example of self-awareness.
Advocating for oneself was also necessary as it related to research agendas; Penelope discussed having to justify the research she was doing: I currently have people in my college who are not social justice advocates, people who don’t think there are issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. So how do I convince people that social justice work is important and thoughtful when they don’t really believe that?
The need to advocate on behalf of oneself comes in what Santiago termed the “age of transparency,” acknowledging that there is still a cloak of secrecy over tenure. He actively challenged decisions that negatively affected his promotion and tenure journey that were not in line with policy. Maya talked about how initially she had a high degree of naiveté toward the tenure and promotion process, stating she felt if she “did good work, people are going to vote for me.” She believed some colleagues in her department might not like her but would still vote in favor for promotion and tenure given her body of work. Now that she is tenured and promoted and has had an opportunity to see the advancement process as a tenured faculty member, she recognizes “how people can use their personal feelings to shred people . . . people with equal records being compared in very different ways because people can use objectivity to mask their subjectivity.” She stressed the importance of understanding the inner workings of what occurs behind the scenes, and for advocating for oneself early and often in the tenure and promotion process. To this point, Alexander shared: “I have never allowed myself to not say something because I didn’t have tenure . . . if I see oppression happening, I am going to speak about it.”
Self-regulation was also tied to the concept of self-awareness, knowing that at times saying no is a must in order to preserve self and time for items of key importance for promotion and tenure. Saying no to extra commitments, even from students, so that they could rest, spend more time with family, or exercise was a common theme among the participants. Nicholas, in discussing student requests, shared the challenge of telling students no, in particular as a Faculty member of Color wanting to support students of color, saying, “How do you say no to that?” Yet, by saying yes to every request he realized he simply could not function in an effective way, doing more harm than good. The participants pointed to an increase in work productivity when they were able to say no to work-related items. Most of the participants did not begin the tenure-track process with this understanding, yet overwhelmingly they found that they were more productive scholars once they listened to their bodies and became more self-aware of what they were feeling both physically and mentally. Finding healthy ways to cope was key to navigating the promotion and tenure process.
The participants were well aware of what was driving them toward the end goal of achieving promotion and tenure, with a heavy emphasis placed on their research and sacrificing sense of self. The collectivist nature of People of Color runs counter to the values of the academy, which led to instances of abandonment of collectivism in favor of individualistic pursuits. The overwhelming majority of the participants’ research agendas centered on work of diversity and social justice, with participants repeatedly echoing the sentiment of studying issues of diversity and social justice being done collectively and collaboratively. The end purpose for why the participants chose their line of research was also discussed in great depth. For example, Alexander, stated, “I have always done work not because it’s going to be published somewhere but because it matters to me.” Doing work that is of value to oneself and impactful for marginalized communities was consistent for the participants. From an EI standpoint this is closely aligned with being emotionally self-aware. Furthermore, the concept of influence, found in the relationship management cluster of EI/SI theory, aligns best with the notion of the participants being mindful of the extent to which the contributions of their work impact the field, society, and education. They found their work to be rewarding, regardless of how this work was perceived by promotion and tenure decision-makers.
Strategic Recognition of Organizational Environment
Promotion and tenure decisions are not made in a vacuum, rather they involve a wide-range of individuals at varying levels across the institution. Understanding the culture of the environment, who the decision-makers are, and the institutional values and norms were major areas of emphasis discussed by the participants. When asked to describe the process required for applying to get promoted and tenured, the participants shared some variation of a department head review, most often followed by a department or college wide review, with a decision also being made by the dean of their college or school, and ultimately having their dossier sent to the provost. In some cases, the institution provided a review via the use of a university wide committee prior to the materials being sent to the provost. In addition, for many of the participants, tenure and promotion was not conferred until it was approved by their board of regents or trustees. The component of external reviews varied widely, with some institutions not requiring letters of review from external faculty, in particular in school systems that are unionized.
In assessing the strengths they relied on to successfully navigate the advancement process, the participants pointed to key concepts associated with EI/SI: intuitiveness, adaptability, and initiative; they were conscientious of where they fit within the larger university system. Organizational awareness, located within the social awareness cluster, was very apparent in the participants. They recognized that the choice to work in the academy was theirs, and the burden to understand the inner mechanisms of how the culture of the academy functioned was on them. The participants were extremely strategic on their path toward promotion. As Maritza stated, “I was very strategic with every service commitment that I took on in the department or you know in the college or university overall,” making sure that it aligned with her research and values. Alexis shared her method of strategy in meeting her professional goal of achieving the rank of associate professor was to make sure all the activities she engaged in, particularly research and service, were valued and counted toward promotion and tenure at her institution. She identified a group of senior scholars in her department that supported her in the decision-making process of choosing activities that positively contributed toward her end goal.
Alexander, in discussing where he chose to publish, stated “I was conscious about that and then very practical and strategic about where I put my work, with a focus on the journals that the department viewed as higher in quality.” The participants had a strong understanding of the organizational context and what was valued at their particular institution. Orlando recognized early on the tenure track that at his particular university grants were very highly valued, so he focused on aligning himself accordingly, securing a large grant that set the groundwork for his research agenda. Understanding institutional type played a key role, with grant submissions having more weight and emphasis at R1 institutions in comparison to participants situated at institutions whose emphasis is on teaching.
The participants in the study showed how teaching in the discipline of educational leadership and administration assisted them in the advancement process. They displayed an understanding of the power dynamics at play in the promotion and tenure process, being particularly mindful of the decision-makers in their organization that were voting on their promotion and tenure. The concept of being seen as a team player was important to many of the participants early in their careers as was establishing strong professional relationships. Alexis, who had transferred to a new institution during her early career years, was strategic in identifying key senior faculty at her institution and identified the faculty who were on the promotion and tenure committee. She also identified the faculty in her department who were full professors and met with them individually, understanding the role full professors played in the promotion and tenure decision-making process at her institution. Santiago discussed the importance of being able to “read the room” and “figure out who your allies are” in preparing for the tenure and promotion process. Devin shared a similar sentiment, “I learned a long time ago that tenure is a game . . . Learn people, learn the game.”
Discussion
This study focused on better understanding the lived experience of Faculty of Color post-tenure in departments of educational leadership and administration with a specific emphasis on how and in what ways emotional and social intelligence was utilized to navigate the promotion and tenure process. The results of this study provided three themes: Sense of Belonging Through Community, Understanding Self, and Strategic Recognition of Organizational Environment. In addition, the findings to this study build on the bourgeoning literature focused on the experiences of Faculty of Color specific to educational leadership preparation programs. The findings from this study are consistent with those of Martinez and Welton (2017) who found Faculty of Color in departments of educational leadership and administration were operating in culturally oppressive institutional work environments that were not congruent with the social justice values their departments espoused. This study also has direct links to Quezada and Louque’s (2004) call on postsecondary institutions to revisit the culture of their organizations in addressing the lack of Faculty of Color specific to educational administration programs, noting that Faculty of Color leave due to unsupportive work environments and unfair tenure decisions. The findings in this study were in concert with those from Urrieta et al.’s (2015) longitudinal study on the experiences of Latino/a early career faculty; faculty in this study also described experiences of alienation and felt their work was undervalued.
The participants showed a strong degree of emotional and social intelligence as defined by Boyatzis (2009), in particular the competencies of self-awareness, organizational awareness, and social awareness. The ways in which they addressed the emotions that were raised from environments that create and reproduce structural barriers exemplified how the participants were very attuned to their emotions and their emotional state. Self-regulation was key, with the participants showing a strong ability to regulate feelings of distress. In alignment with Goleman’s (2000) concept of emotional self-awareness, the participants “recognize[d] one’s own feelings and how they affect one’s performance” (p. 33), as well as their own strengths and areas of improvement.
Interestingly, there were some subtle differences in the ways in which the participants described scholarship as a major component of their faculty role, which could be explained in part by the striving nature of institutions not designated as R1 by the Carnegie Classification system. Scholarship was stressed as the most important component of the promotion and tenure process, but the ways in which the participants were able to engage in scholarship differed. For example, participants at non-R1 institutions had more flexibility in regard to publication outlets, with very few concerned with journal altmetrics. Those participants who were at non-R1 institutions to a degree mimicked the standards of R1 institutions so as to leave no doubt regarding their qualifications for promotion and tenure.
Differences were not present in the areas of teaching and service, as the participants at non-R1 institutions did not speak of having more or less teaching and/or advising responsibilities. The concept of portable tenure was discussed and for those who were not at R1 schools, many created opportunities above and beyond what was expected of them. From serving on doctoral committees to publishing more than what might be necessary, the participants were self-aware of the need to create opportunity for later dates. In many aspects, the experiences were somewhat similar across institutional types. Impacting the experience of Faculty of Color is institutional type, with Hollman et al. (2018) stating the most significant difference among postsecondary education institutions is the approach faculty take as it relates to teaching and scholarly activity. Teaching institutions place a greater emphasis in evaluating teaching, accordingly research institutions place a stronger weight on research productivity, and yet for some equal weight is given to both (Hollman et al., 2018).
Although research findings support the narrative of Faculty of Color being tasked with more service, limited in the literature is the manner in which extra commitments are balanced with teaching and research to achieve the end goal of promotion and tenure. Interestingly, to sustain themselves, the faculty turned to informal networks and sought relationships for the purposes of collaborating, or resource building, which also served as sounding boards and support groups. The findings from this study are applicable to the work of Hernandez, Murakami-Ramalho, and Rodriguez (2015) who found Latinas/os participating in conferences go beyond presenting scholarship and can be used to discuss faculty experiences and assist in finding work–life balance. This could be considered a positive coping mechanism used to combat the stress of promotion and tenure. The work of Evans and Chun (2007) is applicable here, as their research focused on effective coping mechanisms associated with both organizational and behavioral barriers to inclusion, calling on individuals to use coping mechanisms that are emotion-focused. Recognizing to what degree feelings had an impact on their work was key for the participants, as was being aware of their own emotions as well as ways in which those emotions could be utilized in functional ways (George, 2000).
Participants also spoke about the need to build rapport with those within their department, college, and university. This confirms the narratives provided by the participants in Witherspoon Arnold, Crawford, and Khalifa’s (2016) study, which found that, to a large degree, promotion and tenure is contingent upon amiability and likability. In other words, promotion and tenure is far bigger than having a strong record of accomplishment in teaching, research, and service; it is about understanding organizational culture, fit, values, and politics. In assessing the political nature of promotion and tenure further, the participants discussed finding a community both on and off campus to assist in better understanding and navigating the politics of promotion and tenure. These results reflect those of Zambrana et al. (2015) who also found the importance of supporting early career faculty in the area of institutional politics by way of mentoring. Furthermore, this finding broadly supports the work of other studies in this area, most notably Warde (2009) whose research highlighted the successful navigation of promotion and tenure by African American professors who engaged in supportive organizations at the department and institutional levels. Finally, community was used to uncover the written and unwritten rules of promotion and tenure, which Whicker et al. (1993) stressed should ideally be learned immediately upon being hired.
This work also advances the discussion around the need to address the demands placed on Faculty of Color, recognizing the emotional labor involved in many aspects of the work they do. Bellas (1999) noted that although “teaching and service clearly involve substantial amounts of emotional labor,” it is not adequately rewarded (p. 561). Furthermore, Fries-Britt et al. (2011) noted how Faculty of Color are frequently overloaded with work demands that include advising, as well as broader service to the campus and local community. In addition, they stated that Faculty of Color are sought by Students of Color for mentoring, making it a challenge to balance the demands of the profession. The participants in the study shared how they were asked by Students of Color to support them in numerous areas in the academy. The participants displayed the competency of self-management (Boyatzis, 2009), in particular emotional self-control in approaching the numerous requests. While the participants were available to assist Students of Color in a myriad of ways, they understood when they were at capacity and not able to fully engage in meaningful ways. A study by Young and Brooks (2008) examined the support for people of color in the academic setting and found the need for faculty awareness, paired with personal commitment. The participants in the study were keenly aware that the promotion and tenure system was created in a manner that minimizes teaching and service, allowing them to be conscientious of what needed to be done for them to achieve their end goal.
In capitalizing on their strengths in self-regulation, self-awareness, empathy, social skills, and internal motivation, the participants were able to acknowledge the greater work-loads, experiences of doubt from others, discrimination, tokenism, and misrepresentation, all while drawing on key components of emotional and social intelligence to help in maintaining a healthy approach to a stressful work situation. The concepts of fit, values alignment, and a clear connection with self-awareness emerged. Clearer values were developed as demonstrated by five of the participants who chose to pursue the rank of associate professor at other institutions prior to earning tenure. Leaving their respective institutions during the tenure-track process showed strong social awareness and connection to emotional self-awareness.
O’Meara (2002) pointed to the unclear and inconsistent criteria used for the purposes of promotion and tenure as one of the struggles that faculty may encounter, finding women and Faculty of Color as being most disillusioned with the advancement process. To this point, the findings from this study echo the essays presented in Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia, in that the academy is in need of structural changes. The findings in this study showed the struggles that several of the participants endured, to include changes to the promotion and tenure criteria, yet they were able to draw on their self-control to persist and succeed, a competency located within self-management (Boyatzis, 2009). George (2000) stated that most individual are disinclined, unsure, or regret expressing emotions, yet failing to do so may have a negative impact on the ability to build relationships from an interpersonal standpoint. The participants thrived in the areas of social awareness and relationship management. Sacrificing self was never an option for the participants, who all recognized the importance to maintaining a personal level of integrity.
Implications for Practice
In keeping with the body of literature that recognizes the importance of studying the experiences of Faculty of Color, this study suggests three implications for practice. First, the concept of mentoring was salient across the participant’s responses as one key reason why they were able to successfully navigate the tenure track. Mentoring closely connected to EI competencies of social awareness and relationship management were key areas that were utilized to successfully navigate the promotion and tenure process. Dancy and Jean-Marie (2014) noted the crucial role mentoring plays for Faculty of Color given their poorly represented number in postsecondary education. The findings of Méndez-Morse (2004), having conducted research on Latina educational leaders, are applicable to this study given the use of their emotional and social intelligence in obtaining mentoring. Mentoring was “constructed from a variety of resources” (p. 586). Colleges and universities should not only encourage their early career faculty to seek out mentors through organized programs provided by national organizations but also highlight how faculty at their particular institution were able to foster and benefit from mentoring relationships. Furthermore, the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) has a long-standing history of supporting Faculty of Color through the inclusion of sessions aimed at mentoring and supporting early career faculty. Similarly, the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) provides support for early career faculty through the Council for the Advancement of Higher Education Programs (CAHEP).
Turner (2002) calls on postsecondary institutions to create opportunities for Women Faculty of Color to participate in networking and mentoring activities. Specific ways administrators can assist early career Faculty of Color is by providing financial assistance to travel to conferences and engage in networking, allowing organic mentoring relationships to emerge. Other resources such as the UCEA Guidebook on Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) can be found on the UCEA webpage and assist early career faculty in better understanding the broader context of tenure and promotion.
Administrators must be intentional in structuring official mentoring programs within their department or college. More specifically, while informal mentoring has been shown to be beneficial, formal institutional mentoring programs can be beneficial for early career tenure-track faculty and must have clearly stated goals and objectives. Formal programs must focus on specific actions that must be undertaken by the mentee and the mentor. Many of the participants shared the use of mentors to assist in deciphering the often-confusing processes associated with promotion and tenure. Research conducted by Murakami and Nuñez (2014) on Latina faculty identified peer-mentoring strategies focused on creating community both professionally and personally. To this point, the participants had the self-awareness to recognize the need to better understand the process, and were able to do so through the assistance of others. To that end, formal mentoring programs should occur in a variety of ways and need to include mentoring from colleagues at all career stages.
Second, findings from this study provide support for changes to the tenure and promotion process itself, calling on promotion and tenure granting institutions to commit to being transparent regarding their advancement procedures. A reoccurring theme was one of P&T guidelines constantly being in flux and fluid, with no real definition or commitment on the part of administration. Administrators should create memorandums of agreement, whereby the tenure-track faculty member and institution agree to the specific guidelines and criteria that will be used for the purposes of evaluation. In addition, faculty development professionals can facilitate meaningful conversations between administrators and faculty about how they might re-envision their careers in ways that are valuable to that particular organization (O’Meara et al., 2013). While several postsecondary institutions have recently committed themselves toward racially and ethnically diversifying their faculty, a commitment to creating a systemic culture conducive to supporting Faculty of Color must be established. As Turner et al. (1999) found, one of the overarching barriers affecting the experience of Faculty of Color within academe is bias in the areas of race and ethnicity. They found this bias has led to working conditions that discourage Faculty of Color, influenced job satisfaction, and are both unwelcoming and unsupportive. Professional development in the area of faculty evaluation, with an emphasis on assisting faculty evaluators in developing their cultural intelligence, could prove beneficial to the academy. In-service training provided to all faculty involved in performance evaluation may create fidelity with the ways in which promotion and tenure policies are interpreted and implemented. Faculty are not formally prepared to enter the profession, so it makes sense they are also not formally prepared to evaluate their peers. Recognizing the socialization process to the profession begins in graduate school, programs of educational leadership should consider weaving into their curriculum ways in which students can conduct performance evaluations.
Third, departments of educational leadership as well as those charged with faculty development should embed concepts associated with emotional and social intelligence into their curricula. In this manner, students in graduate preparation programs who aspire to transition into the professoriate may find themselves approaching the promotion and tenure process with a much better understanding of self, having a better understanding on the ways in which early career Faculty of Color utilize emotional and social intelligence to successfully navigate the tenure and promotion process. In addition, organizational awareness, a key component of emotional and social intelligence, is closely related to the advancement process.
Recommendations for Future Research
The socialization process to the profession and to the professoriate that begins in graduate preparation should be researched more in-depth in terms of how it impacts the experience of those on the tenure track. One potential area for future research focuses on the concept of imposter syndrome and its connection to Faculty of Color. Feelings of isolation and self-awareness are connected to imposter syndrome. Looking at how and in what ways Faculty of Color were able to persist on the tenure track while experiencing imposter syndrome could prove beneficial, in particular because imposter syndrome tends to occur at higher rates in racial and ethnic minorities. A second area for further research is determining the ways in which mentors supported assistant professors of color in navigating the tenure and promotion process. Mentors played a huge role for the participants in this study, in particular with navigating the unwritten rules of promotion and tenure. How and in what ways this occurs could prove beneficial for Faculty of Color who find themselves in the few available tenure-track positions in the academy. To develop this current study further, a consideration would be eliminating the length of time from when the participant was promoted and tenured to rank of associate, increasing the number of potential participants of Faculty of Color in the academy.
Conclusion
This study showed the results of 21 Faculty of Color who successfully navigated the tenure and promotion process using several competencies associated with emotional and social intelligence—Faculty of Color in successfully navigating the political terrain of promotion and tenure. Through a very skillfully and strategically planned approach, one that included collaboration, relationship building, and self-advocacy, the Faculty of Color in departments of educational leadership and administration in this study were able to meet their goal of being promoted to the rank of associate professor. While the participants were able to speak clearly about the challenges they faced on their journey toward promotion and tenure, they all utilized the tenants of emotional and social intelligence, many of them doing so without explicitly being aware of their actions. By highlighting the participants’ strengths in the areas of emotional and social intelligence, this study was able to help them better understand their own motives and methods, as well as add to the body of literature on Faculty of Color.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
